The Big Bad Swedish Politics & News Thread

[DavidB.]

Oh Sweden, you never cease to amaze me.

An astonishing video of hippie activists vandalizing Stockholm's Östermalmstorg underground station because of a Sweden Democrats ad. I also read that Löfven has condemned this behavior, but seemed even more eager to condemn the ad itself... What was on the ad?

http://www.metro.se/metro-tv/har-river-demonstranter-ner-sds-tunnelbanereklam/EVHohd!32dTuZtUbTU6/

[DavidB.]

Apparently it's advertisements aimed at tourists (it's written in broken English for one) apologising about the "mess" from beggars and tourists and promising to be the true opposition. It's an intriguing idea - I've never really heard of a political campaign being aimed entirely at people who can't vote.
; but it seems the hippies are really irked by public transport being used to advertise for the SD's.

The target audience is Swedes embarrassed by their country looking "messy" to foreign guests. It probably works well, neatness and order are highly valued by "Middle-Sweden".

And why would Stockholm be messy? Does this alleged "messiness" imply something that can be perceived as racist, or are people angry just because it's SD?

[DavidB.]

Apparently it's advertisements aimed at tourists (it's written in broken English for one) apologising about the "mess" from beggars and tourists and promising to be the true opposition. It's an intriguing idea - I've never really heard of a political campaign being aimed entirely at people who can't vote.
; but it seems the hippies are really irked by public transport being used to advertise for the SD's.

The target audience is Swedes embarrassed by their country looking "messy" to foreign guests. It probably works well, neatness and order are highly valued by "Middle-Sweden".

And why would Stockholm be messy? Does this alleged "messiness" imply something that can be perceived as racist, or are people angry just because it's SD?

My guess are that it's about "Romanian" beggars. In Scandinavia begging was relative limited until the 00s, it was mostly native homeless. But since Romania became part of EU, there have bee a llarge influx of beggars from Romania (much like in other parts of Europe), who also make up part of a new wave of burglaries, cons and home robberies (through a large part of these in Scandinavia are commited by "Lithuanians" and other "Balts").

Of course I include the inverted commas because the "Romanians" are mostly Romani/Gypsies, while the Lithuanians are largely Lithuanian Russians (often people who are returning after having worked abroad, and lack money because they have send all their earnings home to the family).

As such this is likely a campaign against Romanis, not only the Romanian ones, but also the ones who have residence in Sweden.
... and if people think that Muslims are unpopular in Europe, the opinions about Romanis are much much worse.

Clear answer, thanks. Sounds plausible to me. In the Netherlands, the situation is comparable - with regard to both increasing crime from "Romanians" and opinions about Eastern Europeans in general. The only difference is, for obvious reasons, that there are many Poles and almost no Lithuanians here.

With or without the immigrants, I doubt any European will ever come to Sweden and think "gee, what a messy country!"

Lol, indeed But that doesn't really matter as long as Swedes believe it - after all, they are the ones who have seen their city become "messier" (at least if this perception, on which the campaign would be based, is shared by many Swedes, which is something I'd believe).

[DavidB.]

Other news that might give SD a boost: http://www.svd.se/1200-live-fran-polisens-presskonferens/om/knivattacken-pa-ikea.

Two asylum seekers from Eritrea have been arrested for stabbing two people to death in an IKEA in Västerås. It seems that they didn't have a political motive. The police are investigating the details.

[DavidB.]

Two asylum seekers from Eritrea have been arrested for stabbing two people to death in an IKEA in Västerås. It seems that they didn't have a political motive. The police are investigating the details.

It's a terribly tragic event. The victims were a middle-aged woman and her son in his twenties. The police has so far only been able to release very limited information about their investigation. They've said that they haven't found any signs of a political motive so far, but they aren't ruling it out either. It's to early to know anything in other words. The lack of information has of course given birth to various rumors.

One of the suspected murderers are at the time being operated for wounds he himself received during the attack. The as of yet unconfirmed theory I've herd is that he was injured by the son who was trying to protect his mother.

The police is also taking security measures to protect the asylum centre were the two murderers were living, in order to prevent any violent acts of retaliation that might be directed at it.  

Terribly tragic indeed. Let's hope that the other, third victim will be alright.

[DavidB.]

Oh, really... I didn't know that. Indeed, let's not, then

I try to be reluctant in demonizing Sweden as the one progressive Tumblr multiculti lalaland in the world, as some people do, since reality in Sweden isn't that different from reality in e.g. Denmark or the Netherlands (even if the political reality certainly is). However, the buzz around SD's underground campaign amazes me. It shows once again that the Swedish mainstream is almost taking pride in taking the mistakes of so many other European mainstream parties to the extreme. The truth of the matter is that this will backfire epically, like it did in Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK, Finland... I truly believe that the electoral ceiling for SD is even higher than that of the Dutch PVV used to be, before all the scandals. These feelings among voters simply don't just go away by basically saying "lalala I can't hear you" or by calling a party racist. Sweden has an interesting political future...

[DavidB.]

As I see it, SD's success is based on these two "pillars":

1. The extreme demonization of the party itself (and the demonization of every dissenting opinion on immigration/multiculturalism).

2. Other parties not taking the issue(s) seriously. Other parties could even ignore the SDs entirely, officially (through a cordon sanitaire) or unofficially, while addressing the issues they base their success on. From an electoral perspective, that would significantly decrease SD's appeal. Instead, center-right (!!!!) leader Reinfeldt did the entire opposite thing by telling Swedes to "open their hearts" (and their wallets...) for endless immigration. Well, yeah, then you're basically digging your own grave...

By contrast, the Dutch PVV has become toxic for government cooperation by now, probably almost as much as SD, because of remarks that are considered racist by most people. While the PVV is highly demonized, its electoral potential isn't nearly as great as it used to be, because other parties (most notably the VVD) started to take immigration seriously - or at least they made it look like that... As you said, the entire political spectrum shifted to the right on "multiculturalism" issues (except for D66/GL/the new joke party DENK, who constitute the logical progressive reaction to this shift to the right). So while the PVV can rely on protest voters ("SD pillar 1"), the other parties have not only made serious debate about immigration acceptable, but also incorporated in their program views on immigration that are considered more sensible by many people, "removing" SD's success pillar 2 for the PVV.

I support the view that the Swedish mainstream has made an unwise choice. Given the SD's past, there might have been legitimate concerns about incorporating them into a coalition (at least in 2010), but parties should have addressed people's concerns about immigration. These concerns aren't inherently racist and I think it's legitimate to question the status-quo on this issue, especially when all mainstream parties are taking the extreme position they're taking right now ("let 'em all in").

For me, this is simply an issue of the functioning of a democracy. If parties keep ignoring an issue to the point that another party fills the void, if parties continue to ignore the issue if the party promoting the issue is the third party in parliament and is at 23% in the polls, and if these parties even then continue dismissing the very legitimacy of any debate on the issue, then my view is that such a democracy simply doesn't function as it should.

[DavidB.]

In the whole discussion about whether or not to cooperate with the SD, one should also remember the simple reality of majority building. Even if the leaders of the Moderates wanted to try to build a majority with the SD, which would probably be supported by a majority of their voters, then those two parties would still not have a majority. Annie "Unlimited Immigration" Lööf and the Centre Party would certainly not participate in such a majority, and the Liberals would be very likely to reject it as well. There have been some slight rumblings in the Christian Democrats about reducing the numbers of refugees and immigrants, so perhaps they could accept joining the Moderates in a coalition backed by the SD; but the Christian Democrats have a harder and harder time crossing the treshold and even if they just get it, it might very well not be enough for a Moderate-Christian-SD majority.

So for obvious reasons, the left-wing will not cooperate with the SD, and for the Moderates, there isn't really a viable majority with the SD yet. If such a one turns up consistently in the polls, then it would make sense for the Moderates to look towards the SD.

This is a good point, but it only matters in theory, for the simple fact that Reinfeldt has always categorically declined to cooperate with SD - that had nothing to do with majority building and everything with tremendous disagreement on important issues.

Let's also not forget that the "historical" argument "omg SDs used to be nazis" isn't the main reason that blocks government cooperation between Alliansen (or some Alliansen parties) and SD. The problem is simply SD's policy positions on the issues that matter most for them: immigration, integration, islam, and EU. On these issues, Aliansen parties have positions that are miles and miles away from SD, closer to the Red-Green parties, which is exactly the reason why they now opt to cooperate across the aisle. However, as long as the existing paradigm on immigration will prevail, there is little chance for rapprochement (and little reason for SD to change its tone or its positions, since they will undoubtedly keep growing, unless they're led by real dummies, which doesn't seem to be the case to me - see undergroundgate). Swedish parties will learn their lesson the hard way.

[DavidB.]

Personally I think that we need to recreate the middle-ground, obviously. First by stopping to pretend that there are no problems with immigration. If you don't see the problems that the voters see, they are not going to trust you. Then we have to present better solutions to those problems. Simply copying a light version of SD's policy won't hold, both because it's morally wrong, but also because if your policy is just a weak copy of your opponent, the voters will prefer the original. Still the two options in Swedish politics can't be completely free immigration, or no immigration.

I'm curious: what should such a middle ground look like, then, according to you? Because from a "mainstream Swedish" perspective every middle ground option would, by now, look like a compromise to SD, or like "SD light policy".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As an outsider, for me this is the hardest to "grasp" from different Western European "radical right wing" (as they are called in academia, I don't necessarily agree with this typology, but whatev) parties. After all, the amount/influence of radicals/crazies within a party is not something you read about in a party program or even in a newspaper. It is easy for me to assess this for the PVV, but for parties abroad this is much harder.

I've come to think that the amount of radicals/anti-Semites/true racists really depends on the roots of nationalism in a certain country, which is also the reason that the Swedish "radical-right" ideology/movement is somewhat more receptive to "Germanic/Nordic" mythology (which tends to go downhill pretty soon...) than, for instance, its Danish counterpart: WWII has had a tremendous influence on the various European "nationalisms". This is also the reason that anti-Semitism has quite a big part in the Flemish nationalist movement and (almost) none in Dutch nationalism (comparable to Denmark).

I didn't have the idea that if you scratch the surface, anti-Semitism has a place in SD (they have a Jewish MP as well, I read), but if you say so, then it doesn't surprise me that much, because it has a place in Swedish nationalism as well. I did find the SDU video frightening. On the other hand, the misquoting of Björn Söder to make him look like an anti-Semite was a pathetic joke, I think.

[DavidB.]

I also have some totally unrelated questions: recently, I read about Systembolaget. How popular is this among Swedish voters? Are there any polls about this? And how do you, Swedish posters, think about it?

I read that most of the complaining is about their opening hours (they supposedly close at 3 PM on Saturdays and then don't open again until Monday). That seems truly reasonable to me, as I consider it my own personal freedom to buy some beers on Sunday at 10:30 PM if I feel like doing so. But then again, I have this "liberal" Dutch perspective on this issue, which is, of course, not universal at all. I understand that there might be legitimate counterarguments. I'm really curious about your answers.

[DavidB.]

This is an issue where I'm about as lukewarm as the beers they sell.

But seriously, it's a nanny state argument. Swedish alcohol consumption is pretty low by European standards partly thanks to Systembolaget. The whole point is that it makes it harder to buy. The argument to the contrary is of course that it's bloody paternalism and I should be able to get a beer if I want to.

My issue is honestly less the opening hours and more the fact that they don't sell beer cold. So you can never get cold beer spontaneously.

I understand. However, while the total Swedish alcohol consumption per capita is, indeed, low by European standards, people drink a lot when they actually drink. Compare the chart for "heavy prevalence drinking" in Sweden to the chart in the Netherlands. The argument for Systembolaget is then, of course, that this prevents people from buying alcohol more often (and getting drunk more often); the argument against it is that  Systembolaget enables a culture in which many people don't drink "moderately" - they either drink nothing or get totally drunk. At the same time, Swedish drinking culture is rooted in a history that doesn't allow for good comparison with non-Nordic countries like the Netherlands. It is likely that "heavy prevalence" alcohol consumption will not at all decrease to non-Nordic standards if Systembolaget is abolished. Still, I would probably be against it if I were living in Sweden - adults should be treated like adults.

I'm not sure, and if I was it would be too hard to sum it up in a short readable forum post. But since all this recent fuss has been about beggers I'll use that as an example. SD's policy is that we should ban begging, and the Moderates recently proposed that we should ban organised begging, not all begging just organised begging. That to me is SD policy light. A more reasonable middle-ground would be to say that: yes, we admit that the begging is a problem, but these are very poor desperate people who will not stop begging because we ban it because they have no other choice. Instead we need to put pressure on and help the Romanian government to address the poverty at home, while at the same time cracking down at the traffickers that bring the beggars here. Naturally lots of people won't be happy at such a position either, but that is sort of besides the point.

I understand. Thanks for explaining this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I read quite some things about that. The "unclear" reasons that SDU didn't want to support Israel anymore can't be that unclear, I guess - it's probably that they don't like da Jooozzz. It is more worrisome that people within the party itself (and even an MP) seem to subscribe to homophobic and anti-Semitic ideas. People on the left will probably laugh at me for this, but everytime I find out that an anti-immigration party is filled with this kind of people it makes me feel disappointed. As a non-racist, non-homophobic conservative/right-wing/immigration-skeptic/Euroskeptic Jew I truly find myself between a rock and a hard place these days, at least in many countries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I want to abolish it! But then I'm more of a fan of the Dutch liberal tradition.

I'm in the minority though. It has quite large popular support. Which of course is silly since all Swedes that can, import cheap alcohol from Germany with-out any qualms. However Systemet is a rigid part of "Swedish exceptionalism" and culture. Our love and hate relationship with the place is one of few forms of accepted nationalism we have.
[/quote]
Interesting explanation, hadn't thought of its place within "Swedish exceptionalism" and Swedish culture! It's like finding it "charming" if the shower is always cold at home

[DavidB.]

I understand. However, while the total Swedish alcohol consumption per capita is, indeed, low by European standards, people drink a lot when they actually drink.

Well, as far as I know this has kind of always been the case in the Nordic countries, partly due to our religious history.

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that "Swedish drinking culture is rooted in a history that doesn't allow for good comparison with non-Nordic countries like the Netherlands".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol. I almost forgot that, indeed, Finland and Norway have similar systems. Amazes me.

[DavidB.]

According to rumor, Metro Sweden will present a YouGov poll in tomorrow's newspaper which has the Sweden Democrats as the largest party nationally.

That's exactly what the other parties deserve for sticking their heads into the sand. Of course, it will only add to the polarization and to the exclusion of SD - not only the exclusion of the party itself, but also of the issues it raises. Which will in turn, of course, make sure that SD will continue to grow. Et cetera, et cetera. A regrettable situation.

Admittedly, I expected this would happen after the ill-advised "pact" between the Red-Greens and Alliansen, but not so quickly. The mainstream parties have done everything to accelerate the process, though...

[DavidB.]

It is close to the SD/M majority, which may tempt some Moderates if it lasts over a longer period.

But things might be more complicated if SD truly ends up as the bigger party of the two, even in the very unlikely event that M would actually be willing to cooperate with them.

(Of course, the case could also be made that SD being the biggest party, leading to "inevitability", would actually be the only situation for other parties to be willing to cooperate with them, but that seems less likely to me.)

[DavidB.]

A new poll from Novus arrived today:

V: 7,3%
S: 25,1%
Mp: 6,7%

C: 6,7%
Fp: 5,2%
Kd: 3,3%
M: 23,3%

SD: 19,4%

Hmmm. Was the SD surge a temporary thing connected to a special event/news story? Or do you think this is an outlier?

The respondents have been polled from August 3 until August 23, a much wider time span than most other Swedish polls. That makes it harder to compare this poll to polls that have been taken in, for instance, four or five days.

19,4% is certainly somewhat lower than SD's average score in August, but I wouldn't call it a real outlier either. 20-23% seem to be "average". The 25,2% "omg SD in first place" poll seemed more like an outlier.

[DavidB.]

However, many people will feel that they are right, and the other parties will surely throw in all of the elitist arguments against referendums in the worst possible way, and by doing so, they will convince even more people to support SD - which, of course, is the real reason SD does this.

As Gustaf put it:

The Swedish left is so easy to play for SD.

[DavidB.]

Well, yeah, the proposal is trolling, but the real intention behind it goes somewhat further than that and is actually perfectly fitting in SD's strategy to present itself as "the [real] opposition party".

[DavidB.]

Sure. I think we're already in agreement.

[DavidB.]

Essentially because they want SD to be openly racist and anti-Semitic, right?

[DavidB.]

I incidentally know a Sweden Democrat who is a supporter of the SDU guys and who told me I was "on his list" once he found out about my Jewish heritage.

That is horrible. SDU are truly a bunch of fascists.

And these stories politicus posted are exactly the kind of thing that make people mad - and rightly so. This entitlement mentality simply doesn't suit refugees.

[DavidB.]

Wow.

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, the Swedish government is on a roll when it comes to foreign policy. Rumor has it that Sweden is almost ready to recognize rebel group POLISARIO as the legitimate ruler over the Western Sahara. In response, Morocco blocked the opening of the first IKEA store in the North African country. It is funny that this reply is somewhat comparable to that of then Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman when Sweden decided to recognize "Palestine", except for the fact that Lieberman only joked about IKEA.

I doubt many Swedes care about the Western Sahara, but this might reinforce concerns about Sweden's supposedly overly ideological foreign policy ("like a bull in the china shop"), which clashes with the financial interests of multinationals from the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/morocco/11897980/Moroccan-authorities-block-IKEA-store-opening.html

[DavidB.]

I don't really agree (I'm pro-Morocco), but regardless, I have to admit that the Swedish government is at least consequent. This is not about opportunism, it is a purely ideological decision, and even though it's coming from a pretty horrible ideology, it is still refreshing to see (and quite entertaining as well).

What's more, this will confuse anti-Israeli Moroccans in the Netherlands to no end. They will suddenly reply in exactly the same way as I did when Sweden recognized "Palestine", just as Morocco's reply ("lol IKEA lol") was similar to Israel's. Well, Moroccans and Jews are cousins after all. This might be an opportunity to get to understand each other better

[DavidB.]

HP

Why do you support the occupation of small nations? Just to be consequent as a defender of Israeli occupation of Palestine?
(I am one as well, so I don't hold that against you, but I am strictly Israeli exceptionalism - to me Israel is a historical necessity due to extremely special circumstances, but not something that should form the basis for a general principle)

I have to say that I'm a bit torn on the issue, and that my view on the conflict has partly been influenced by things that really shouldn't matter. It's not as if I have figured out my opinion indefinitely, and in principle, I'm open to changing my opinion on this.

First of all, I am against the Israeli exceptionalism argument (even though its consequences "on the ground" are fine by me), because I don't think Israel's existence is (or should be) primarily based on the fact that Jews just needed a safe homeland. Our right to Israel does, in my opinion, derive from our status as an indigenous people to the area, not because we were persecuted everywhere.

In principle, I think indigenous peoples have a right to sovereignity in their homelands. I consider Jews indigenous to Israel, but it is quite hard to consider "Moroccans" (whether this even exists is another question, possibly also relevant to the topic, but I think one could say that there is a distinct Moroccan nation, even if divided in Arab and Berber tribes/ethnicities) indigenous to the Western Sahara, so through that way I could be consequent and defend Sahrawi independence while still favoring Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria (even if most people probably wouldn't buy that).

However, I went to Morocco on a political trip. I spoke with many people, also with Moroccan soldiers who were based in and near the Western Sahara (in a non-political setting, just randomly on a train), and this reminisced me of my Israeli friends in the army. Morocco is the country most friendly to Jews in the area (admittedly, the bar is extremely low, and I know all about the country's past) - I also visited the Jewish museum and a synagogue - and I immediately felt a connection with the culture, which seemed so alike to the Israeli culture I'm used to. Therefore, my view of the country and its culture has become very positive (even though of course I know about the downsides, such as the lack of freedom of press) and this has influenced my views on their conflict, even though ideally it probably shouldn't, because I'm not being consequent.

Additionally, Moroccans I know in the Netherlands tend to see Polisario as terrorists, something I can obviously sympathize with, especially if they are willing to see that "Palestinian" "independence movements" are, in reality, also terrorist. Given the fact that there are many Moroccans in the Netherlands, this also has domestic relevance for me. I was only half joking when I said that Swedish (or widespread) recognition of Sahrawi/Polisario independence could lead to more understanding between Moroccan and Jewish communities in the Netherlands. Of course this is highly unlikely, but one can dream, and if it would happen, it could influence our relations for the better. I feel very positive about certain aspects in Moroccan culture, which remind me of Israel and are similar to my Jewish "way of life", and I'm sure it could be the same the other way around, so I'd love this to become a two-way street, even if there's a snowball's chance in hell this will happen. However, this is another non-argument that shouldn't really be relevant.

In short: I generally don't support the "occupation of small nations", but my positive experience in Morocco and my hopes for the improvement of relations between Jews and Moroccans in the Netherlands nevertheless lead me to siding with Morocco on this issue. This is a position that "feels good" yet is philosophically highly unsatisfying, because both reasons shouldn't matter to the assessment of the situation in the Western Sahara. (Theoretically, another argument would be that Polisario doesn't really represent the Sahrawi people / is terrorist and thus the Western world shouldn't recognize it, but I haven't yet figured out for myself if this is really relevant and if I'm buying it myself.) However, since I haven't found a position that "feels better", I'll stick with it and be inconsequent for now.

(This is probably hugely off-topic, but I still wanted to reply to your post and I'd like to hear your reply to this - if you have any -, whether in this thread or somewhere else.)

[DavidB.]

OK, but why should anyone care if the SDs got the policies they wanted, if said policies are more or less the same the Alliance would have enacted anyway?

I agree that it doesn't matter so much in terms of (economic) policy, but it does matter in terms of who's in office: the center left has played the strategical "power politics" game rather smartly. Still, regarding policy, the fact that the center-right has basically accepted to implement an immigration policy based on the Greens' plans seems like a clear "progressive" victory. It is also doubtful that the Alliance would have been as ideological on foreign policy issues as the Red-Green government, and there's much talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday, which could also be seen as "progressive reform".