Something is amiss when every possible solution described as a betrayal of the voters, and when it appears that the most honorable a political party can do after elections is to take away from the ability to influence Sweden. Both parties and we as monitors and describes the policy has enough things to think about here.
For those of us in the outer world, among the media and samhällsdebattörer, it is probably mainly to realize that you can no longer keep up the socialist enpartiregeringens representations and then compare it with the facit – 82 out of 101, with barely approved! or cold check how well the middle-class majority lived up to their joint election manifesto.
politics is much trickier now, and then have the methods to assess the outcomes also become more advanced.
To develop an exact science of course, this is difficult, but it is not reasonable that every compromise of a sjuprocentsparti in a weak minority government – as the green Party in the last parliament – is described as a defeat and/or a betrayal. Just the green Party could certainly have made life much easier for itself, which we shortly shall return to. But still.
For the inner world, therefore, the parties, it is probably mainly about three things. We are taking them intermittently.
the Point that the parties previously shared in coalitions before the elections was to clarify the options for voters and prepare the ground for the more prepared and effective governments.
Each one may draw his conclusion whether the imagined existence of “the alliance” and “red-green” have facilitated or hampered the possibilities to come up with something this fall.
that’s Right, the green Party was there. The risk of being accused of betrayal increases, of course, if you put in the view to absolutely not contribute to X, or to implement the Y. Which is exactly how the MP pursued the election campaign in 2014 (however, not in the years, show that they were of the painful experience).
It is silly to go to the election on a program with many yes-or-no-questions, in any case, if your prospect is to get 5-10 per cent of the votes. It is namely not to compromise itself until it’s being built half a freeway tunnel, or that 30 per cent of an airport are shut down and the housing is being. For example.
want do, not what you not want to do. this point is illustrated, of course, easiest with the autumn deadlocks in the regeringsfrågan. Both S and M said no to all governments that they themselves would not result, and C and L said no to all of the solutions that gave influence to the V or SD. Already here it was run, purely mathematical. Someone is forced to back off or “fail”.
the Dilemma appeared last week, when centerpartister after the failed negotiations, the accused Stefan Löfven for not wanting to “cut ties to the Party”. A curious accusation, when the solution they negotiated was dependent on the Left party would accept it.
the social democrats is often accused of authoritarianism. This will of course have their reasons, but it’s deleted at least from the results of their discussions. Which is more than you can say about some others.
so difficult? Maybe not, but it is there, of course. Who dare to promise less, when others promise more? Who wants to be the one who opens the door for alternative solutions, after having seen how it went for the first Anna Kinberg Batra and now Jan Björklund in the opinion?
No, of course. Therefore, it would be probably best if everyone did it at the same time – preferably before christmas.
