You can almost hear the conversation on the Liberal riksdagskansli in front of him.
– Utrikesdebatten, y’all. This is a chance. What can we find?
” I think like this: Something symbolic, far away, that will not happen. But that still makes us look less like a to some extent due to the social democrats, and more as such where tough högeropposition who we actually are. Solid people refuse to understand it.
” Hm.
” I have it! Move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem!
” Ingenious. Now comes the cylinder head go on Palestinavänstern!
– Cheers to Per Ahlmark!
style . The liberals and secret spokesperson Fredrik Malm’s most impactful effort in the face and in the foreign policy debate on Wednesday summed up the anyway effective a little skewed feature of Swedish politics in 2019.
If the minister for foreign affairs Margot Wallström (S) been a little less diplomatically inclined, she could have answered about the following:
“I thank you for member Malmi interesting approach, but is at the same time a bit surprised. The honourable member, the Ore should be aware that both I and the rest of the government sit on his and the Liberals ‘ mandate.
If the member is Ore and his party had chosen to accept the prime minister’s repeated offer to not only cooperate with but also be included in the government had on this issue, as well as everything else in the utrikesdeklarationen, and in government policy generally, could be negotiated between us.
I deem it likely that the member of Ore had been found the results more satisfying on the whole. As far as the known remains of the other offer.”
the honourable Member, the Ore had probably been a little stumped. It is precisely this which is the weird.
the government parties, co-operation parties and the opposition parties. In Sweden we have now established a fourth category, which we in lack of a better term can call the “opposition party à la carte”.
A scheme where the central, well-established parties are in opposition not because they can not govern, or may not, but they’d prefer to be in opposition – at least partially.
to a large extent, though not completely, and certainly not with executive responsibility. In the latter case because of the reasons of the parties ‘ self-images, internal contradictions, and more or less shrewd tactical considerations to make. Certainly understandable reasons for those closest to the bereaved, but probably for very few beyond that.
“It is better that this government falls, than the government is left to decay,” said prime minister Rickard Sandler (S) in connection with his resignation in 1926. Our present-day liberal à la carte-the opposition seems to reason a little on the contrary: It is better that this government are to remain, than that the power is restored at our expense.
also, incidentally, his election assessment statement this week. A fundamental conclusion in the is that the party for the next election should give a clear answer in the regeringsfrågan.
It sounds like a good idea. But why not start already in the morning?