Swedish election 2010

[Gustaf]

Yep. Hasn't happened in quite a long time, so it's bigger news than you'd think. It's only a very small lead, but polling now indicate a tie or something close to a tie. We have only about four months left to the election now so things are beginning to heat up.

The biggest recent issues have been the opposition presenting their budget plan, which basically raises taxes on those who work while increasing benefits for those who don't (people who are sick, unemployed, retired, etc).

When the prime minister charged the leader of the opposition with wanting to raise taxes for 3 million wage earners she replied that since there is 7 million wage earners in Sweden the majority still got cuts under their plan. The PM then felt obliged to point out that there are only 4.5 million wage earners in the country...she later claimed that she had meant to say 7 million citizens, which is worrying since there are actually 9 million of those. (she most likely meant tax-payers of which there are roughly 7 million).

Under the surface crawls the issue of whether xenophobic Sweden Democrats will get above the 4% threshold for parliament seats.

[Gustaf]

Couple of points to make here:

1. The idea that the centre-right has brought chaos to Sweden is stupid. There have been two previous periods of centre-right rule, 1976 and 1991 as has been mentioned. In 1976 the economy began collapsing about a month after the election. It obviously had nothing to do with the centre-right election victory. It was basically the same in 1991. In both cases the economic woes that ensued had nothing to do with the policies pursued by the governments (this is especially true since the 1976 goverment pursued mostly left-wing policies).

Thinking this shows that one has no understanding of economy or is an utter hack (especially if you simultaneously claim that the social democratic government in Greece has no responsibility for the crisis there!).

2. It is important to understand the historical context of Swedish politics. Traditionally, the Social Democrats would have nothing to do with the Communists, but the Communists had to support them, since toppling a Labour government in favour of a right-wing one would not sit well with their voters. The SAP was big enough to rule with passive support from the Communists most of the time. They generally tended to prefer ruling together with the Centre Party however, and pragmatic such governments were formed every now and then. In modern times two things have happened.

a) the Greens have emerged and that coupled with other trends has weakened the SAP substantially. I don't think they have broken 40% of the vote since 1994 and can thus not realistically hope to rule on their own any longer. Also, the Greens lack the traditional ideological connection to the labour movement that the Left Party still has and does not feel any loyalty towards the SAP. The Greens have therefore stated repeatedly that they will only support the SAP if allowed seats in the government (the SAP has not allowed other parties to take cabinet posts since the 50s, despite having a majority of the seats only for a total of 2 or 4 years since then).

b) The Centre Party and the other minor centre-right parties have all moved rightwards, ruling out any possibility of cooperation with the SAP. In the last election the cohesiveness of the centre-right coalition with a common platform and plan for what to do  when elected is believed to have contributed greatly to their victory.

So, with Mona Sahlin coming in as a reformer of the party she decided to form a coalition of the left campaigning as a whole and intending to form a coalition government. This was done in a bungled way though. She originally said that only the Greens would be allowed on board, which angered the trade unions, who distrust the Greens environmentalist zeal (they're afraid it will lead to job-losses in the industry) and who, to an extent, have traditional links to the Left. She eventually had to back-track and let the Left in.

3. In Sweden the cities are much richer than the countryside, and voting is almost completely class-based. So it is no wonder that the cities lean right and the countryside left. It is also not really true that the suburbs form the basis of the right around the cities. Some suburbs do, but in the Stockholm upper class, "suburb" is a cuss word. Someone coming from the suburbs is looked down on as poor, because most Stockholm suburbs are poor and contain a lot of immigrants. So-called "villa suburbs", like Nacka, Lidingö or Danderyd are rich and right-leaning, but others, like Botkyrka, Haninge and Sundbyberg are much poorer and tend to lean left. In Stockholm city, the strength of the right derives from the core of the city, while the further out you get the stronger the left vote.

[Gustaf]

For those interested, here is a link to the results in 2006: http://www.val.se/val/val2006/slutlig/R/rike/roster.html It appears not to be available in English, but it shouldn't be too hard to navigate.

The Swedish system used a modified d'Hondt. In each constituency, the vote of each party is divided by 1,4. Then the biggest party gets a seat and their original number of votes is divided by 3. Whoever then has the biggest number gets the second vote and get their share divided, etc.

The order of numbers is:

1.4
3
5
7
etc

The reason it starts with 1.4 rather than 1 is that the SAP wanted the system to benefit the largest party (that is, themselves). Since Sweden also uses evening out seats to bring the distribution closer to the overall national shares of the popular vote it typically does not matter much, however.

The key problem for the left is that Mona Sahlin is so vastly unpopular. She is somewhat dragged down by her past scandals and people don't trust her to lead the country. A presidential election would be won by Reinfeldt in a landslide (60-40 at the very least) but this isn't a presidential election, of course.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I partially agree with you here Gustaf, in that the suburbs are not the only reason Swedish cities are right-wing but it is still so that the wealthy villa suburbs around Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö are the most right-wing voting places in Sweden and important part of the Moderate Party's base.

Also "förort" really doesn't imply (or even mean) the same thing as the English "suburb". I don't think that anyone would use "förort" to describe Lidingö or Täby although these places are suburbs, while "förort" is constantly used for Rosengård in Malmö, although Rosengård is actually located in the inner-city area.   

Otherwise you do a fine job explaining Swedish politics. Although I'm still intrested to hear what you think about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as the language confusion surrounding suburbs, yeah, what you're saying is basically what I was trying to get at too. However, in a technical sense, suburb=förort. I'd say that the main difference is that suburbs are more generally rich in the US compared to Sweden, which has given the words very different connotations. As I pointed out there are suburbs similar to the American ones but they have the distinct classification of "villaförort" (villa being another intranslatable word, as far as I know).

Anyway, yeah, in the scenario you're mentioning (which I think is quite likely) I'm not sure. It depends a little bit on who gets the most votes. If the government "wins" in this scenario they may be able to hang on as a minority government and I think the Greens joining them would be very likely.

If the left wins it will be much more complicated. The first reason is that I think passive support from SD for a centre-right government is much more likely (they absolutely LOATHE Sahlin). The second is that I think the centre-right is much more entrenched against the SAP than the Greens are towards the right.

Still, I think we might see FP switch sides in that scenario. Actually, the more likely outcome might be a government excluding the Left but including say both C and FP and the Greens.

Finally, there is always the option of a new election. It is completely out of tradition in Sweden, but then again, we never really had such a messed up situation before.

[Gustaf]

"As I pointed out there are suburbs similar to the American ones but they have the distinct classification of "villaförort" (villa being another intranslatable word, as far as I know). "

I speak some Swedish - I always thought that "villa" was the Swedish word for a detached single family home in an urban area (ie: not a farmhouse)

Yes, that is a decent definition of villa. Of course, "detached single family home in an urban area" is a bit cumbersome to put into a word.

[Gustaf]

In the latest Demoskop poll the SAP drops below 30% while M, at 34.5%, is the biggest party. Overall, the government leads by by 6%.

Demoskop isn't the best institute but it is still an interesting trend.

[Gustaf]

Is there any concern on the Alliance part that they could lose the election merely because the Center and Christian Democrats both just miss the 4% threshold?  Say support for the moderates grows, but grows too much so that the other parties are just weakened enough to win about 7% of the vote combined, but no seats.  Have any parties discussed lowering the threshold %?

There is indeed such a concern among some Alliance politicians and voters. Especially the Christian Democrats has been just above or under the 4% threshold in several polls the last year. There was a poll in 08 (or maybe it was 09) I remember that showed exactly that scenario. The Alliance won over the Red-Greens by 1%, but the Christian Democrats only got 3,8% so the Red-Greens would have won anyway. 

But no the idea of lowering the threshold has not been discussed. It might be suggested if a minor party falls out and ends up causing their coalition to lose when otherwise they would have won, but otherwise I'd dare say the 4% is pretty safe. (Remember the established parties also want to have the threshold remain high enough to keep the Sweden Democrats and Pirates out of Parliament)

The 4% threshold was originally devised as a compromise - the SAP wanted it low enough to make sure the Communists got in and could give them passive support, while the FP wanted it high so as to keep out the Christian Democrats who were eating into their evangelical base.

Anyway, as regards the other part of the question, there is a risk but I personally doubt it, for two reasons.

1. Both C and KD are the kind of parties who tend to gain support in election campaigns. They always outperform the polls in between the elections. M is the other way around, they always lose support, often rather a lot of it too.

2. If they do poll too weakly there will likely be a "brother 4%" movement, similar to the "comrade 4%" phenomenon that helped keep the communists in parliament from 1968 and onwards.

[Gustaf]

Is Stockholm similar to Paris or Sao Paulo in that the city itself is wealthy and the working-class lives in the proletarian hinterland surrounding the city, or is there at all an history of major industrialization and working-class politics in the Stockholm region at all?

Stockholm city used to have a large working-class area (Södermalm) which I think was similar to Montmartre in Paris, in that it was heavily romanticized by artists and the cultural left. Over time this led to a lot of people wanting to live there, driving up prices and pricing out all the workers. Now, only rich people can afford to live there, and it does not vote heavily left, it is more 50-50.

[Gustaf]

Most centres of industrialisation in Sweden were away from the capital. Which isn't that unusual.

Yes, that's an important point. If you look at smaller and medium-sized towns in the central and Northern parts of Sweden, they tend to be heavily red-green (actually, heavily red mostly). That's where all the workers used to be. Now, there aren't really any workers left of course.

[Gustaf]

Actually it appears that in 2002 when the Social Democrats won, they actually won much of Stockholm including the most inner-city areas. The areas the Moderate Heroes won look more suburban. So much of Stockholm is certainly competitive, even if the entire area voted Moderate Hero in 2006.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, but it is nonsense. I mean, I actually live in Stockholm so I think I know better what is suburban and not.

It is true that in 2002 (an election won by the left nationally by almost 10% they virtually tied Stockholm (although the right still won more votes there).

It is not true, however, that they won the inner-city areas. They voted overwhelmingly for the right. There is no easy way to ascertain the exact numbers though since the inner-city does not correspond to a given district(s).

[Gustaf]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

You loaded your comment with a lot of political commentary, but yeah, social issues are less important in Sweden. It should be noted though, that the fragmentation of the right contributes to this. Most of the blue votes in Stockholm come from M and FP, while most of the rural blue votes flow to C and KD.

[Gustaf]

Actually it appears that in 2002 when the Social Democrats won, they actually won much of Stockholm including the most inner-city areas. The areas the Moderate Heroes won look more suburban. So much of Stockholm is certainly competitive, even if the entire area voted Moderate Hero in 2006.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, but it is nonsense. I mean, I actually live in Stockholm so I think I know better what is suburban and not.

It is true that in 2002 (an election won by the left nationally by almost 10% they virtually tied Stockholm (although the right still won more votes there).

It is not true, however, that they won the inner-city areas. They voted overwhelmingly for the right. There is no easy way to ascertain the exact numbers though since the inner-city does not correspond to a given district(s).

The map is kind of small but it does look like most of the smallest districts in the center are red.

I honestly have trouble seeing anything on that map, but I don't see how it matters since I looked at the actual results. And I don't really have to since it's like saying that it looks from a map as if Chicago or San Fransisco voted Republican in an election. Stockholm going left doesn't really happen, at least not in modern times.

Besides, unless I'm wrong the map you're posting merely says what party is the biggest in every district which is a completely meaningless statistic in a country like Sweden which uses PR. S has been the biggest party in every democratic election ever held in Sweden, since the right has always been more fractured.

In 2002 in particular, M did especially poorly getting less than half of the vote of the SAP.

[Gustaf]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

Certainly better than some of the other commentary in the thread.

You think a semi-clueless post like that (which has been accompanied by some other pretty strange comments) is better than what commentary? I'm genuinely curious as to what you are referring to here...

[Gustaf]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

[Gustaf]

their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism

Fremskrittspartiet voters as a rule don't want 'big government' or 'statism'. Opposition to high taxes and big spending is one of the party's hallmark...

These things are a bit different from country to country. The kind of people who vote for these parties in Scandinavia are [heavy generalization] young blue-collar males who are disgruntled, racist and favour low taxes[/heavy generalization]. These voters typically used to vote for the left.

If you look at the founders of these parties they tend to be old upper-class males who are disgruntled, racist and favour low taxes. So there is something of a disconnect there that makes for interesting results every now and then.

[Gustaf]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

I know that Gustaf. I live in Scandinavia as well.

But the theory does describe the realignement that has taken place in Scandinavian politics (at least Denmark and Norway); where a large chunk of the old working class vote now belongs to the right.

Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't mean to come off as condescending and I apologize if I did.

The point I was after is more that why the trend you're describing is happening (in Sweden too with the rise of SD, although not to the same extent) it isn't really the same as this supposed urban/rural-social conservatism thing that DL is talking about, imo.

From what I've seen these voters are not necessarily all that socially conservative beyond the fact that they want to restrict immigration. They're often not particularly religious, for instance.

Where in Scandinavia do you come from? I'm guessing Norway based on these last posts?

[Gustaf]

Well, the mainstream conservative party there is made of fail.

Btw, links to detailed electoral data are always welcome

Well, then I hope you saw the one I posted.

(and as regards Fremskrittspartiet, I have to say that I'm almost impressed by Norwegians that no more than 22% vote for such an alluring populist argument. How many countries sitting on that much money manages to handle it responsibly? Ask Saudi-Arabia. Even better, ask Nauru)

[Gustaf]

It is also a question of alignment. The left supports a system of taxing Stockholm to transfer money to the rest of the country (there is a system which literally does just that) and the right opposes it. That sort of thing obviously tilts things quite a bit.

[Gustaf]

or the UK where Labour did a lot better in London than across England

...yet worse than in almost any other large city. At least if we're defining London as the GLC/GLA area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very high proportion of Labour voters in London live in social housing, so are actually outside the property market. I don't know how much social housing (or the Swedish equivalent) there is in Stockholm, but I'm guessing not a great deal. Another issue is minorities; how white is Stockholm?

Stockholm is non-white for Sweden, but I think something like 70% white maybe. At least I seem to recall such a figure from somewhere.

There isn't much of social housing but there are heavy regulations on the rental market so rents are kept low for old apartments, meaning that some poor people live here and there.

[Gustaf]

Stockholm is non-white for Sweden, but I think something like 70% white maybe. At least I seem to recall such a figure from somewhere.

How many of those classed as 'non-white' can vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But, presumably, no districts full of poor people?

Sweden has relatively lax voting laws, I think. You have to have lived in Sweden for at least 5 years without committing a felony or something like that. Of course, immigrants vote to a much lesser extent than native Swedes.

As regards your second question, it depends on where one draws the line...in Stockholm municipality (although not in the city as Stockholmers refer to it) there are places like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensta

But, no, not entire districts in the core of the city.

As regards whether they're actually white...well, I guess you could term Arabs as caucasians if you want. I can't say I care about it, but in cultural terms all non-European immigrants (except maybe East Asians) play similar social roles in Swedish society. This in the sense that they're marginalized, live in the same areas and so on (although there are large differences in actual behaviour between them).

[Gustaf]

But, no, not entire districts in the core of the city.

...which is the key point. London has always had large districts full, pretty much entirely, of poor people. It's actually one of the defining features of the city. It also has districts that combine large numbers of poor people (secure-ish in social housing) with large numbers of rich people in private housing of one kind or another; this is also one of the defining features of the city. If London did not have these things, then it would be a Tory bastion and then some. It also wouldn't be London.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The key point is marginalisation and status as 'the other', rather than dubious 'racial' categories.

Yes, that was basically my point.

Although it should be pointed out that, e.g. Iranian immigrants are much more successful than many other groups but they still tend to identify as immigrants and be identified by native Swedes as such.

[Gustaf]

But, no, not entire districts in the core of the city.

...which is the key point. London has always had large districts full, pretty much entirely, of poor people. It's actually one of the defining features of the city. It also has districts that combine large numbers of poor people (secure-ish in social housing) with large numbers of rich people in private housing of one kind or another; this is also one of the defining features of the city. If London did not have these things, then it would be a Tory bastion and then some. It also wouldn't be London.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The key point is marginalisation and status as 'the other', rather than dubious 'racial' categories.

Yes, that was basically my point.

Although it should be pointed out that, e.g. Iranian immigrants are much more successful than many other groups but they still tend to identify as immigrants and be identified by native Swedes as such.

What about Chinese and Vitnamese immigrants? From my own experience they tend to be more successful than other groups of immigrants, and much more likely to be middleclass and live outside of the million-project suburbs. They also seem to be more accepted by the ethnic Swedish population.

The ones I personally know also tend to be voting much more to the right, compared to other immigrant friends who all vote Social Democrat, or Left Party.

A lot of my friends, including my girlfriend, have parents who migrated from China, so yes, they're rather different. They don't belong to the same immigrant subcultures that most other immigrant belong to and I also think they vote somewhat differently.

Immigrants are pretty mobile compared to other groups of voters though. I believe the current government actually won the immigrant vote in the last election.

[Gustaf]

New poll by Novus:

Parti   Väljarstöd i procent   Förändring i procentenheter
S   31,5                                               -0,5
V   5                                               -1,9
MP   9,9                                                1,4
M   32,1                                                1,8
FP   5,7                                               -0,4
C   5,2                                               -0,1
KD   3,9                                               -0,6
SD   4,8                                                0,8
Oth   1,8                                               -0,1

First column is support, second is change from last poll. Slight centre-right majority in terms of voters, but KD wouldn't get in with 3.9% (I still think they would regionally though). SD in, so no majority for either side.

[Gustaf]

I've always maintained that SCB is the most overvalued poll out there. The main reason for their credibility is a) they're state-run and b) they have a lot of respondents.

[Gustaf]

Dagens Nyheter's reporting of the poll is hillarious. They have all the numbers mixed up horribly.

They claim that M has 47% of the vote in Stockholm län but also 38% in another part.

And for both C and KD they report figures of support among men and women that are both below the average for the entire population.

Anyway, the explanation here is clearly that the SCB poll is done over such a long period of time. The swing to the governement is more recent since it happened after the opposition presented their policy proposals.