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)
