Swedish election, 2018: Political Impasse, Löfven loses confidence vote

[DavidB.]

So let's get this straight one more time. The impression that I had, but I'm not sure if this is correct, is that if M+SD+KD+L = >50% of seats, an M minority government could be formed, sustained from the outside by L, KD and SD (in the sense that they wouldn't vote against the budget), and that M would take into account the policy preferences of these other parties. I realize that L and SD don't exactly like each other, but they don't have to be in a coalition with each other, they just need to tolerate the M govt.

If, however, these parties do not receive a majority... what happens? Does S get the initiative to form a government? How would that even work, if they would have to rely on both C and V? I realize this is unchartered territory, but I'm just thinking of the most likely course of action. How do Swedish analysts view this?

Also still astounded at the voting method in Sweden. Does nobody raise any environmental concerns with printing all these party-based ballots that are not going to be used? I really don't understand why they don't just have one ballot and let people tick a box to vote. I'm glad we do not use this system in the Netherlands - it would require half a rainforest to print the ballots with our number of parties.

[DavidB.]

So let's get this straight one more time. The impression that I had, but I'm not sure if this is correct, is that if M+SD+KD+L = >50% of seats, an M minority government could be formed, sustained from the outside by L, KD and SD (in the sense that they wouldn't vote against the budget), and that M would take into account the policy preferences of these other parties. I realize that L and SD don't exactly like each other, but they don't have to be in a coalition with each other, they just need to tolerate the M govt.

If, however, these parties do not receive a majority... what happens? Does S get the initiative to form a government? How would that even work, if they would have to rely on both C and V? I realize this is unchartered territory, but I'm just thinking of the most likely course of action. How do Swedish analysts view this?

Also still astounded at the voting method in Sweden. Does nobody raise any environmental concerns with printing all these party-based ballots that are not going to be used? I really don't understand why they don't just have one ballot and let people tick a box to vote. I'm glad we do not use this system in the Netherlands - it would require half a rainforest to print the ballots with our number of parties.

So far, the Liberals are as clear as the Centre Party in rejecting a government based in anyway on the SD. The Moderates and Christian Democrats are slightly less hostile. Kristersson says the Moderates won't govern with or negotiate with Sweden Democrats, so he doesn't reject governing on their support. Busch Thor said the Christian Democrats could talk to Sweden Democrats, but not negotiate with them until the party was cleaned up (in terms of MPs deemed over the line). So theoretically a M-KD government supported by SD could be an option. But even in Sentio and YouGov polls, this majority rarely materializes. And even if it did, many in M and KD would still much prefer to go for some kind of Alliance government or even a cross-bloc government.

Most if not all of the Swedish parties would prefer to keep on pretending that the Sweden Democrats does not exist, and then let the biggest bloc between the Red-Greens and the Alliance govern, while the other bloc pretends to be in opposition. However, to their horror, the Alliance parties, KD and M in particular, realized that this was not really popular among members or voters. In the reverse scenario, Kristersson talks like he hopes that an Alliance government could rely on the Red Bloc not joining with SD to vote down his government. It is probably possible this could happen, but with Social Democrats putting all their focus on rejecting tax cuts and increasing welfare spending, they could hardly let an Allianse goverment rule without ensuring its wings were completely clipped. So there is probably a need for a more formalized cooperation or even coalition across the blocs this time. The Liberals talk positively about allowing a S-M government to be put in place. These three parties are close to a majority in the polling average and could perhaps be allowed by one additional small party. The distance between the two big parties economically seem so big that such a coalition would be painful.

You can see the most likely government according to Unibet below. Due to the economic difference between the two blocs, I think direct government cooperation across the blocs is less likely than (parts of) one bloc allowing the other bloc to govern in a very restricted way. What that restricted government would look like is hard to predict and somewhat depends on the election result. Allianse parties might demand a Social Democrat minority government where the "extreme" Greens and Left Party are kept away from government. The Social Democrats might not want to throw out any of the Allianse parties in particular, but would insist on very centrist budgets to allow such a government.

Thank you for this clear response. The obvious problem for the (former) Alliance with the "let's keep pretending SD don't exist" strategy is, of course, that SD gain more from the Alliance than from the left. This means that as long as SD keep gaining (and this strategy seems like a surefire way to ensure this), every election it will become a little more difficult for the Alliance to win more seats than the Red-Green parties. Which means the Alliance would have to continue upholding S governments and bleeding votes to SD until they change their strategy. A grand coalition would also be a kneefall for SD given Sweden's tradition of bloc politics.

[DavidB.]

So what's with the SD candidate(s) with a Nazi past?

[DavidB.]

SD 24, S 21, M 19, V 10, C 7, MP 5, L 5, KD 4, AfS 2.5, FI 2

Turnout 88%

[DavidB.]

Turnout 88%

incredible

It was almost 86% in 2014, and turnout went up by a lot in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands compared to the previous election. I think the turnout "ceiling" in Sweden has almost been reached, meaning that any increase will probably be less big, but in the current international and domestic political climate, 88% turnout in Sweden does not seem like a very strange prediction to me. Denmark tends to have about the same turnout as Sweden and reached 87.2% in 2011, before the refugee crisis and the Trump era.

[DavidB.]

Turnout 88%

incredible

It was almost 86% in 2014, and turnout went up by a lot in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands compared to the previous election. I think the turnout "ceiling" in Sweden has almost been reached, meaning that any increase will probably be less big, but in the current international and domestic political climate, 88% turnout in Sweden does not seem like a very strange prediction to me. Denmark tends to have about the same turnout as Sweden and reached 87.2% in 2011, before the refugee crisis and the Trump era.

Oh no, I know, it's just a rather ironic number to choose. But I imagine you already know that.

If you're referring to that - yes, I know what the number stands for in Nazi circles, but I also think it's actually pretty normal to use it in contexts where it actually means what it means. Maybe it's me, but I don't tend to think of that number as a "code" for anything outside obvious Nazi contexts.

[DavidB.]

Some observations:

1. While the Sweden Democrats have become more normalized than before, there still is a taboo in confessing to vote for them (particularly given Swedish culture and mentality). This matters in telephone polls. Only the Sentio and YouGov polls are completely internet-based, and interestingly, they have much higher numbers for SD than the other polls. Sentio came closest to estimating SD's percentage of the vote correctly in 2014. There is no real reason to believe this is not the case this time.

2. SD have had a very solid campaign. No big gaffes in the last weeks, no truly shocking information that was revealed.

3. Immigration and crime by immigrants remain top concerns among Swedes, despite the establishment parties' push to talk about other issues.

Updated prediction:

Sweden Democrats 25%
Social Democrats 22%
Moderates 17%
Left 9%
Center 8%
Liberal 5%
Christian Democrats 5%
Greens 4%
AfS 2.5%
FI 1.5%

Red-Greens 35%
Alliance 35%

Turnout: 88%
Coalition: M, with explicit outside support from KD and L and tacit outside support from SD

[DavidB.]

A representative of the Danish public broadcaster DR said they would never make such a statement to dissociate themselves from a politician making such a statement.

[DavidB.]

Great analysis on the coalition formation, Diouf.

My result for the test:
SD 60%
M 54%
C 48%
S 47%
MP 46%
L 45%
KD 41%
V 39%
FI 34%

[DavidB.]

"They are not Swedish, they do not belong here"

There are no facts involved in that statement. It's racism, plain and simple.

Usually SD are good at hiding their racism in debates and speeches, but Åkesson really showed their true colours there.

"They are not Swedish" is a pretty factual statement for people who do not hold Swedish citizenship. For Åkesson, the idea that "they do not belong here" follows, which is indeed value-based: others may disagree. Every politician uses basic facts and, based on their values, draws certain conclusions from these facts that others might not necessarily follow. Politics is still about ideas, so "there are no facts involved here" doesn't necessarily tell us much about the value of a statement, unless people get their facts wrong (which Åkesson doesn't, even if you may disagree with him).

If I were Swedish, I would have been undecided between AfS and SD for a long time, but ultimately I'd go for SD and this comment would definitely have helped in making up my mind.

[DavidB.]

And there's just no way that any of the left parties will cooperate with SD at all, which means it's a foregone conclusion that the right side of the spectrum will win the election overwhelmingly (Alliance + SD), with something like a 15-20% margin over the three left parties.

Well, that's nothing new. Alliance + SD had a comfortable majority in 2014 too, but the Alliance still decided to squander it and allow the Red-Greens to completely ravage the country because of the SD scare. I suppose M won't allow this to happen again (never underestimate the center-right's lack of a backbone though), but an S-led government still seems like a real possibility to me. If the Red-Greens become bigger than the Alliance and S has something like a 5-point lead over M, which are both extremely likely, S may want to take the initiative to form a government.

[DavidB.]

The jokes about an S&M government write themselves. It is the Swedish people who will be hurt.

[DavidB.]

I don't see how anyone could support a party that still harbours lots of neo-Nazis, unless they have no problem with anti-Semitism. Evidence is that when these kind of people get into power, anti-Semitic rhetoric like Soros derangement becomes mainstream.

SD are the only party that seek to end mass immigration (i.e. the biggest threat to Jews in Sweden) and the most pro-Israeli party too. In other words, they are the most pro-Jewish party in Sweden. Whether or not there are some people in SD who have questionable views about Jews is irrelevant to me, as long as it is not part of representatives' official rhetoric.

Criticizing Soros is not necessarily antisemitic. Funny how people who defend Soros always play this card when it comes to Israel, but not when it comes to Soros.

[DavidB.]

I guess they deserve what they get. Goodnight, Sweden.

[DavidB.]

Well, SD's rise at the expense of both blocs has caused the collapse of traditional bloc politics (because neither can even come close to winning an outright majority anymore), with cross-bloc cooperation (or cooperation with SD...) now being necessary to uphold entire governments. In terms of bloc politics the result isn't different from 2014 - the difference is that the Alliance is no longer willing to allow the Red-Greens to govern based on the fact that they received a plurality of the vote.

[DavidB.]

How did you vote, Gustaf? Center?

[DavidB.]

Would be interesting to know why they had success in some remote rural communities like Vilhelmina.

Roma/travellers voting for Schyman?

[DavidB.]

It may well be a completely incorrect suggestion, and I immediately accept that it is, but I don't see why this idea was "plain ludicrous". Wouldn't be the first time that a marginalized community prefers a candidate from their own ethnic group in a party claiming to stand up for them.

[DavidB.]

Fine, they don't live there, good explanation - still don't think the idea warranted the qualification "ludicrous". But if you insist on being rude I guess that says more about you.

[DavidB.]

Fine, they don't live there, good explanation - still don't think the idea warranted the qualification "ludicrous". But if you insist on being rude I guess that says more about you.

I guess I'm just starting to lose my patience with people from the alt-right raving about how Sweden is doomed and how the country is going to collapse, but when you actually start talking to them a bit more you realize that they pretty much know nothing at all about Sweden and get most of their information from Twitter and Breitbart.

Sorry about that.

Cool, but I'm not some uninformed person or an alt-righter who gets his information from Twitter and Breitbart and knows "pretty much nothing at all about Sweden." You're really barking up the wrong tree. Almost all of what I say about Sweden I would say about the Netherlands too.

Though I'll readily admit that yes, I have no idea where Roma communities in Sweden would live. But it's not as if I was "raving" or even claiming something in the first place - note the question mark in my initial comment.

[DavidB.]

Wow, yes, terrible AfS result.

Ultimate turnout was 87.1%, up 1.3% from 2014. Pretty impressive.

[DavidB.]

Moderate MP Hanif Bali voted against Löfven with his middle finger.
https://twitter.com/hanifbali/status/1044494044955648000

[DavidB.]

A new election might very well not lead to any "punishment" and yield the exact same result.

[DavidB.]

If Lööf and Löfven both fail, could the mandate return to Kristersson or is that option off the table now?