the Conflicts in the social democrat party is rarely on the right towards the left, but on different analyses of what changes society requires in order to strengthen employment and welfare. This is the view of the party’s ideological nestor Anne-Marie Lindgren of the new book Kanslihushögern. It also applies to today’s social democracy, which need to relate to three basic analyses:
• What problems and needs – based labor movement’s basic values?
• What are the possible solutions available to meet the needs and solve societal challenges?
• What are the conditions – economic, political and parliamentary – to implement these in a sustainable way?
a : increases in pensions, the push for the climate, reducing economic disparities, and a safer working life, etc. Most of these have been discussed and have been run in the past. However, there are obviously different opinions on the conditions, sustainability and feasibility of several of the proposals.
Radical populism is hardly the only way.
however, It is wrong to refer to Catalysis and Reformisternas line that is more left than an ambitious jämlikhetsagenda based on a more sustainable financial basis. For a more populist and radical line leads to large deficits increases the risk of a crisis would strike hard against the ordinary wage and salary earners, pensioners, students and unemployed.
But the party’s criticism of the gains in welfare and increased divisions – as well as increased taxes, pensions and investments, secure jobs, investment in schools, healthcare and care market with more shows that it is wrong.
the Reformists and Catalysis has still helped both ambitious and serious to the socialist förnyelsedebatten, among other things, with a number of new ideas and proposals that deserve further discussion: from the new banking services to klimatomställning. It is a good thing. The social democrats need as a party to renew and clarify what they want to themselves – in addition to Januariavtalet. But radical populism is hardly the only way.
But we are contributing nonetheless, with a number of new ideas, which go beyond and renew the party’s current line, for example:
• A state funding for a more equitable school – tailored for your needs.
• the Ten-year primary school and compulsory secondary education to achieve higher learning outcomes, as.
• A rise in the value of klimatomställningen and durability.
• Increased policy efforts to create more jobs with fair terms and conditions.
• the sharp rise in child benefit.
• Shorter queues and decreased sick leave through the powerful efforts to prevent ill-health.
• Relativlöneförändringar for more equal pay (in the first instance, a trade union issue).
• Increases in pensions through higher contributions instead of through the state budget.
To Gerin, Lindberg and Kallifatides not understand that this is new, strong proposal for a S-policies for increased equality, freedom and sustainability is boring.
the payment of the Tax need to be increased in order to reduce disparities and to secure prosperity. But that closest to the unrestrained raise very many taxes would have a direct or indirect risk to affect ordinary wage and salary earners.
:
• To borrow 4,000 billion sek ”that it needed” decreases the surplus. It does of saving, no matter if, for example, a järnvägssatsning is shall forecast devices or lånefinansierad – it must still be weighed against other pressing areas such as schools, police and pensions. Increased debt financing means that you advocate deficit target set at least for a time. It is liable to lead to wage and salary earners with multiple hit hard if it becomes a crisis.
• the social democrats have now pushed through a reduction of the surplus target from 1 per cent to 0.33 per cent. It creates actual conditions for a more expansionary fiscal policy than in the past. A balansmål would be really best, however, to unilaterally tear up the fiscal framework would open up the bourgeois more than the usual lowering of the Swedish economy if/when they come to power again. Also it would strike hard against the ordinary wage and salary earners and increase the gaps.
• the Tax rate needs to be increased in order to reduce disparities and to secure prosperity. But that closest to the unrestrained raise very many taxes would have a direct or indirect risk to affect ordinary wage and salary earners.
• That the state would take in 200 billion annually to unilaterally re-regulate the capital market, is perhaps not realistic. On the other hand, increased dependence on market funding for the banks run the risk to make the loans.
• To raise the matmomsen would strike hard against families with children, and other regular employees, because Reformisternas only proviso is that pensions and försörjningsstödet is raised.
• the Banks ‘ profits are directly offensive. But to just dismantle all of the bank guarantees would be likely to affect households if a bank goes bust.
: to keep the promise, and to cherish the ordinary wage and salary earners, pensioners with several also long-term. It would be unfortunate to undermine the credibility.
It would be good if the Reformers and Catalysis could both give and take to both the praise and constructive criticism.
the Reformists and Catalysis with high-pitched, criticised the social Democrats ‘ policies, representatives and choices. Socialists must indeed be – with respect and objectivity – dare to discuss and debate more in-house. But it is important not to become alarmistisk or to defame and belittle the is good. It would be good if the Reformers and Catalysis could both give and take to both the praise and constructive criticism. For there is no reason to doubt their willingness, skills and commitment to reduce the gaps.
