Swedish election 2010

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[DL]

Isn't it more accurate to describe people as "immigrants" rather than as non-white. There are relatively few Africans or east Asians in Sweden who are genuinely "non-white" - but there are a lot of immigrants from southern Europe and the Middle east who are all White in that they are Caucasian.

[Mjh]

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.

What I don't understand though is how Fremskritt managed to become so big? I mean here in Sweden we sometimes joke about how dumb Norwegians are suppouse to be... but I refuse to believe that 22% of the population actually buy their crap about if we just get rid of immigrants and use more of our oil money, we can afford to both increase spending and lower taxes.

No offence taken!
But you guessed right. I live in Norway.

To understand Fremskrittspartiet you need to understand the context in which the party grew. For a long time Norway was exactly like Sweden, in the sense that the mainstream parties didn't want to talk about immigration. That was until Fremskrittspartiet made it an issue in the late eighties/early nineties.
Prior to that, FRP had been a somewhat thatcherite bunch, dedicated to cutting taxes and abolishing the welfare state. The party's long time leader, Carl I. Hagen even proposed that one million Chinese workers should be allowed to settle in Norway, to subject the "lazy" Norwegian workers to the discipline of the free market.

But ,to quote Barry Goldwater, they realised that they should "hunt where the ducks are". And immigration, supplementet with petroleum populism proved to be a potent mixture.
They were able to draw upon disgruntled social democratic voters, who felt that Arbeiderpartiet had abandoned them, and voters from the mainstream centre-right that believed that Høyre weren't sufficiently radical enough about taxes.

Today one can say they have been the victims of their own success. The national debate regarding immigrations has changed, perhaps for good. The debate is not whether we should have non-western immigration, but rather how we should curb it to the greatest extent possible.

[Hash]

Isn't it more accurate to describe people as "immigrants" rather than as non-white. There are relatively few Africans or east Asians in Sweden who are genuinely "non-white" - but there are a lot of immigrants from southern Europe and the Middle east who are all White in that they are Caucasian.

It's a minor wedge question of phonetics and political views. It's irrelevant.

[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).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[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.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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.

[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.

[Insula Dei]

BTW, I'd like to apologize for my overtly hackish and partisan comments earlier on in this thread.
I got carried away a bit I'm afraid.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Ugghh, the Novus poll would create exactly the deadlock scenario between the Red-Greens and the Alliance I described earlier. Still with the Moderates the biggest party, and the Alliance slightly bigger than the left, it would probably be possible to get the Greens support to continue the current goverment.

Noted that Peter Eriksson (Green leader for those not familiar with him) specificly stated during his interview on Korseld that the agreement between the Greens and the Social Democrats to work with eachother until 2020 wasn't valid any longer. (Backpaddle, backpaddle) So he seems open for another solution.

BTW, I'd like to apologize for my overtly hackish and partisan comments earlier on in this thread.
I got carried away a bit I'm afraid.

Don't worry about it. Happens to the best of us sometimes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BTW, I'd like to apologize for my overtly hackish and partisan comments earlier on in this thread.
I got carried away a bit I'm afraid.

Happens to us all, sometimes. Have a look at some of the threads from the recent election over here

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Right so SCB realeased their famous last oppinion poll today. Which shows the Red-Greens still maintain a slight advantage in that one. The SCB poll is famous since it has been correct in projecting the winner of every election since 1973. The Red-Greens are of course vivid about the results, as are Swedish news papers who're writing essays analysing the results.

Former Minister of Education and the Social Democrats Party Secretary Ibrahim Baylan, sounded a lot more confident today than he has in a long time, but still noted though, that the Social Democrats have a history of doing worse on election day in the SCB poll, and considering they only got 33% in the poll, that seems to be bad news for the party itself. (In 06 they got 40% in the SCB poll, and ended up with 36% on election night) He then went on to say the Social Democrats still aim at 40% (Lol, Baylan)

SCB poll, results

Red-Greens - 50,2%

S - 33,8%
Mp - 10,7%
V - 5,6%

Alliance - 44,2%

M - 29,2%
C - 4,6%
Kd - 4,5%
Fp - 5,8%

The Sweden Democrats barely fail to reach the 4% threshold with 3,9%, but I think they'd be able to get in anyway by breaking 12% in either Skåne West, or Skåne North & East.


If you ask me, I don't buy it. The poll shows a better result for the Red-Greens than any other (creditable) poll from the last two months. The People Party (Fp) result is too low as well. Although SCB has a history of underpolling the minor parties so the last one might not be that strange.

There's been a lot of fuzz around this poll, so much you could almost think it's the actual election result and not another poll. Still SCB's track record when it comes to the winner, is as I've mentioned spottless.
 

[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.

[Gustaf]

This link shows the evolution of party support since 1979: http://www.dn.se/nyheter/valet2010/folj-opinionens-vindar-19792010-1.1112402

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well maybe transexuals that refuse to identify as either of the genders vote heavily for C and Kd thus bringing the national vote up

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.

Yeah I thought that might be the case. Also do you know why they have their last poll so early? It would have made more sense to have it in August. A lot of things can happen in four months.

[Gustaf]

Well maybe transexuals that refuse to identify as either of the genders vote heavily for C and Kd thus bringing the national vote up

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.

Yeah I thought that might be the case. Also do you know why they have their last poll so early? It would have made more sense to have it in August. A lot of things can happen in four months.

I think they want to avoid being compared to the actual result.

They apparently made an unofficial poll right before the election in 2006 and it predicted a red-green victory.

[Gustaf]

A recent poll asks people who they think would perform best as PM on a number of issues out of Reinfeldt and Sahlin. Reinfeldt leads on all counts with margins ranging from 8% to 40%.

Sahlin continues to be the greatest liability for the opposition.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

For anyone intrested in the results from the poll mentioned above:

Who do think would do a better job...

 ...representing Sweden abroad?

Reinfeldt: 68%
Sahlin 18%

 ...leading the country during a national crisis?

Reinfeldt: 62%
Sahlin: 20%

 ...comanding a majority in parliament in favour of their policies?

Reinfeldt: 55%
Sahlin: 26%

 ...inspire Sweden with hope for a better future?

Reinfeldt: 46%
Sahlin: 37%


If you'd ask me though, I'd say Sahlin is doing an amazing job as leader of the opposition. I wouldn't mind her continuing with that for another 4 or 8 years.

Maybe next time the Social Democrats will actually elect a leader based on merits, and not gender.

 

 

[DL]

On a totally different note, I'm curious about something. What would motive someone who lived in a city in Sweden to vote for the Centre party?? My understanding is that they are largely an agrarian party that mainly acts as a lobby group for farmers and mostly pushes for bigger agricultural subsidies. So if you live in the middle of Stockholm why would you want that?

I realize the Centre party also tries be sort of kind of environmentalist (even though farmers probably do more to destroy the environment than anyone!) and that they try to position themselves as kind of sort of "centrist" compared to the Moderaterna - but if you want environmentalism - why not vote Miljo party and if you want a wishy-washy centrist party to act as a brake on the Moderates - why not vote Folkpartiet?

I'm just wondering.... 

[Gustaf]

On a totally different note, I'm curious about something. What would motive someone who lived in a city in Sweden to vote for the Centre party?? My understanding is that they are largely an agrarian party that mainly acts as a lobby group for farmers and mostly pushes for bigger agricultural subsidies. So if you live in the middle of Stockholm why would you want that?

I realize the Centre party also tries be sort of kind of environmentalist (even though farmers probably do more to destroy the environment than anyone!) and that they try to position themselves as kind of sort of "centrist" compared to the Moderaterna - but if you want environmentalism - why not vote Miljo party and if you want a wishy-washy centrist party to act as a brake on the Moderates - why not vote Folkpartiet?

I'm just wondering.... 

Well, hardly anyone in the cities vote for the Centre Party, so it is a bit moot, but...

Miljöpartiet is pretty out there on the fringe. I know a lot of people who want responsibile environmental policies and are not far-left who prefer the Centre Party.

A large part of the success in the cities is that the Centre Party has made some libertarian noises in recent years, positioning themselves far to the right of M on issues like labour laws and business policies.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

On a totally different note, I'm curious about something. What would motive someone who lived in a city in Sweden to vote for the Centre party?My understanding is that they are largely an agrarian party that mainly acts as a lobby group for farmers and mostly pushes for bigger agricultural subsidies. So if you live in the middle of Stockholm why would you want that?

Guess that since I'm a person living in a relativly large city (21.000 inhabitans) as well as a Centre party voter, I'd presumebly be the right person to answer this question.

The sterotype of the Centre party as a "farmer" party lives on from the first half of the 20th century when the party was actually called the Farmer party and was a party only dedicated to promoting pro-farming legislation. During the 40's and 50's however the party actually started to develop a real ideology, similar to regular social liberalism, but slightly more to the left on economics. The idea that we're only a party for people living on the countryside, is something we've been trying to do something about since the 60's, but in our class-based voting society it has been proven very hard to erase our reputation.

As to your question, why I vote for them, and why I think other people should vote for them. The Centre party is very strongly in favour of decentralisation, and strongly promote local goverment, something I support very much myself. They're also big supporters of small-business owners, wanting to erase much of the byrochrasy and regulation, lower corporate taxes for smaller companies, and ease the Swedish Labour laws. Further they're the only party on the right that are against the Euro, and are most euroscheptic towards the EU. They've also been the most socially progressive party in Sweden, being the first party to have a female MP, a female leader, and an openly gay goverment minister. It was during the premiership of a Centre party leader female succession to the Swedish throne was established, and the Centre party was one of the first parties to support same-sex marriage and adoption.

I realize the Centre party also tries be sort of kind of environmentalist (even though farmers probably do more to destroy the environment than anyone!) and that they try to position themselves as kind of sort of "centrist" compared to the Moderaterna - but if you want environmentalism - why not vote Miljo party and if you want a wishy-washy centrist party to act as a brake on the Moderates - why not vote Folkpartiet?

I'm sure the bosses on BP will be glad to hear they aren't the worst at destroying the enviorment.

Folkpartiet (People's Party) are similar to Centre on many issues as they're both social liberal parties, but there are a number of issues were they are eachothers opposites. Fp is the most EU and Euro positive party in Swedish politics, C is as mentioned sceptic. Fp wants to increase use of nuclear-power, C wants to abolish it when there's a viable option. Fp wants more centralisation, C wants decentralisation.

Miljöpartiet (The Greens) are alright, they agree with C on many core issues, but they unfortunatley come with two awful defects, namly Socialdemocrats and Communists.

Tl;dr I know, but you asked.