Search

Susanna Silfverskiöld wrote that 29 days had passed without a new government. She claimed that Magdalena Andersson had declared herself the winner of the election and celebrated with cake, but had not taken any steps forward beyond "reflecting" and declining to participate in the SVT studio. According to Silfverskiöld, it was understandable that the voters' confidence in Andersson was plummeting. https://t.co/1jm8KmimfO #Sverige #politik #val2022 (translated)

The writer described it as their greatest nightmare to discover as a voter or party activist that they found themselves in the current situation. They referred to the fact that seven percent of voters had unknowingly voted for a think tank instead of a political party and suggested Lena Andersson's text. https://t.co/pX9ZdxjCVs #Väljare #Politik #Sverige #SE (translated)

The author wrote that the voters were strongly polarized and that a majority government would require at least one party to govern together with a party that over 90 percent of its own voters had not stated they wanted to see in government. https://t.co/YxlsAkCMfF #svpol #politik #regeringsbildning #SE (translated)

Interest on interest stated that the voters' decision to vote out a woman and instead elect Nooshi as deputy prime minister, whom the writer described as an Islamist communist, was a poor mark for the voters. The writer also contrasted Gunnar Strömmer with "Mogge" and Pål with Hultqvist, whom they referred to derogatorily. Additionally, the writer described a woman as angry and lacking leadership qualities and suggested that Strandhäll could perhaps be given an important position. The post concluded with the writer calling the situation horrific. #politik #val2022 #Sverige (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the Left Party, unlike most other parties on the red-green side, had not campaigned primarily with the message of saying no to the Sweden Democrats (SD). According to her, the party had not repeatedly talked about an SD government, presented proposals for twelve SD ministers whom she described as more or less uncouth, or warned that Jimmie Åkesson could become prime minister. She wrote that the Left Party also believed that SD was wrong, but that voters needed to know what policies they were voting for. Gabrielsson thought that the negative campaigns and the political representatives' approach to each other had made it confusing to distinguish between SD and the other Tidö parties. She emphasized that the rhetoric had come from, among others, Ebba Busch, Simona Mohamsson, and moderate ministers, and that the politics had been presented jointly. According to Gabrielsson, the Left Party had therefore primarily focused on the policies it wanted to change. A campaign solely against SD risked, she wrote, appearing to target a group of people and giving someone the opportunity to adopt a victim role. She also believed it was contradictory to claim to be able to collaborate with everyone except SD, or preferably with the Tidö parties without SD, while campaigning on a different policy. Gabrielsson wrote that the Left Party had campaigned on its own policies and with Magdalena Andersson as a candidate for prime minister, well anchored in the red-green side. Therefore, according to her, the Left Party should not have to settle for having achieved a no to SD. #politik #Val2024 #rödgröna (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson argued that the government formation should be based on the fact that S, V, MP, and C had campaigned for a change of power and had Magdalena Andersson as a common candidate for prime minister. She wrote that C could not count in parties that did not support Andersson and at the same time demand influence based on their mandates. According to Gabrielsson, voters had given C 7 percent and V 8.4 percent, and V would not accept C pursuing right-wing policies with the support of V's mandate. Gabrielsson stated that C could seek support from Ulf Kristersson or try to get KD and L to switch sides. If that did not happen, C needed to negotiate with S, V, and MP to get a majority behind Andersson, according to her. She wrote that V was willing to compromise, but that the parties supporting a prime minister candidate must also be able to accept each other as a government basis. She criticized C’s growth proposals, including continued privatization of the Employment Service and permanent tax subsidies to cleaning companies and large restaurant chains. Gabrielsson claimed that the Economic Institute, the Fiscal Policy Council, and others had assessed the proposals as ineffective, expensive, and ineffective in creating jobs. She also wrote that the proposals would be financed through cuts to unemployment benefits and sick pay as well as cuts in welfare. Gabrielsson asserted that the most voters preferred a red-green government, followed by the Tidö alternative, while C's centrist alternative lagged far behind. She wrote that more people had voted for S, V, and MP than for the previous Alliance if SD was excluded. Finally, she urged C to first clarify its political direction and implied that the party needed to choose a side if it could not find a centrist solution. #Regering #Sverige #Politik (translated)

The writer urged the parties to do their job or let the voters decide in a snap election. A month after the election, the four parties that the writer claimed had won gathered in the same room for a couple of hours, but the writer argued that the meeting was not about government cooperation. The writer also demanded that all should resign. https://t.co/PLmtPCfBwe #SvenskPolitik #Val2022 #Demokrati #SE (translated)

Susanna Silfverskiöld wrote that voters' trust in Magdalena Andersson had decreased significantly, while trust in Ulf Kristersson had increased. According to her, Kristersson had overtaken the S leader and taken first place, while Andersson had dropped to third place. Silfverskiöld also stated that trust in Ebba Busch and Simona Mohamsson had increased. https://t.co/G77JekTnup #politik #förtroende #Sverige (translated)

Simone Svensson shared a post from Patric Källman on Facebook and described it as thought-provoking. Källman wrote that the picture of trust in the party leaders clearly showed that voters, according to him, discovered Magdalena Andersson's shortcomings as a leader only after the election. He criticized the media for not having scrutinized her sufficiently and claimed that for four years she had not prepared a government alternative. Källman wrote that the red-green coalition gathered to create a common situational picture, not for government negotiations. Despite four Almedalen events during the term, the Center Party, according to him, needed to arrange another Mini-Almedalen in Lidingö. He also argued that Andersson had not been held accountable for how she would form a government and that the blue-yellow team would have won the election if that question had been addressed. He assessed that the red-greens would likely still manage to form a government, but claimed that the cooperation thereafter would be dysfunctional. #politiksverige #Almedalen #MagdalenaAndersson (translated)

Carl Eos agreed with Jimmie Åkesson's reasoning in Expressen about the Sweden Democrats' role in cooperation with the center-right parties. Åkesson had written that the Sweden Democrats (SD) had been driving many reforms, but that the parties holding ministerial positions had received visibility when the reforms were implemented. He also pointed out that the cooperation had limited SD and asked why voters would choose the party over the Moderates if the center-right was perceived as good enough even on issues where SD had taken the lead. Eos wrote that the center-right parties had been able to showcase successes within SD's strong policy areas, while SD had not made corresponding advances in other areas. He argued that the parliamentary election in 2026 would largely be about issues where SD was weaker and, to a large extent, not about policy issues. Eos also noted that both Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson had said that the time after Tidö had begun, and wrote that this would likely create discussion. https://t.co/JWjMHlH2Ri #Sverigedemokraterna #politiskdebatt #val2026 (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that she had difficulty understanding why the Social Democrats did not listen to the Left Party, both with regard to common electoral promises and to the interests of the Social Democrats and voters. She stated that the Left Party had said since the time after the January Agreement that the party would demand influence in a government if its mandate was needed. Since the mandates were now required for the Social Democrats to form a government, Gabrielsson argued that the Left Party should be included. For Magdalena Andersson to be elected, the Social Democrats, according to her, needed to accept this and begin working towards a four-party government. She referred to the fact that the Social Democrats had 28 percent, not 45, and wrote that the party therefore needed to share and cooperate in a coalition government. #politiksverige #koalitionsregering #valse2022 (translated)

Dr. Tallinger wrote that for four years no opposition with a government alternative to the Tidö government had emerged. He claimed that politicians and the media had misled the Swedish population by giving the impression that voters could vote for such an alternative, and believed that the situation should prompt voters to react strongly. He argued that a new election was reasonable because the Social Democrats, according to him, had given false assurances to the voters. https://t.co/Or8UjmkEsK #Sverige #politik #demokrati (translated)

Daniel Schatz wrote about suspicions of electoral fraud in Malmö and referred to reports of combined ballot envelopes, disinformation in Arabic, and voters who, according to the reports, had been pressured to vote for the Left Party. He stated that incident reports from Rosengård contained recurring accusations of undue electoral influence and that a mosque was identified for attempts to sway voters' choices. Schatz wrote that the information, if true, represented a serious attack on the integrity of the election. He believed that the matter should be immediately reported to the police and examined by the Election Review Board. https://t.co/WJ7D7AGfQT #Valfusk #Malmö #Valintegritet (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that she had difficulty understanding Thand Ringqvist's argument on Agenda that the Left Party and the Center Party were far apart. She claimed that the Center Party was not particularly close to any of the other parties with Magdalena Andersson as the prime ministerial candidate in economic policy. According to Gabrielsson, the Center Party had chosen the same prime ministerial candidate as the red-green parties to avoid governing with the Sweden Democrats, but the choice also meant that the party would have less influence on its bourgeois economic policy. Gabrielsson wrote that she did not want to decide which side the Center Party should choose, but felt that the party should have thought through the consequences before going to the election on Andersson. She argued that the Center Party's actions risked blocking both possible government alternatives. Since the election result, according to her, meant that the four parties' mandates were needed to choose Andersson as prime minister, she believed that the parties had to compromise. She emphasized that the business community had not voted and that each voter had had a vote. She also wrote that most red-green voters wanted to see a government with the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party, while the voters of the Tidö parties had other favorites. According to Gabrielsson, parties should not negotiate with mandates from voters who had voted for another government alternative, and she believed that the election result must be reflected in politics. The Left Party wanted to be part of the government, according to her, to be able to implement reforms and agreements. Gabrielsson wrote that it was difficult to understand why the Center Party opposed the Left Party in the government and claimed that the Center Party's content in a possible agreement should be respected on the same terms. #politiksverige #val2023 #demokrati (translated)

Mats Yxhäll wrote that the right wing had long asserted that the Social Democrats were trying to scare voters with the possibility that the Sweden Democrats would get ministers in a Tidö government, instead of talking about their own policies. He referred to criticism from party members against the election strategy's focus on the party leader and SD ministers at the expense of policy issues. Yxhäll also criticized Anders Ygeman's statement that the party would calmly evaluate the election and probably find both things it had done right and things it had done wrong. He asked what the Social Democrats had done right, referring to the fact that the party, according to him, had its lowest support ever. #politk #val2023 #Sverige (translated)