Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

The Swedish Elections - potential Coalition Chaos

by Starvid Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 05:05:22 AM EST

On September 19, Sweden goes to the polls, and the potential for chaos and confusion is unprecedented. For the Swedish political junkie, this is the most exciting thing since the Cossack election of 1928. Update: New poll included!

Promoted by Colman - interesting comment thread ongoing.


The two Blocs
During the last term of office (2006-2010), Swedish politics have crystallized into two blocks: The Alliance (center-right) and the Red-greens (center-left).

The Alliance is dominated by the Moderate party, previously seen as the party of the wealthy and successful, something which have limited their electoral success. But in 2002 the new leader Fredrik Reinfeldt decided to move the party sharply to the left and abandon the party's resistance to the generous welfare state. This aggressive triangulation included taking over old social democratic slogans (like arbetslinjen, "the work/labour line", i.e. everyone's duty to do their part for society and not be a parasite) and even making new versions of classic social democratic posters. During this election the Moderates not only call themselves a "workers party" but "the only workers party".

Fredrik Reinfeldt is the current prime minister of Sweden and the obvious candidate to lead the next government, if the Alliance wins next Sunday. The party currently poll at about 30 %. The Moderates are supported by the three other borgerliga (bourgeois) parties. They are Folkpartiet (liberal party, about 8 %), Centerpartiet (formerly farmers party, now a confused entity, about 5 %) and Kristdemokraterna (5 %). The two former are considered centre-right while the latter is seen as more right-wing, due to their somewhat more conservative view on value issues.

The Red-greens are also dominated by one party: the Social Democrats. Their current position in the polls is horrible: in the 2006 election they got about 35 % which was seen as disastrous. Now they're polling at less than 30 %, lower than the Moderates, and if this result stands on election day the Social Democrats will have their worst result since 1914(!), before full democracy was introduced in Sweden.

So why this incredible awfulness for the Soc dems? I can see four main reasons. One is that people feel that the Alliance-government has done a pretty good job, in spite of failing on their main election promise, lowering unemployment. People seem to feel that one has to take the global crisis into account, especially as the big job losses have been in the export-dependent manufacturing sector.

The second reason is that Miljöpartiet (the Greens 8 %) are taking votes from them. The main reason for this is that the Green party chairman Maria Wetterstrand is quite brilliant, not only being intelligent and charismatic but attractive as well.

The third reason is the third party in the Red-green coalition: Vänsterpartiet (the Left party (6 %), until 1991 "The Left Party, the Communists"). Due to the staunch anti-Communism of the entire Swedish labour movement (and especially that of the unions) during the 20th century, many soc dem sympathisers and marginal voters feel a deep aversion against voting former communists into government. The issue exacerbated even further by Vänsterpartiet chairman Lars Ohly claiming to be a communist as late as five years ago, which caused a media furor that still taints Ohly's image (he claims not to be a communist anymore).

The fourth, and in my mind most important reason, is that Soc dem chairman Mona Sahlin is widely seen as weak, incompetent and during her long career she has almost exclusively concerned herself with identity politics (gay rights, multiculturalism and so on). She is not seen as an authority on things like financial policy, jobs, the environment or foreign policy.
A loss for the left would be historical. Mona Sahlin would be the first soc dem chairman not to become prime minister since Claes Tholin (chairman 1896-1907). Fredrik Reinfeldt would be the first right-wing prime minister to be re-elected, ever. If Sahlin wins, she will be the first female prime minister in the history of Sweden.

The Chaos
Now this seems very straight-forward, doesn't it? Either the right wins and remains in power for four more years, or the left kicks them out and forms a majority government of their own.

This is were the spoiler comes in: Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats). Sverigedemokraterna is your usual run-of-the-mill anti-immigration right-wing populist party. In the 2006 election they failed to reach the 4 % threshold and got no seats in parliament. This time they are polling at about 5 % and it's more or less sure that they'll get in (I wouldn't be surprised if they even get as much as 7 %), in spite of a pretty much unified media campaign against them.

So, what are the alternatives if Sverigedemokraterna gets into parliament?

  1. The centre-right still gets a majority and forms a government. This will only work if the centre-right gets really good numbers, which seems to become more likely by every passing day.

  2. The centre-left gets a majority and forms a government. This is unlikely, because of their weak poll numbers.

  3. The centre-right becomes bigger than the centre-left, but doesn't get a majority. They invite the Greens to leave the centre-left bloc and join them in government. This is a distinct possibility.

  4. The centre-left becomes bigger than the centre-right and invites Folkpartiet and or Centerpartiet to change bloc and join them in government. This is less likely than the Greens joining the right, because not only is bloc solidarity stronger in the Alliance, but neither Folkpartiet nor Centerpartiet will join a government with Vänsterpartiet, due to the communist issue. So for this to work, this centre-left must be weak enough not to initially be able to form a government (Soc dem+Miljöpartiet+Vänsterpartiet) but also be strong enough to be able to form a government even if Vänsterpartiet is kicked out and replaced by the two centre-right parties. For this to happen Vänsterpartiet must make a bad election while Folkpartiet and Centerpartiet must make a good election. This does not seem likely at all.

  5. The centre-right doesn't get enough votes to form a majority, but takes Sverigedemokraterna in as a support party (without giving them seats in the government). This is a distinct possibility, which is strenuously denied by the centre-right Alliance whenever they get the chance.

  6. The left gets bigger than the right but doesn't get a majority. Because of our strange constitution, it means the current government will stay in power, as a majority is needed to bring the government down. This the Red-greens can only do by cooperating on this issue with Sverigedemokraterna, which jars with their oft repeated promise to "never" cooperate with Sverigedemokraterna on "anything". This means we will have a minority government, where the minority with the smaller number of seats in parliament will rule! This centre-right government will have to rely on different left-wing parties (or Sverigedemokraterna) on each and every reform that is to be voted into law, so it might well be pretty paralyzed government.

  7. The Moderates form a grand coalition with the Social democrats. No one is even speculating on this solution, and the immediate second coming of Jesus Christ is probably more likely.

  8.  If none of these solutions works because of locked positions, or if say the first budget of the new government fails due to lack of parliamentary support, we might get new elections. This would be the first time ever in the history of Sweden.

Poll
What is the most likely outcome if Sverigedemokraterna gets into parliament?
. The centre-right still gets a majority and forms a government. 25%
. The centre-left gets a majority and forms a government. 0%
. The centre-right becomes formes a government with the greens. 0%
. The centre-left (minus Všnsterpartiet) forms a government with Centerpartiet and or Folkpartiet. 0%
. The centre-right forms a minority government with the support of Sverigedemokraterna. 25%
. The centre-right forms a minority government, in spite of the centre-left having more seats in parliament. 37%
. The Moderates and the Social democrats form a grand coalition. 0%
. New elections, either immediately or after a while. 12%

Votes: 8
Results | Other Polls
Display:
According to Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves Swedish GDP growth is estimated to be 3.8% and I've read reports it make go as high as 4.2%.  Since Sweden, for some bizarre reason, is set-up so the workers actually benefit from an increase in GDP there's a strong incentive for people to vote for the government that "made it happen."  

In this case, The Alliance.  

I know that is superficial but it is accurate for a large percentage of voters.  "Things are good, don't rock the boat" is a vote catcher unless something else comes down the pike to over-ride it.  And, let's face it, Sweden doesn't have critical problems for the Parties to divide over.

Not to say Sweden doesn't have social and economic problems - you do - but they aren't critical enough to require a substantial adjustment.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Sep 12th, 2010 at 07:03:50 PM EST
You need a poll, and I vote for number 6.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Sep 13th, 2010 at 04:30:45 AM EST
Done!

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon Sep 13th, 2010 at 04:13:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In 6, it should be noted that the budget is passed by plurality. So in case the Sverigedemokraterna does not vote for the Alliance budget, the Alliance would be government but get the budget of the Red-Greens, in which case the government would likely resign.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Sep 13th, 2010 at 07:34:23 AM EST
Not really. If I'm correctly informed, the government budget succeeds by default, unless a majority votes for an alternative budget. It's quite unlikely, but not impossible, that Sverigedemokraterna will vote for the Red-green alternative budget just to spite everyone. It would be pretty funny if the right-wing government would have to implement the left-wing budget. :)

That is if there is a Red-green budget at all - the different left-wing parties might have different budgets instead of a joint one unless they get to form a government (and they haven't read up on game theory).

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

by Starvid on Mon Sep 13th, 2010 at 03:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I had to check, and it appears we were both wrong. There is no particularities regarding the voting in it self, but there is this:

Så beslutar riksdagen om statsbudgeten - Riksdagen

Riksdagen beslutar samtidigt om alla utgiftsramar och skatteförändringar, som ett paket. De partier i riksdagen som inte stöder regeringens förslag måste också lägga fram sina motförslag som hela paket.

 

Det räcker alltså inte att oppositionspartierna har majoritet kring en enskild fråga i budgeten för att kunna fälla ett förslag. De måste enas om ett helt paket av förslag. De olika paketen ställs sedan emot varandra när riksdagen beslutar.

In short: budget proposals are entered as motions as whole packages, voting is not conducted on separate items. This has meant that unless the opposition comes together and presents a common budget (as they usually do not do) the governments budget sails through, even if it is a minority government (as long as that minority is larger then any opposition party).

Starvid:

It's quite unlikely, but not impossible, that Sverigedemokraterna will vote for the Red-green alternative budget just to spite everyone.

They have done exactly that in some local assemblies.

Starvid:

It would be pretty funny if the right-wing government would have to implement the left-wing budget. :)

I am pretty sure they would resign, but might come back again (without new election) after securing a deal. Ingvar Carlsson did so in 1990.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 04:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Call me cynical, but I really don't believe that the Swedish right wing will maintain a cordon sanitaire around the Swedish Democrats [sic].

If the Greens have half a brain, they'll steer far and wide from a Jamaica coalition. The SocDems are a zombie party - as far as I can tell, they're moving on pure institutional inertia. So the real question is whether the Left or the Greens will be the ones to pick up their voters over the next couple of election cycles. If the Greens are seen to be triangulating, disillusioned SocDem voters will go to the Left (after they get over their rebound relationship with the Sofa Party).

We've seen this movie before - it's the result of trying to apply the NewLabour strategy to a proportional representation system. If you want a Cliff's Notes version, look at Germany.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Sep 13th, 2010 at 03:35:36 PM EST
Generalising like mad, the politics of democratic polities in 19th century Europe were based on liberalism versus conservatism. The 20th century equivalent was socialism versus conservatism/liberalism/christian democracy.

We seem to be awaiting an equivalent oversimplified generalisation for 21st century politics. The social democratic parties all seem to be in gradual decline. The British Labour Party has never had much intellectual rigour ("socialism is what the Labour Party does"), but the Swedish Social Democrats were traditionally one of the most innovative parties of its type. If it has no new ideas then democratic socialism really is dead.

by Gary J on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 07:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the split in the 21st century is going to be Green Left vs. Rape and Pillage.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 08:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My money's on Rape and Pillage. Better organized, tons of resources, better dental plan.

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 08:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But what is exactly "Green Left"? For instance the Dutch PvdA (social democrats) are calling the Green Left (actually called like that) as social-liberals. And I think they have a point. The greens seem to choose the going bankrupt ideology of the day to be their own ideology. Marxism when such was imploding. A degree of economical liberalism coupled with naive cosmopolitanism now.

Also there is the issue of migrations which are highly explosive and I am not sure that the Green Left is able to tackle such.

Also does Green means tree huggers or sustainable economics? Because I think people coming from those perspectives actually say different things. Left me give you an example: In Portugal tree huggers are strongly against dams, but advocates of sustainable renewable energy are strongly in favour.

I like Green Left (I consider myself Green Left), but what the heck is that?

by t-------------- on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 09:12:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tiagoantao:
I like Green Left (I consider myself Green Left), but what the heck is that?
I agree completely.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 09:13:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that there is not a coherent body of policy defining the Green Left movement globally. However there is a set of values and principles (sustainability, personal liberties, solidarity...) which are cohesive and pervasive.

In order to be the defining movement of progressive political action in the 21st, it isn't necessary that the details should be nailed down (did social democracy ever have the details nailed down? I think not.) What is required is a coherent narrative. We're not quite there yet, but the time is ripe.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 01:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are 2 main questions that I think are still to be edged out:

The importance of economy. Some people are attracted to green approaches on an anti-economic viewpoint. Others have the exact opposite view. Again, the above debate on dams is a good example.

There is some tension between being local and cosmopolitan, two facets that one can easily find. You can easily see people that are friendly towards globalization (cosmopolitan ticket) while others go more for local approaches (robustness, etc).

They are not easy questions. I am not suggesting answers.

But the Apron diagram from Arne Naess is actually a good way to put things down: one can share the same principles and arrive and completely opposite solutions. It also stresses out that it is OK to share principles and have different paths.

But from a political perspective is becomes not much useful. Maybe that is OK, but it means that there is no single platform based on "green" principles.

by t-------------- on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 01:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that there is not a coherent body of policy defining the Green Left movement globally. However there is a set of values and principles (sustainability, personal liberties, solidarity...) which are cohesive and pervasive.

I agree that the values and principles are cohesive and pervasive, but they're also a bit loose, and not currently defined as anything coherent.

Of course, doing so is how you go from disparate practices to a genuine political movement. I totally agree that the time is ripe. I'm trying to work this out myself, and am in discussions with a publisher here in California that is tentatively interested in bringing out a book that articulates something along these lines. Even if that doesn't quite come together, I'm looking to spend my time after the November election on helping articulate and promote this kind of ideological agenda.

And the world will live as one

by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 02:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Gary J:
Generalising like mad, the politics of democratic polities in 19th century Europe were based on liberalism versus conservatism. The 20th century equivalent was socialism versus conservatism/liberalism/christian democracy.

It is not only generalising like mad, it is in particular generalising in retrospect. Looking at the 20th century, fascism and communism appeared for a good part of the century to be viable options pursued through the democratic system. And then there was minor ones like the Technocracy movement.

So in conclusion, it will probably be a bit messy and then settle based on organisational strengths and weaknesses.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 09:53:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the perspective of the 1920s and 1930s fascism and communism were viable contendors for ideology of the century, but looking at the whole century they were also rans. I also carefully limited the reference in my original post to democratic politics, to avoid bringing totalitarian ideologies intocontention.
by Gary J on Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 05:48:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Local | Four of ten prepared to vote tactically: survey

Four out of ten Swedish voters could consider switching party allegiances and instead vote for a party which risks missing the threshold for parliamentary seats, according to a new Sifo survey.

The centre-right Christian Democrats and Centre Party are reported to be the parties likely to benefit from tactical voting, with every fifth Alliance coalition voter prepared to vote for one of the smaller parties.

The Alliance voters are generally more prepared to place their vote on a party in order to keep them in parliament, with 49 percent prepared to do so, as opposed to 36 percent of the Red-Green opposition.

Aside from the Centre Party and Christian Democrats, the Liberals are the party that would gain the most tactical votes (19 percent) to remain in the parliament, according to the survey.

The Liberals are followed by the Green Party on 17 percent, and the Left Party on 14 percent. The fewest tactical votes would go, naturally, to the two largest parties - the Moderates and Social Democrats, with 10 and 5 percent respectively.

Only two percent of respondents are open to the possibility of voting tactically in favour of the nationalist Sweden Democrats in order to help them into parliament.

Intimating the Sweden Democrats' have a shot at a 4% return above their last polling number if it's below the threshold?  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 08:59:38 PM EST
Depends on how the poll is done. If those 2-3 % would have voted for them anyway, it really doesn't matter. And I can't tell from the blurb whether they filtered those out or not.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 04:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See my comment here.

If the Sifo poll is accurate the Sweden Democrats are picking-up votes from the other members of Alliance possibly getting 27 seats stemming from the CW is Alliance will be forming the next government thus they can 'waste' -- or vote their true beliefs/feelings? -- their vote for Sverigedemokraterna.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 12:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How a young woman's blog post is changing the Swedish elections - AMERICAblog News
While Sweden was an early contender in using the Net for politics in the late 90s, the Swedish Netroots is a relatively recent phenomenon. And like the states, the left side of the blogosphere seems to be kicking more butt in Sweden than the right. One likely reason is that in Sweden, like the US, the right-wing has long had its own echo chamber, while the left did not. 13 of the nation's newspapers lean left, while 59 lean right. The Swedish left-wing blogosphere fills a very real need, and is already having some early, and significant, successes.

The latest, and possibly most interesting, success of the Swedish Netroots (they use the same term as us, "Netroots") took place just two days ago. A young Swedish woman named Emilie wrote a blog post about her mother losing her health insurance. In Sweden, there's a national health plan that covers you if you lose your job due to failing health. While Emilie's mom has been certified unable to work by her doctors, the national health service didn't believe her, and just cut off her insurance. Emily wrote that she and her mother are now considering selling their home in order to be able to afford her mom's ongoing health care.

Up until now, Emily's blog didn't get a lot of traffic. She'd only written three posts in September, four in August, and seven in July. But this post was different. Within a few hours, it started to travel around the Web, and within a day, it had already been shared over 20,000 times on Facebook. By last night, only a day after Emily wrote her post, the national evening news in Sweden had Emily and her mother as their top story (see video upper left). By the next morning, it was a front page story in the largest national paper, is now hitting the radio and the wire services, and is the subject of a Facebook page and a viral video poking fun at the Prime Minister. The media then tried to ask the Prime Minister about the story, and he reportedly fled in order to avoid giving an answer.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 12:38:41 PM EST
Not completely correct. (Probably they are writing too much from an American perspective.)

She was denied sick-pension even though all her doctors confirm she will never be able to work again. Her illness insurance has run out. (The insurance which was paying her living expenses. Health insurance does not exist in Sweden, health care is universal.) So, if she does not go find a job she will have to sell her apartment in order to qualify for social support for living expenses. Her health care will continue to be paid for, regardless. I.e. she does not have to sell the apartment to pay for health care, but in order to get money to live on as she cannot work, since she has been denied early retirement for her illness.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 01:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At any rate, is there even a small chance that this might swing the election?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 03:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I must admit that I did not know about this before I read it here. And seeing how I am a political junkie, I would guess no when it comes to this particular - though funny - video. But in larger terms the harsher rules regarding sick benefits is one of the campaign items the opposition is scoring points with.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 04:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nope.

But the Red-greens might still win. It looks unlikely to me, but nothing is decided 'til election day.

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

by Starvid on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 04:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(Sorry to keep linking to The Local.)

Anyway ...

The Local is reporting:

The latest surveys indicate that 10-20 percent of the 7.1 million strong Swedish electorate have not yet made their choice, corresponding to as many as 1.4 million people.

If these are true Undecideds you can toss previous polling.  The winners will be the ones with the GOTV operation that brings their people to the polls and the best 72 hour communication package.

Since Sweden isn't the US state of Mississippi the other part of a standard US election: voting fraud, polling place voting challenges, throwing ballot boxes into the river, & all the other 'fun stuff' we do 'round hyah' won't be happening.  More's the pity.  ;-)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 05:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
AFAIK classic GOTV is illegal in most of Europe -- the 72 hour communication package must be the non-classic GOTV, too.

I wouldn't overvalue undecideds -- I have seen too many elections when those losing in the polls put their hopes there, but then when election came undecideds broke roughly in the same ratio as decideds. (Plus, I hazard to guesss that most undecideds are undecided between parties within the blocks.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 06:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know enough about voting patterns in Sweden, or the rest of the EU for that matter, to even begin to guess how Undecideds go.  In the US they typically fall within the general polling pattern of the precinct - local voting area - as glossed by the overall trend of socio-economic class since most US residences are segregated by race then class.  On the East Coast there are still, as I understand it, ethnic neighborhoods and that would fit between the two, above.

I agree the larger the number of Undecideds the closer this group with track with the overall population.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 06:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While there are still a large numbers of undecided, the effect of this is much smaller than in the US. Reason being that most of these undecided are undecided on which Red-green or Alliance party they should vote for, not undecided on if they should vote Red-green or Alliance.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Sep 18th, 2010 at 04:42:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
a viral video poking fun at the Prime Minister.

...is real fun (and, apart from the subtitles, in English):



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 03:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sat Sep 18th, 2010 at 04:45:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 18th, 2010 at 04:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This would be a very successful conclusion to the entire genre.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 18th, 2010 at 05:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm also a fan of playbacks genre, though this one is a rare gem in the tensions it sets up between original song/recording/performer and the playback performance/performer. Most playbacks to not achieve this level of transcendence...



You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 18th, 2010 at 05:46:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could substitute "Obama" for "Reinfeldt" and it would work just as well.

And the world will live as one
by Montereyan (robert at calitics dot com) on Sun Sep 19th, 2010 at 02:18:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really. Obama did accomplish an improvement in the American health care system, whatever one may think of the size of said improvement relative to the amount of political capital available to him at the start of his term. Reinfeldt's government is pulling in the wrong direction, albeit from a much better starting position.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 19th, 2010 at 03:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is the actual post.

If I'm reading "Försäkringskassan" correctly the correct translation into US terms would be "Social Security Administration."  

As with any other country, Sweden separates temporary sickness benefits from long term disability.  The mother has run through her sickness benefits and has been refused by Försäkringskassan administrators to be put on disability until they sell the apartment.

(Correction requested!!!)

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 04:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems the case will be re-evaluated. A minister cannot - by law - look into any specific cases, but he can very much say that if a person cannot work, she should receive sick benefits. And that if she (a hypthetical person) doesn't get it, Försäkringskassan is interpreting the law in an incorrect way. Which is what the PM said today, if I got it right.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Fri Sep 17th, 2010 at 04:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]