The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Alliance:
Lost 6 seats:
Moderata Samlingspartiet + 10 for 107 Centerpartiet -7 for 22 Kristdemokraterna -5 for 19 Folkpartiet liberalerna - 4 for 24
Left Block:
Lost 14 seats:
Arbetarepartiet-Socialdemokraterna -17 for 113 Vänsterpartiet - 3 for 19 Miljöpartiet de gröna + 6 for 25 and became the 3rd largest party in the Riksdag
The big winner was the Sverigedemokraterna who went from no seats to 20 and increased their vote from 2.9% to 5.7%. They also, I'm guessing, effectively blocked Alliance from maintaining their majority as they went from 178 to 172.
From the Usual Suspect:
Moderate Party leader and prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said he plans to approach the Green Party for support in forming a government and he "hopes they are responsive" to his overtures.
Although earlier this evening:
Green Party co-spokesman Peter Eriksson reiterated that his party will not work with the Alliance to form a majority government, but left the door open for possible cooperation with the Liberal and Centre Parties, calling them "natural" partners. "It is not realistic," Eriksson told The Local after he and co-spokeswoman Maria Wetterstrand addressed the rapturous crowd at the party's election headquarters on Sunday. "We have very good politics with the Red-Green parties. There is a very big difference with the Alliance."
"It is not realistic," Eriksson told The Local after he and co-spokeswoman Maria Wetterstrand addressed the rapturous crowd at the party's election headquarters on Sunday. "We have very good politics with the Red-Green parties. There is a very big difference with the Alliance."
The Liberal, Center, and Greens have a total of 71 seats so they provide the majority for either the Moderate or Social Democrats to form a government.
Meanwhile, the Moderate Party is screwed as long as the Greens refuse to join the coalition. Alliance doesn't have the seats unless they rope in the Swedish Democrats AND keep the Center AND Liberals in the coalition. From what I'm reading: Lot's o' Luck. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Just about the best scenario for the Swed-Dems as they can claim credit for whatever good happens and always fall back on, "WE weren't in the government!"
From an outsider's perspective, the Liberal and Center party leaders would have to be out of their minds to go this route. They would get beaten-up for whatever bad things happened AND they would be seen as allying with the Swed-Dems, simultaneously pushing both their Right and Left wings away from the party. She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
How long will the SDs be willing to support a government they don't get anything out of and continues a policy it is their whole purpose to change? She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
They won't survive that in the polls, of course, but if they had any inclination to value partisan survival above the interests of their bloc, they wouldn't have let themselves become so firmly installed in the Moderates' back pocket. Being kingmakers is the raison d'etre for parties like the Center Party. Aligning, or being forced to align, with one bloc or the other ahead of time suffocates them in the same way trying to out-Thatcher the Tories suffocates a Social Democratic party.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
On Wednesday the final count will be completed. Until then we'll see posturing, but nothing else. Then the real bargaining will start. This might last about two weeks, until parliament opens.
Right now there are only two options: either the Greens join the Alliance in government, or the Alliance will go it alone and damn the torpedoes. They probably feel pretty comfortable with that, even if they won't be able to win all the sessions in parliament. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
X-ref: JakeS' comment, above, I don't quite see why the Center or Liberal Parties have to go along if they can cut a better deal. Either with the Social Democrats -- who are, after all, still the largest party -- or the Moderates since the Greens, Center, and Liberal parties, together, control the next government. The last two may have wedded themselves so firmly, tactically or ideologically, to the Moderate controlled Alliance that they can't wiggle out, I don't know the answer to either question.
The Center and Liberals have an "out" since they can always claim they are not going to be in a government that relies on the Swedish Democrats. How far & well can that Play? shrug Don't know.
In fact the entirety of my ignorance is stunning.
:-) She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Another thing to remember is that the Center party is the greatest opponent of the Greens joining the centre-right, as they would occupy basically the same niche. And as the Center party kinda lacks ideology, does its best to alienate its core voters and generally just is an organisation with $300 million fortune who wants to secure jobs for its leading party members... well. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Anyway, I think the basic principle in the Swedish parliament is that you don't need the support of a majority of the votes, you just need to make sure you have more votes than your opponent. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
SD might extract a political price from the Alliance for the promise not to do any of these things. But all this requires that SD forms a united front with the left on these issues.
On the other hand, if SD in any way pull the government down, they're taking a huge risk. On one hand they might well get more mandates after a new election, as they would get access to media in an entirely new way (censorship and discrimination against them has been widespread during this election).
On the downside, they might be seen as the people who caused the crisis and be punished by the voters for this. They might even be voted out of parliament, which would be an absolute disaster, as parliament is their ticket to the media, and to huge sums of government money the will recieve as party entitlements.
So it's a game of chicken. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
For example : they vote against the Alliance government's budget. Normal. That's what an opposition does. And if the SD vote against the budget too... ? (something the left have no control over). Then the left have united with the SD to bring the government down! It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
You are essentially proposing that a cordon sanitaire narrative is going to be turned into a grand coalition narrative. The only people to really benefit from that would be the Swedish Democrats [sic]: It would be disastrous for the Left bloc - all the pain of being in a grand coalition without even the limited and temporary gains. And it would be an embarrassment for the right-wing bloc, since going from being in government to being in a grand coalition is something you do after you lose an election (see Germany for precedent). So that is no not going to be easy, though no doubt the racist party and their prostituted journalists will try their worst.
Ugly parties like to promise ponies for everyone on the economic front. But when the wheel hits the rail and they actually have to cast votes, they tend to toe the right-wing line. Because they normally care more about not liking brown people than about economic policy, so the latter is where they sell out.
Because they normally care more about not liking brown people than about economic policy, ...
Let's see. Promote a policy that creates wealth or a policy that screws the darkies? Yeah, choice two.
Beautiful. They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
But, there is more to this than campaign vs. policies. This modern Western sense of what constitutes economic rigt and economic left is too narrow. Most right-wing governments around the world in the last two centuries were rather illiberal on the economy, and policies included, not without opposition from liberals of the day, semi-Keynesian state spending programmes (say, railways or city renewals) and state paternalism (say, the origins of the welfare state under Bismarck) which are now commonly attributed to the economic left. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 22 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Oui - Jan 2729 comments
by Cat - Jan 2522 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 144 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1215 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 921 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments