Eh, what both Starvid and Sahlin (aka "of all people ... that woman!") are engaging in is hyperbole. A politician of the opposition taking shots at the government? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell ya! Not.
It's clearly not a "historic betrayal" that Reinfeldt attempted putting lipstick on the pig that is the Moderate party; the SDP has been doing the same for many years.
It seems to me that the centre-right victory in last year's election can to a large extent be credited to Göran Persson-fatigue, and perhaps also a general sentiment that it's not a particularly good idea to have one party monopolising power for decades on end.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

Let me comment on some of the retarded things she says.

First, talking about a "historic betrayal" is awful hyberbole. The closest thing I can think of when someone use that wording is the surrender of Sveaborg in 1808.

Calling the prime minister a traitor is dishonorable and doing it because he is carrying out the policies he was elected by a popular mandate to carry out is just retarded. It smacks of when Marita Ulvskog (current party secretary of the soc dems) called the right wing electoral victory in 1976 (the first in 40 years) a "coup d'etat".

It is agreed by all Swedish political commentators that the current government is closely carrying out the reforms it promised to do, mainly cutting taxes for low and medium earners and restoring full employment, and what everyone is puzzled by is that in spite of doing that the gov is impopular. I have my theories on that but I'll talk about that some other time.

Now, let me attack some of the things Sahlin says.

But never before have we had a government which has so reliably and consciously tried to mislead its voters and hide its own political agenda to gain support. It will not be long time successful to say one thing and then do something else.

This was the first thing that made my jaw hit the table. As I said, it is widely agreed that the gov is doing exactly what they told be people before the election that they would do if elected.

The gasoline tax was to be lowered, then it was raised.

Only the Christian democratic party, the smallest in the four party coalition, wanted a lower gasoline tax. And since when do the soc dems want lower gas taxes? Why didn't they lower them when in power then? This is if the greens suddenly sobered up and began supporing nuclear power, only to find me accusing them of an "historic betrayal". Now all seven Swedish parties want higher gas taxes. Does Sahlin consider this probably world unique situation a bad thing?

On top of that, she is lying. The gas tax wasn't increased. It was counted up at the pace of inflation. Not doing that would have been a tax cut in real terms.

The regulatory burden on businesses was to be eased, but small businesses experience increased regulations.

First, that's just not true. Second, Sahlin was the minister in charge of reducing bureacracy for small businesses for several years, without doing anything at all. Except increasing the regulatory burden. It's like Bush claiming the democrats aren't reliable on fiscal responsibility.

Health care was never to be apportioned according to ability to pay.

Nor is it like that today either. Except of course that the system where you can pay to cut the lines is still in operation. A system which was introduced by the soc dem government Sahlin was part off...

But the law was changed to allow hospitals to be sold and patients with private insurance can get ahead in line for care.

As I said, Sahlin and the soc dems introduced that system (or at least they didn't abolish it while in government for 12 years, I can't recall if they also introduced it). I don't like it, she does. I have no problems with private hospitals as long as they are tax funded and all patients are treated on an equal basis. Something we have had a long time in this country (for example St. Göran in Stockholm).

Late in the election process, climate issues were emphasized. But then the support for energy efficiency and energy advice was withdrawn, as well as the support for environmental conversion of household heating.

Having politicians meddle in the details of house heating usually results in disaster. For example, the soc dems introduced a subsidy system where you got state credits for changing from electric heating to oil fired heating. Now that's just brilliant. Did I mention Sahlin was in that government too? She has also been minister of energy, or something like that, during a period when Sweden hasn't had an energy policy.

That's actually a usual critcism against Sahlin. While she has held dozens of portfolios, she has actually not done any policy. At all. Ever. She used to be called "the minister of talking".

Reinfeldt's government claims that the property tax has been removed. But instead it has been renamed, so that 220000 owners of small houses pay more! Many ordinary households in larger cities gets their entire economic planning destroyed by the new retroactive rent-tax. And all of this so that the owners of very large houses in attractive areas can pay tens of thousands less each year.

I opposed changing the property tax. The reason that was done was partly to appease the Christian Democrats who have always hated it, and the people in general, who hate this tax more than anything else. It's also appeasing the hard right of the moderate party who have been sidelined by the "new workers party" moderates who have stepped far into soc dem territory.

I support the property (real estate) tax, and so does the old (hard right) moderate party chairman Ulf Adehlson.

And if they should have changed it, they shouldn't have done it in such a bungled way, backtracking and changing their minds all the time.

Reinfeldt's government claims that "it is time for low wage earners". But 70 percent of the budget is designated at the 30 percent with highest incomes.

I think she's plain lying here (it wouldn't be the first time), or cherry picking the data. Like looking at the budget where the wealth tax was cut and the real estate tax amended, while ignoring the budgets with big income tax cuts for low and mediuem wage earners.

During the election campaign Fredrik Reinfeldt claimed it was a lie that he wanted to lower the tax burden towards average European values. But recently he applauded that just this is being achieved at a meeting of the Moderat party.

This is an old soc dem chestnut from the campaign trail, where they used it for scare mongering, saying taxes would be cut by so and so many hundreds of billions. That's not true and it hasn't happened. If I recall correctly the tax pressure is down from 51 % of GDP to 49 %. A right wing revolution indeed. What's true is that taxes levels (as percent of GDP) should be heading in that (Euro average) direction, by a combination of lower income taxes and maintaned social expenses with a higher GDP.

Instead of education for sectors short on workers, the government puts efforts towards getting more people onto the low-wage market with unskilled work constructed with large tax rebates for the rich, in what has been meanly but correctly called "overclass-near" work.

This is a stupid policy to appease the hard right. It has been a fiasco, hardly used at all with very small cost to the state. On top of that, it's a part of the obsession with the service sector, shared by both the government and the soc dems.

So, in conclusion, she is not only insulting, lying and plain wrong, but also absolutely shameless. True Bush style. The soc dems are the republicans of Sweden.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.