Swedish election!

But in Sweden and Denmark, it goes beyond the mere reform that is needed in countries such as France. Taxes are so high that you could actually get a larger revenue by cutting them! In other words, by cutting them you could get more money for social programs aimed at the poor! So the people "kicking the poor" are those keeping taxes that high.
Well, that is the current cons-lib government's gambit.

And they are in a way being rewarded, as they seem to be set to increase their share of the votes compared to their 2006 election win. They make a super-duper election, and the Red-Green alliance is being comprehensively stomped.

The difference this time, is the upset the Swedish Democrats are causing in the distribution of seats in parliament.

Sweden has a 349 seat parliament. 175 seats gives you a majority government. The Government have controlled 178 seats the last four years. Now they have increased their electoral base, but still seem set to get bumped down to 173 or so. (The Red bit of the Red-Green alliance has almost collapsed by comparison. The Green are doing well individually.)

So, we seem to get a lib-cons government looking to continue down the road they chose four years ago with more support from the Swedish people than ever. Except now they will have to do it as a minority government, with the anti-immigration right wing populists having the swing-vote.
 
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Yeah, like that would ever happen. Even the Laffer Curve says you're wrong about that. Swedish tax rates are quite a bit lower than Germany, btw, and the German economy has no problems because of them.

Well I did present a paper, written by actual economists of the actual European Central Bank, while all you have produced is your usual crap, with juvenile smiles and whatnot.

I won't waste my time with you. Grow up.
 
Well, that is the current cons-lib government's gambit.

And they are in a way being rewarded, as they seem to be set to increase their share of the votes compared to their 2006 election win. They make a super-duper election, and the Red-Green alliance is being comprehensively stomped.

The difference this time, is the upset the Swedish Democrats are causing in the distribution of seats in parliament.

Sweden has a 349 seat parliament. 175 seats gives you a majority government. The Government have controlled 178 seats the last four years. Now they have increased their electoral base, but still seem set to get bumped down to 173 or so. (The Red bit of the Red-Green alliance has almost collapsed by comparison. The Green are doing well individually.)

So, we seem to get a lib-cons government looking to continue down the road they chose four years ago with more support from the Swedish people than ever. Except now they will have to do it as a minority government, with the anti-immigration right wing populists having the swing-vote.

Well, when the numbers are out please provide the share of the popular vote and number of seats each party got!

I'm interested now!
 
(The Red bit of the Red-Green alliance has almost collapsed by comparison. The Green are doing well individually.)

So, we seem to get a lib-cons government looking to continue down the road they chose four years ago with more support from the Swedish people than ever. Except now they will have to do it as a minority government, with the anti-immigration right wing populists having the swing-vote.
I hope the fall of the left coalition has broken enough for the Greens to be open minded about cooperation with the right. I think the right could offer a lot there. They have not been very anti-green so far, just uninterested (actually even a bit positive to some green issues).
 
Parliament looks like this atm:

Red-Green 156 --- 20 Sweden Democrats --- 173 Conservative-Liberal

Still possibly for the Conservatives to get a true majority, not all votes are counted yet.
 
As a percentage of GDP, the tax collection rate is about 20% higher in Sweden than it is in Germany.

Debating economics with Cutlass is like debating quantum physics with a door. The guy made that remark quoting a post with a link explaining exactly what I was saying!
 
Well, when the numbers are out please provide the share of the popular vote and number of seats each party got!

I'm interested now!
Well I'll try.:)

Absolutely final returns might not be in until Wednesday I just heard a voice on the radio saying.

The perhaps odd seeming distribution of seats between 2006 and 2010 was that the SweDems 3,6% or so in 2006 didn't get them into parliament due to a 4% cut-off rule. That meant their 3,6% + some other minor parties got no representation among the 349 seats. This time they got in, meaning 48% or so votes in 2006 got a majority, but not a larger voter share in 2010.
 
Some things are not easy to cover in economical models. Our prime minister Reinfeldt wanted this election to be historical by breaking the Social Democratic hegemony of Sweden. Of course the concept of Democracy must allways evolve or it will decline.
Personally I hope for minority government that will force the two blocs to shatter, giving us a more diverse politics with less direction from party-tops and more power to the representatives in parliament. But probably this is just wishful thinking.

Adaptation to new challenges is necessary and in this election it was the centre-right that convinced these swedes that they could face those challenges. However much critizism and theorizing over how the scandinavian model should not work, reality shows otherwise. Here is what last centurys mostly Social Democratic politics resulted in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.png

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cl_en_2008.pdf

http://www.socialwatch.org/node/9269

In other words, one of the most equal societies yet seen in our history. How does that measure in terms of economics? How much is it allowed to cost? Can socio-economic equality make a foundation for a more productive society? I think research on the subject have differing results. The matter is more complex than the surface suggests.

Of course there are issues, like how to meet new challenges in a globalized economy. Privatization is a big issue on how to relieve state finances but it can be done down different roads. Some voices say the incitements of profit would make for instance schools compete better while others say they would become elitist, unequal and focus more on account balance than the benefit of the students. Should a private owned school be able to profit if it recieves government funding? Ponder the range of possible compromises between control, equality and liberty on the issue.

Also, the elephant in the room: populist right-wing anti-immigrant Swedish Democrats. They got roots in the extreme-right, the last years they cleaned up their image, they banned SS uniforms in the 90s. Changed their logo to a flower, kicked out sinners and took class in rhetorics.

Another ******ed historical remnant is: WE HAVE A KING! :king::king::king: :crazyeye::crazyeye::crazyeye:
Though he has no real political power, I believe he's not even eligible to vote. He does help the business though, he did good in timing a visit to Brazill when Sweden tried to export fighter jets to them.

Also, a few articles on the election from outside perspectives:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/europe/20sweden.html?ref=world
http://www.economist.com/node/17039151?story_id=17039151&CFID=143503046&CFTOKEN=45573518
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/09/2010919142436208265.html
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=449802&type=World
 
Adaptation to new challenges is necessary and in this election it was the centre-right that convinced these swedes that they could face those challenges. However much critizism and theorizing over how the scandinavian model should not work, reality shows otherwise. Here is what last centurys mostly Social Democratic politics resulted in:

In other words, one of the most equal societies yet seen in our history. How does that measure in terms of economics? How much is it allowed to cost? Can socio-economic equality make a foundation for a more productive society? I think research on the subject have differing results. The matter is more complex than the surface suggests.

Peace is War
Slavery is Freedom
Strength is Ignorance
 
It's (the election result) so embarrassing! :cringe: Sweden's turned bigoted. I'm ashamed. :(
 
It's (the election result) so embarrassing! :cringe: Sweden's turned bigoted. I'm ashamed. :(
Come on, we've always been bigoted. We've so far just been bigoted about other things. Like looking down our noses at our Danish and Norwegian brethren for languishing with their xenophobic populists in politics. The Swedish sense of innate superiority over people unfortunate enough not to be Swedes has always been pretty palpable.:scan::p

As for Swedes being xenophobic, this is after all not the first time we've had a populist party with a crap attitude towards immigrants. It's just that the "New Democracy" (1991-1994) imploded so quickly, and without apparent lasting effects, we've all but forgotten about it as anything more than a joke. If there's been a mistake made, it might have been thinking Sweden somehow had become inoculated against this kind of thing from the experience. But really we kind of already knew that Swedish capacity for it was still there.
 
The moderates slogan "New worker party" is totally a scam.. The moderates are the same as before, a party for the rich. they just know how to "sell" nowadays. To bad alot of people believed in their scam.

Atleast the greens continue to increase! =)
 
Only for the moment. They're not ruthless enough to keep it going.

huh? what is that supposed to mean?
The greens have 16% of all first time voters this election, if this trend continues the greens will be huge in a couple of elections
 
huh? what is that supposed to mean?
The greens have 16% of all first time voters this election, if this trend continues the greens will be huge in a couple of elections

The problem with green parties is that they don't fight dirty, unlike nationalist xenophobic parties that are willing to play on people's fears and manipulate facts. They try to appeal to the better side of humanity when in fact negative emotions are far more powerful.
 
The problem with green parties is that they don't fight dirty, unlike nationalist xenophobic parties that are willing to play on people's fears and manipulate facts.

True but the environmental trend is really heavy in Sweden, especially for young people, therefore i think the greens can continue to grow and become large in the long run. Not everyone is egoistic, xenophobic nationalists!
 
The moderates slogan "New worker party" is totally a scam.. The moderates are the same as before, a party for the rich. they just know how to "sell" nowadays. To bad alot of people believed in their scam.

Atleast the greens continue to increase! =)
Well, to be fair the Soc Dems are also the same as always, more's the pity...

The govt Alliance is getting approval for 1) actually doing a good job with the national economy, and the country being wealthy and successful has always a huge Swedish feel-good factor, which the Soc Dem set themselves up as the single guaranteers of for decades. The govt is now getting cred for steering Sweden clear also in a huge global economic slump, not just in fair weather sailing, something hitherto only the Soc Dems could credibly claim —
and 2) they are being very, very careful in not suddenly turning Sweden onto something new that might make too many people at the same time stop recognising their country. Everyone's bunching up in the political middle. Even the Red-Greens came to approve of 90% of the incumbent govt's tax-cuts during the election process, and they did so out of stark necessity, since it could be shown in polling that too many voters approved. If they would come out too strongly against those, they would have been hurt. Of course, by and large they got snubbed by the voters anyway, so it might not have mattered.

It also helped them that the Soc Dems have been pitiful in their inability to renew themselves, making the job of facing them for the incumbent alliance alot less complicated.

Of course, in the end a continued lib-cons govt will end up changing Sweden in some ways. Otoh change is inevitable anyway, it always is, which is why Sweden can't be frozen in some kind of mythical 1950's boom, though it's somehow what the Swedish Dems seem to be channeling, and not a few voters are hankering for.

Question is really what the political alternatives are. The Green's vision for the future is potentially much more radical, and thus potentially disturbing, for a great many voters than anything the present govt. have proposed. And as said, apart from the Soc Dem traditional attitude of having a naturally ordained destiny to run the country, never mind which way it's headed, it's actually a bit unclear what their future might hold, except also more-of-same.

To give props to the prime minister Reinfeldt he already before winning the first 2006 elections had proven himself to have at least the right kind of political vision and roughness necessary to purge the upper echelons of his part of all the ideologically motivated neoliberal economy enthusiasts in favour of pragmatists. Thus removing the best arguments ever against his party from the other side of the political spectrum.

Really, I think the Soc Dems might have lost the initiative to really reform already in the early 90's. The more time goes, the more respect I'm getting for former Soc Dem PM Ingvar Carlson as a visionary politician (aka "the Foot"). Mona Sahlin was his crown princess, and if that absurd "Toblerone Affair" hadn't gutted her and cleared the way for Göran Persson as Soc Dem leader (now there's a young man born old, eyes firmly fixed on the past, making all the traditionalist proper Soc Dem noises), it would have been her already back then. And then she would have been flanked by Anna Lind and Margot Wallström. If that trio had come into the position of running the Soc Dem party 15 years ago, I doubt there would have been much of a chance to successfully challenge it. Except of course large parts of the Social Democratic movement actively resisted that kind of change, and apparently still does...
 
Question is really what the political alternatives are. The Green's vision for the future is potentially much more radical, and thus potentially disturbing, for a great many voters than anything the present govt. have proposed.

The future might be disturbing, when Science say we have to radically change our ways :p
 
Top Bottom