Swedish General Election 2015

[Devil Wincarnate]

Dec 7, 2014 11:14:06 GMT Devonian said:

Graphic of the above YouGov poll

I can't see a stable government being created on those numbers.  Looks like the SD are nibbling at just about everyone bar the Moderates and Greens.

[Deleted]

Dec 8, 2014 9:35:49 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:14:06 GMT Devonian said:

Graphic of the above YouGov poll

I can't see a stable government being created on those numbers.  Looks like the SD are nibbling at just about everyone bar the Moderates and Greens.

From those numbers a grand coalition or an right coalition including SD.

[Merseymike]

Dec 6, 2014 12:47:14 GMT Devonian said:

Dec 6, 2014 12:05:20 GMT Merseymike said:

Alternately - whoever becomes the Opposition doesn't put forward a formal opposition budget to stop the SwDems's (oh what the hell, the Fascists) acting as spoilers which is what they are doing

A supply and confidence deal in other words. Which begs the question why didn't the government and opposition come to a compromise deal before the vote, there was plenty of opportunity for them to do so. I suppose you must be right about the Swedish Democrats, if the government and the Alliance had to come to a compromise deal it would have passed easily with or without Swedish Democrat support. They failed to reach such a deal therefore it must be the Swedish Democrats who are the 'spoilers'.

I think the problem is that they have a particular system in Sweden where both sides put forward a budget. The SD's had said in advance that they wouldn't be supporting either of the big blocs in power, but in the event opted to back the opposition - which would have meant the Government working with the Opposition budget,

Clearly the parties will have to be cleverer next time, but I don't think that they expected the SD's to vote with the opposition as they have taken a 'plague on both your houses' approach so far. The moderate right won't have any truck with them in terms of an alliance or they could have saught their support last time

[Sibboleth]

The Swedish Democrats would be destroyed if they actually entered government, so I doubt they'd even try. There's some public support for the idea of a Grand Coalition, but as the SAP and M hate each other it would be tricky.

[Devonian]

Dec 8, 2014 16:26:28 GMT Merseymike said:

Dec 6, 2014 12:47:14 GMT Devonian said:

A supply and confidence deal in other words. Which begs the question why didn't the government and opposition come to a compromise deal before the vote, there was plenty of opportunity for them to do so. I suppose you must be right about the Swedish Democrats, if the government and the Alliance had to come to a compromise deal it would have passed easily with or without Swedish Democrat support. They failed to reach such a deal therefore it must be the Swedish Democrats who are the 'spoilers'.

I think the problem is that they have a particular system in Sweden where both sides put forward a budget. The SD's had said in advance that they wouldn't be supporting either of the big blocs in power, but in the event opted to back the opposition - which would have meant the Government working with the Opposition budget,

The Swedish Democrats announced the day beforethe vote that they were going to vote for the Alliance budget. The Government and opposition had 24 hours advanced notice to make a deal, They failed to do so.

Clearly the parties will have to be cleverer next time, but I don't think that they expected the SD's to vote with the opposition as they have taken a 'plague on both your houses' approach so far. The moderate right won't have any truck with them in terms of an alliance or they could have saught their support last time

Oh I don't think the election was caused by the main parties failing to be clever. carl Bildt has had the following to say

The background to this episode was the September election, which the four-party Alliance lost after eight years in power (during which I served as Foreign Minister). The Alliance government was widely considered to have been successful; but eight years is a long time in politics.

In other words 'Goddamit we deserved to win the elections this year'

Fair enough. But, though the Alliance certainly lost, the main opposition Swedish Social Democratic Party and its allies on the left did not win. In fact, the three leftist parties in Parliament gained a slightly smaller share of the popular vote than they did in the 2010 election.[...]For decades, any election in which the party won less than 45% of the vote was viewed as a disaster. Now the Social Democrats’ popular support hovers at around 30%, and the last two elections yielded the worst results in a century.

In othe words 'not only only did the Social Democrats bot deserve to win, they didn't win, the losers'

a more cooperative atmosphere might well be needed {after next years election]. In that case, the key question will be whether the Social Democrats can ditch their allies further to the left.

www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-democrats-government-collapse-by-carl-bildt-2014-12

I think the Alliance could have done a deal to save the Government but they saw an opportunity to pressure them to ditch the left (and the Greens?) and get their hands back on the levers of power. The Social Democrats on the other hand won't have wanted a deal that left them feeling like the junior partner to the Alliance. i don't think it was lack of cleverness I think it was old fashioned power politics from all the parties.

[Merseymike]

But neither of the blocs can hold a majority unless the Sweden Democrats do keep out of the fray.

If they are not going to do that, then the other parties will have to behave differently. I think both thought the other would back down.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Dec 8, 2014 16:31:31 GMT Sibboleth said:

The Swedish Democrats would be destroyed if they actually entered government, so I doubt they'd even try. There's some public support for the idea of a Grand Coalition, but as the SAP and M hate each other it would be tricky.

It needs someone in the middle to bind the two.  The obvious candidate would be the Centre Party, but both the SoDems and M have worked with, or made offers to work with, the LPP in the past.

A Centre Party PM with the two main parties making up the Cabinet- sounds very Weimar but it could be an alternative.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Dec 8, 2014 18:43:50 GMT Devonian said:

Dec 8, 2014 16:26:28 GMT Merseymike said:

I think the problem is that they have a particular system in Sweden where both sides put forward a budget. The SD's had said in advance that they wouldn't be supporting either of the big blocs in power, but in the event opted to back the opposition - which would have meant the Government working with the Opposition budget,

The Swedish Democrats announced the day beforethe vote that they were going to vote for the Alliance budget. The Government and opposition had 24 hours advanced notice to make a deal, They failed to do so.

Clearly the parties will have to be cleverer next time, but I don't think that they expected the SD's to vote with the opposition as they have taken a 'plague on both your houses' approach so far. The moderate right won't have any truck with them in terms of an alliance or they could have saught their support last time

Oh I don't think the election was caused by the main parties failing to be clever. carl Bildt has had the following to say

The background to this episode was the September election, which the four-party Alliance lost after eight years in power (during which I served as Foreign Minister). The Alliance government was widely considered to have been successful; but eight years is a long time in politics.

In other words 'Goddamit we deserved to win the elections this year'

Fair enough. But, though the Alliance certainly lost, the main opposition Swedish Social Democratic Party and its allies on the left did not win. In fact, the three leftist parties in Parliament gained a slightly smaller share of the popular vote than they did in the 2010 election.[...]For decades, any election in which the party won less than 45% of the vote was viewed as a disaster. Now the Social Democrats’ popular support hovers at around 30%, and the last two elections yielded the worst results in a century.

In othe words 'not only only did the Social Democrats bot deserve to win, they didn't win, the losers'

a more cooperative atmosphere might well be needed {after next years election]. In that case, the key question will be whether the Social Democrats can ditch their allies further to the left.

www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/swedish-democrats-government-collapse-by-carl-bildt-2014-12

I think the Alliance could have done a deal to save the Government but they saw an opportunity to pressure them to ditch the left (and the Greens?) and get their hands back on the levers of power. The Social Democrats on the other hand won't have wanted a deal that left them feeling like the junior partner to the Alliance. i don't think it was lack of cleverness I think it was old fashioned power politics from all the parties.

The Social Democrats aren't going to work with the Alliance as a whole - nor is there much sign that the Alliance want to. Bildt's comments are fairly obviously made in bad faith, not least because the Left weren't actually part of the government - they merely provided confidence and supply. Realistically, the Social Democrats wouldn't have any interest in being the minority element of a coalition, because they were the largest party last time by a reasonably clear margin.

The problem is that the Moderates (and indeed the rest of the Alliance) would much rather work with the KDs et al. rather than with the Social Democrats. For a grand coalition to work, it'd have to drop parties at both edges of the major blocs, and the refusal to negotiate over the budget indicates that the right doesn't want to do that yet. It'll take another hung parliament with a similar result before they'll even consider it, whereas the parties of the left will have to lose the next election before it makes sense for them - though even then, on strategic rather than ideological grounds, it'd probably be preferable to try to make the Swedish Democrats into a de facto governing party.

[Devonian]

Dec 9, 2014 10:02:10 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The problem is that the Moderates (and indeed the rest of the Alliance) would much rather work with the KDs et al. rather than with the Social Democrats. For a grand coalition to work, it'd have to drop parties at both edges of the major blocs, and the refusal to negotiate over the budget indicates that the right doesn't want to do that yet.

If the YouGov poll is right then the KDs are very close to dropping out of Parliament, which could solve that problem.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Dec 9, 2014 16:20:42 GMT Devonian said:

Dec 9, 2014 10:02:10 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

The problem is that the Moderates (and indeed the rest of the Alliance) would much rather work with the KDs et al. rather than with the Social Democrats. For a grand coalition to work, it'd have to drop parties at both edges of the major blocs, and the refusal to negotiate over the budget indicates that the right doesn't want to do that yet.

If the YouGov poll is right then the KDs are very close to dropping out of Parliament, which could solve that problem.

The KDS assumed they would never be outflanked from the right.  That one has gone for a Burton.

[carlton43]

Dec 9, 2014 18:00:44 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Dec 9, 2014 16:20:42 GMT Devonian said:

If the YouGov poll is right then the KDs are very close to dropping out of Parliament, which could solve that problem.

The KDS assumed they would never be outflanked from the right.  That one has gone for a Burton.

'Gone for a Burton'......you quaint old soul?

It looks as if the SW Dems are likely to be the major gainers here?

[Richard Allen]

Dec 9, 2014 19:43:37 GMT carlton43 said:

Dec 9, 2014 18:00:44 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

The KDS assumed they would never be outflanked from the right.  That one has gone for a Burton.

'Gone for a Burton'......you quaint old soul?

It looks as if the SW Dems are likely to be the major gainers here?

Current polling suggests that but whether it will happen remains to be seen. I can't see an early election costing them support but I not certain it will gain them any more support either.

[MeirionGwril]

Professor gets death threat (http://www.liu.se/liu-nytt/arkiv/nyhetsarkiv/1.605966/1.606904?l=en)

Following the publication of his new study on Sweden Democrat voters, a professor at Linköping University has received death threats. Vice-Chancellor Helen Dannetun says it is completely unacceptable that researchers are subject to this.

“Talking about what conclusions you make in your research is a researcher’s duty. They shouldn’t have to receive threats for doing this. It’s completely unacceptable, I’m extremely upset,” says Linköping University Vice-Chancellor Helen Dannetun.

She cannot find words strong enough to express how she feels about a researcher’s life being threatened.

Vice-Chancellor Helen DannetunIn an opinion piece in the printed edition of major Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter on Thursday 4 Dec, Peter Hedström and Tim Müller wrote about their study where Sweden Democrat voters proved more intolerant and xenophobic than other voters. The article was published on Wednesday evening, and the same night Prof Hedström received a death threat. In an email he was told to “keep his mouth shut”, if he wanted to keep enjoying life. The following night he received another death threat.

“It was meant mainly for my colleague Tim, but also addressed to me. Tim was told to get out of Sweden, and not to use ’our’ tax money. About me, they said ‘We’ll take care of him soon’,” explained Prof Hedström, adding that the threats confirm the study results, that Sweden Democrat voters are more intolerant than other voters.

It is not common that researchers from Linköping University receive death threats. As a researcher, Prof Hedström sometimes gets reactions to his work, but normally any differences can be debated civilly.

“In this case, someone is trying to advance their cause by avoiding debate, and using threats to impose silence. I have a responsibility not to give in to that.”

Vice-Chancellor Helen Dannetun agrees.

“It’s important not to yield to threats. Our university’s mission is to impart knowledge, and we will continue to do this.”

The university will report the threats to the police.

[Andrew_S]

"their study where Sweden Democrat voters proved more intolerant and xenophobic than other voters"

And bears **** in the woods I suppose.

[MeirionGwril]

Dec 10, 2014 17:34:07 GMT Andrew_S said:

"their study where Sweden Democrat voters proved more intolerant and xenophobic than other voters"

And bears **** in the woods I suppose.

Not in Sweden - they all insist on proper plumbing

[Devil Wincarnate]

Death threats to academics, murdering the prime minister, murdering the foreign secretary, all goes to show what kind of scumbags the people of Britain really...

Oh, hang on, it's not Britain?  What stick do we use to beat ourselves with now?

[psephos]

I'm playing devil's advocate here and I don't support death threats against anybody, but it makes me think 'Don't tell lies then'. Whether one group or another is 'more intolerant' or 'more xenophobic' is a purely subjective matter. I could happily call someone who barks like a seal at the thought of Sharia law intolerant, and if not xenophobic anti-non-Muslim.

But then that would make Malmo a terribly intolerant city wouldn't it? Where does Ilmar 'Malmo Jews should protest against Israel/who cares if Malmo Jews emigrate to Israel? (rough paraphrase)' Reepalu stand on the one true scale of tolerance? Perhaps academics should shut up rather than trying to apply their misguided boneheaded scales to others just to give a newspaper a headline.

All this said I agree with the words of the V-C above: They shouldn’t have to receive threats for doing this. It’s completely unacceptable.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Specious bollocks, as per usual. You can't objectively say whether one prejudice is more intolerant than another, but you can define intolerance well enough for the purposes as a political science paper and you can quantify the number of people who hold the attitudes you're defining as intolerant.

And as a group, Sweden Democrats voters will have more prejudicial attitudes about specific groups than supporters of any other party, because the Sweden Democrats are the party for people who hate immigrants. There are supporters of other parties who are also intolerant, but their intolerance isn't the reason they support their specific party.

[Devonian]

Dec 9, 2014 10:02:10 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

For a grand coalition to work, it'd have to drop parties at both edges of the major blocs, and the refusal to negotiate over the budget indicates that the right doesn't want to do that yet.

Well if the latest poll by Inizio is accurate then this problem might be solved as both the Left and the Christian Democrats are perilously close to failing to reach the 4% threshold

Fieldwork for this poll was 4-10 December
Changes is brackets are from the previous poll, fieldwork 17 Nov - 2 Dec

Social Democratic 31.0% (+1.2)
Moderate 26.9% (+2.4)
Swedish Democrats 14.0% (+2.0)
Centre Party 7.4% (+1.1)
Green Party 5.8% (-1.7)
Liberals 4.8% (-1.3)
Christian Democrats 4.3% (+0.6)
Left 4.2% (-2.0)

'Block' totals
SocDems+Greens+Left 41.1% (-2.4)
Alliance 43.4% (+2.8)
Sweden Democrats 14.0% (+(2.0)

www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article20001111.ab

Since the difference in block vote totals at present is considerably lower than the 4% threshold then who wins the election may very swing on how which parties actually get into the Riksdag.

[Devonian]

Graph showing the same poll. I notice that the Feminist Party isn't even mentioned in the second poll. I'm wondering if their vote is going to get squeezed badly as their voters vote tactically for the Greens of SocDems. I also wonder that if the Left start getting squeezed further and polls start getting published showing them failing to get to the 4% threshold then their voters could start tactical switching in the same way and they could be in real trouble (and of course the same thing might be possible for the Christian Democrats on the other side). Does that sound likely?