Swedish Government to be re-elected for the first time since 1958 - Polidicks

Swedish Government to be re-elected for the first time since 1958

74 replies, posted
In This Thread

maby we will see swedistan afterall

[QUOTE=The fox;46636871]Most likely what will happen is that M will gain a slight majority, and SD gets a bump of a few percents, as people see that they can and will fight for their voters. [/QUOTE] From where would these votes come from, if I may ask? [QUOTE=The fox;46636871]Most likely, with the shift of party leader for M, they will be more open to work with SD.[/QUOTE] Any source backing this? Or do you really think that Anna Kinberg Batra (new M leader) is willing to risk losing a large portion of their core-voters who are against SD, to other parties? [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The fox;46636871]I have also heard quite a few say the new party leader for SD is quite a bit more energetic than Jimmie was. [/QUOTE] Sources? I think the point is still that Jimmie is the person who made SD what it is today, and has a strong following amongst the core-voters.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46636770]Not necessarily. Sverigedemokraterna (SD) got a portion of their votes from Moderaterna (M) and Socialdemokraterna (S), and vice versa with both parties [url]http://pejl.svt.se/val2014/valu-riksdag/valjarstrommar[/url] (with reservation for errors). For the election people are going to vote strategically in hopes of putting an end to this situation. SD might lose the votes of people who previously voted for S or M, in order to get the government back and running. Same goes for other smaller parties whose voters recognise that their party won't have any major influence in the overall politics. F! for example might lose voters to S. The party leader is very important for the SD voters (([url]http://pejl.svt.se/val2014/valu-riksdag/partiledarnas-betydelse[/url]), and Jimmie is currently on sick leave (or whatever you want to call it) with no set date on which he will return. SD might decline while he is gone. The opposite can also happen of course, SD could get more support from any of the parties. Though both the current Alliansen (M, C, FP, KD (a party constellation with M as the majority party)) and the government parties (S, MP (Miljöpartiet de gröna, with S as majority party)) refuse to collaborate with SD, so increasing support with SD won't change the situation - if I understand it correctly, please tell me if I'm mislead - unless one of the two happen: a. SD become a majority goverment (which is very unlikely in todays political landscape) b. either the government parties or Alliansen starts actively collaborating with SD. I'm really just speculating, it can go either way. I just think that saying "this will only strenghten this and that party" is jumping the gun. A lot can happen from now to March.[/QUOTE] If you look at opinion polls SD hasn't really declined in popularity since Åkesson went on sick leave. Temporary party leader Mattias Karlsson has proven to be above my expectations, he doesn't do a bad job in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that SD has been traditionally underestimated by opinion polls. The average they got on the election month in the polls was 10.5% and they got an actual election result of 13%. A great site is [url]http://status.st/[/url] . It has a shitton of graphs and numbers regarding SD in opinion polls.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46636952]From where would these votes come from, if I may ask? [/quote] From disgruntled S voters, or from SD or any other party that they emigrated to; Or from blank voters. [quote] Any source backing this? Or do you really think that Anna Kinberg Batra (new M leader) is willing to risk losing a large portion of their core-voters who are against SD, to other parties? [/QUOTE] Plenty in M wants what SD has to offer, Batra has not taken such a vivid stance against SD as Reinfeldt did, either. [quote]Sources? I think the point is still that Jimmie is the person who made SD what it is today, and has a strong following amongst the core-voters.[/QUOTE] SD was in the same position as last time, this time, though, they chose to do something with the power they have. Jimmie generally seemed to be pretty carefull about what he did, while the new party leader is more for action.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46636952]From where would these votes come from, if I may ask?[/QUOTE] Potentially from Social Democrat voters who have lost confidence in Löfven being able to from a stable government as his government just collapsed. That's one thing the Alliance got, they managed to keep a government together for 8 years.

[QUOTE=Folstream;46636480]Tbh it's the responsibility of the prime minister and his government to get their budget through the parliament, no matter who it is. You can't expect the opposition to betray their voters and just let the budget slip by. Löfven fucked up.[/QUOTE] I haven't followed Swedish politics closely, but you can't just say it's the Prime Minister's fault. Sure, they should be able to pass a budget, but do you think the Social Democrats would rather make a compromise or hold a new election? Definitely the former - it would just appear that no satisfactory compromise could be made. Sure, that could be the Social Democrats demanding too much, but there are always two parts to a compromise. Was Obama the only person to blame when congress couldn't pass a budget for shit a couple of times over?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46637236]I haven't followed Swedish politics closely, but you can't just say it's the Prime Minister's fault. Sure, they should be able to pass a budget, but do you think the Social Democrats would rather make a compromise or hold a new election? Definitely the former - it would just appear that no satisfactory compromise could be made. Sure, that could be the Social Democrats demanding too much, but there are always two parts to a compromise. Was Obama the only person to blame when congress couldn't pass a budget for shit a couple of times over?[/QUOTE] Well one thing he could've tried to avoid is bringing the Green Party into the government. The center-right parties hate them with a passion on most issues. A purely social democratic government would have had a lot easier to negotiate with the other parties on various issues. Pretty much the Green Party's influence brought what the center-right considered a ton of stupid shit into the equation. It doesn't help that when the center right ruled in late 2013, the center-left parties with passive SD support broke out parts of their budget and voted them down. This wasn't the entire budget but just certain parts so the government then could keep going but it really pissed them off.

[QUOTE=Folstream;46637122]Potentially from Social Democrat voters who have lost confidence in Löfven being able to from a stable government as his government just collapsed. That's one thing the Alliance got, they managed to keep a government together for 8 years.[/QUOTE] Could be, although potentially you could say that about just about any of the parliament parties in this given moment. The situation Löfven found himself in is not easily solved, albeit he tried it is a nightmare position to be in. It's not like he tried and failed because he's a moron, it's more like he tried and failed because of the way the Swedish people voted, and the way the political landscape is shifted. The only thing I can see which could have changed the situation is if he had included V (Vänsterpartiet, a left party) into his government. S held government for 12 years before that, your point being? [QUOTE=The fox;46637114]Plenty in M wants what SD has to offer, Batra has not taken such a vivid stance against SD as Reinfeldt did, either.[/QUOTE] Still not seeing any concrete sources. Tried googling and found this though [url]http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/batra-nobbade-sd-politikerns-flirt/[/url] which suggests she is not interested in co-operation with SD. Though I am willing to specualte that a majority of M core-voters disagree with SD's immigration politics, and therefore won't vote for SD. [QUOTE=The fox;46637114]SD was in the same position as last time, this time, though, they chose to do something with the power they have. Jimmie generally seemed to be pretty carefull about what he did, while the new party leader is more for action.[/QUOTE] With action, are you referring to the budget voting? Jimmie is smart, he doesn't want to agitate more people than necessary. That could be why you percieve him as careful, whilst this 'new guy' have to show to the voters of SD that he is not 'weak', if you understand what I mean. Again, just speculations of how things might play out. [editline]4th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Folstream;46637347]Well one thing he could've tried to avoid is bringing the Green Party into the government. The center-right parties hate them with a passion on most issues. A purely social democratic government would have had a lot easier to negotiate with the other parties on various issues. Pretty much the Green Party's influence brought what the center-right considered a ton of stupid shit into the equation. [/QUOTE] MP was a lot easier and more true to the S ideology to have a support. That's most likely why he collaborates with them now. However, you cannot deny that Löfven invited all (except SD, correct me if I'm wrong) party leaders to discussion after the fall 2014 elections. He obviously wanted to see which constellations could be formed. As it turns out, the current is the one that gives the most ideology-true politics and yields the most number of mandate in parliament for S, in a ratio to each-other. Not such a big surprise. I stress that Löfven has tried sincerely to work with the Allians parties but has gotten shut down by them.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46637373]Could be, although potentially you could say that about just about any of the parliament parties in this given moment. The situation Löfven found himself in is not easily solved, albeit he tried it is a nightmare position to be in. It's not like he tried and failed because he's a moron, it's more like he tried and failed because of the way the Swedish people voted, and the way the political landscape is shifted. The only thing I can see which could have changed the situation is if he had included V (Vänsterpartiet, a left party) into his government. S held government for 12 years before that, your point being? Still not seeing any concrete sources. Tried googling and found this though [url]http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/batra-nobbade-sd-politikerns-flirt/[/url] which suggests she is not interested in co-operation with SD. Though I am willing to specualte that a majority of M core-voters disagree with SD's immigration politics, and therefore won't vote for SD. With action, are you referring to the budget voting? Jimmie is smart, he doesn't want to agitate more people than necessary. That could be why you percieve him as careful, whilst this 'new guy' have to show to the voters of SD that he is not 'weak', if you understand what I mean. Again, just speculations of how things might play out. [editline]4th December 2014[/editline] MP was a lot easier and more true to the S ideology to have a support. That's most likely why he collaborates with them now. However, you cannot deny that Löfven invited all (except SD, correct me if I'm wrong) party leaders to discussion after the fall 2014 elections. He obviously wanted to see which constellations could be formed. As it turns out, the current is the one that gives the most ideology-true politics and yields the most number of mandate in parliament for S, in a ratio to each-other. Not such a big surprise. I stress that Löfven has tried sincerely to work with the Allians parties but has gotten shut down by them.[/QUOTE] The Social Democrats isn't the same obvious government ready party that it's been in the past. It's popular support has dropped from a peak of just above 50% of the votes down to now approx 30% Keep in mind that Göran Perssons last government before the Alliance won in 2006 he had the support of approx 40% of the voters. That's a huge difference from 30%. We also have the issue that many of the old timers have left the party politics and most of Löfvens cabinet were new to governing a country. Also the green party is much more extreme in their policies than S. They want immediate shutdowns of nuclear reactors while S wants to shut them down gradually to not risk jobs or the availability of electricity. The Green Part wants completely free immigration, S wanted slight restrictions on labour immigration to prevent social dumping and shitty labour conditions. They seem to kindof have dropped this very recently though. The Green Party also wants to close Bromma airport and prevent Förbifart Stockholm from being built. S doesn't want that. And you can be sure that none of the Alliance parties wants none of this. This makes it understandable for me that the Alliance has had little interest in cooperating with a government containing the Green Party.

[QUOTE=Folstream;46637812]The Social Democrats isn't the same obvious government ready party that it's been in the past. It's popular support has dropped from a peak of just above 50% of the votes down to now approx 30% Keep in mind that Göran Perssons last government before the Alliance won in 2006 he had the support of approx 40% of the voters. That's a huge difference from 30%.[/QUOTE] Same goes for the recent Allians government, if your argument is that "a new government is not ever ready to rule" which is my interpretation of what you are saying. Their percentage declining is a result of people voting on different parties, which is every persons right in a democracy. That votes are spread out on different parties doesn't mean that whatever party gets to rule is more/less fit to rule. It just says that this and that many people would rather see a different party in government, it doesn't measure how well prepared a party is at government rule. [QUOTE=Folstream;46637812]Also the green party is much more extreme in their policies than S. They want immediate shutdowns of nuclear reactors while S wants to shut them down gradually to not risk jobs or the availability of electricity. The Green Part wants completely free immigration, S wanted slight restrictions on labour immigration to prevent social dumping and shitty labour conditions. They seem to kindof have dropped this very recently though. The Green Party also wants to close Bromma airport and prevent Förbifart Stockholm from being built. S doesn't want that. And you can be sure that none of the Alliance parties wants none of this. This makes it understandable for me that the Alliance has had little interest in cooperating with a government containing the Green Party.[/QUOTE] S is the majority party in the government, they have the bigger say. As I previously said, Löfven sat down with all the Alliansen leaders after the fall 2014 elections and asked if there were any possibilities of collaboration. The answer was no, Löfven chose to work with MP because they actually wanted to.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46638047]Same goes for the recent Allians government, if your argument is that "a new government is not ever ready to rule" which is my interpretation of what you are saying. Their percentage declining is a result of people voting on different parties, which is every persons right in a democracy. That votes are spread out on different parties doesn't mean that whatever party gets to rule is more/less fit to rule. It just says that this and that many people would rather see a different party in government, it doesn't measure how well prepared a party is at government rule. S is the majority party in the government, they have the bigger say. As I previously said, Löfven sat down with all the Alliansen leaders after the fall 2014 elections and asked if there were any possibilities of collaboration. The answer was no, Löfven chose to work with MP because they actually wanted to.[/QUOTE] Uhh yeah obviously people can vote for whoever they want? If people want a change of government people will vote for that change. But you can be serious in arguing that say V would be as government capable as S. V has never ever been part of a government while S has governed this country for over 60 years and accumulated a ton of experience from doing so. The same goes for MP whom for the first time ever got in government after the last election. To be honest SD was willing to sit down and talk with Löfven and negotiate. If the Alliance proved to be a brick wall it might not be so smart to tell practically their only potential way of saving the budget to bugger off. That was Löfvens decision and not SD's. Thus he does not have popular support for his budget and thus it gets voted down. Now I can understand the trouble in working something out with SD but to not even consider trying is stupid. Löfven made claims on power for having the largest political bloc. Then it is clearly his responsibility to make sure his budget can get a majority (or plurality) in parliament. The parliament represents the people and if he can't get support for his policies in parliament then he clearly doesn't have support from the people for his policies. [editline]4th December 2014[/editline] I obviously mean can't be serious, not can be serious.

[QUOTE=Folstream;46638425]Uhh yeah obviously people can vote for whoever they want? If people want a change of government people will vote for that change. But you can be serious in arguing that say V would be as government capable as S. V has never ever been part of a government while S has governed this country for over 60 years and accumulated a ton of experience from doing so. The same goes for MP whom for the first time ever got in government after the last election.[/QUOTE] You were saying that S aren't as government prepared as they have been in the past, but now you are saying that they are government prepared because they have the experience? Sure you can be more or less prepared, but subjectively, I honestly don't believe the politicians - no matter what major party - are morons who don't know the first thing about running a country. Sure there might be the occasional egg-head but I think the majority has got a clue of what's to be done. Also, I hate to be that guy, but sometime has got to be the first time. [QUOTE=Folstream;46638425] To be honest SD was willing to sit down and talk with Löfven and negotiate. If the Alliance proved to be a brick wall it might not be so smart to tell practically their only potential way of saving the budget to bugger off. That was Löfvens decision and not SD's. Thus he does not have popular support for his budget and thus it gets voted down.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, I am all for including SD into the political 'community' or whatever. I think it's shameful that they aren't willing to talk to SD in a civilised discussion, no matter how much they agree or disagree with each other. This goes for all major parties. Though as you also said, it would probably be extremely difficult for S to come to an agreement with SD due to their, in some matters, vastly different view on things. [QUOTE=Folstream;46638425]Löfven made claims on power for having the largest political bloc. Then it is clearly his responsibility to make sure his budget can get a majority (or plurality) in parliament. The parliament represents the people and if he can't get support for his policies in parliament then he clearly doesn't have support from the people for his policies.[/QUOTE] It's his responsibility to his voters to maintain politics that still align with the voters opinions since we have representative democracy. It becomes a question of, go against a large portion of the voters will, or stay true to the agenda and take a high risk road. Again, I stress how I think SD should have been included and debated with seriously in order to prevent something like this. Not only from the government parties, but also the Alliansen parties. The way they have been excluded is quite frankly childish. Personally, I do not sympathise with SD nor S. I do think that this situation could have been prevented though, and it's not really a specific individuals or partys' fault.

[QUOTE=Chili Banan;46638928]You were saying that S aren't as government prepared as they have been in the past, but now you are saying that they are government prepared because they have the experience? Sure you can be more or less prepared, but subjectively, I honestly don't believe the politicians - no matter what major party - are morons who don't know the first thing about running a country. Sure there might be the occasional egg-head but I think the majority has got a clue of what's to be done. Also, I hate to be that guy, but sometime has got to be the first time. Don't get me wrong, I am all for including SD into the political 'community' or whatever. I think it's shameful that they aren't willing to talk to SD in a civilised discussion, no matter how much they agree or disagree with each other. This goes for all major parties. Though as you also said, it would probably be extremely difficult for S to come to an agreement with SD due to their, in some matters, vastly different view on things. It's his responsibility to his voters to maintain politics that still align with the voters opinions since we have representative democracy. It becomes a question of, go against a large portion of the voters will, or stay true to the agenda and take a high risk road. Again, I stress how I think SD should have been included and debated with seriously in order to prevent something like this. Not only from the government parties, but also the Alliansen parties. The way they have been excluded is quite frankly childish. Personally, I do not sympathise with SD nor S. I do think that this situation could have been prevented though, and it's not really a specific individuals or partys' fault.[/QUOTE] To clarify, S is by far one of the most government prepared parties in parliament along with the Alliance. However, relatively speaking they are much less prepared than they were during say the Göran Persson cabinets.

[QUOTE=Folstream;46639072]To clarify, S is by far one of the most government prepared parties in parliament along with the Alliance. However, relatively speaking they are much less prepared than they were during say the Göran Persson cabinets.[/QUOTE] With this I agree. It was nice discussing this with you in a polite and civilised manner. Have a nice weekend!

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.