Swedish election Sept. 14th - Red-green mess goes home in the cottages?

[SeanF]

They clearly aren't, because if they were then they would never vote for SD. Regardless of whether or not you agree with SD's politics, it would take a monumental shortsightedness and completely blind optimism to believe for a second that what SD proposes would ever be practical, effective, or even realistic.

There's a quote I like from Ian Kershaw's Hubris which runs something like "There is a time, and it is a very dangerous time, when the politicians cease to communicate in a language that the people understand." I think that an increasing number of people are closing their ears to the mainstream politicians, and listening to what used to be the fringe, but which is now becoming mainstream.

[Happy Ent]

But is this the case here? Seems to me that a large portion of the SD voters come from M, not S. (I confess that I have not gone into the details about where the SD voters are coming from.)

No, it is not. May claim is that this is what’s going to happen. The traditional S voter base (working class men) will go to SD (traditional soc-dem values: not progressive, labour policies to protect your own, high hurdles to get a job, high minimum wage). S will base itself on immigrants outside the labour market.

[Happy Ent]

They clearly aren't, because if they were then they would never vote for SD. Regardless of whether or not you agree with SD's politics, it would take a monumental shortsightedness and completely blind optimism to believe for a second that what SD proposes would ever be practical, effective, or even realistic.

Would you agree that SD’s voting base would be completely happy if Sweden had, say, Canadian immigration policies?

[kungtotte]

I'm not well-versed enough in other countries' immigration policies to answer that, but even if that were true I can't believe how shortsighted and narrow-minded you have to be in order to vote for literally one of the dumbest parties on the ballot just to get the immigration policies you desire.

Like, even if we assume that these policy changes in immigration were the appropriate ones, everything else that you get with SD is just so terrible that I can't fathom why they get any votes. They're a bad party. They are incompetent, they are fascist and xenophobic, they have a bunch of grand ideas but nothing to back those ideas up when it comes to making them a reality, they want to decrease taxes and increase spending and think that the funds for this will magically appear as long as we stop those scary muslim immigrants from coming here because we all know that about 85% of the budget goes straight to those jihadists.

But sure, vote for them because it might get you the reform in immigration policies you so desire...

[Recovering forum addict]

Anders Borg says that he won't be the next party leader for M. Which is nice, but it leaves the scary possibility that the party will be taken over by a racist-friendly faction.

[Lyanna Stark]

Would you agree that SDs voting base would be completely happy if Sweden had, say, Canadian immigration policies?

No they won't since there is nothing rational in voting SD. It's about complaining. I'd say a lot of the right wing Moderates would be tho.

You also assume working class men of today vote S, which is not necessarily the case. Unless it's Norrland we're talking about. For instance, falkenberg is extremely working class, extremely low education and trends strongly alliance + SD. The correlation in South Sweden is far stronger between countryside vs city.

[Isalie]

Only place they don't get a lot of traction is in the North, which remains deep red.

The North Remembers.

[Galactus]

The North Remembers.

Ah, where's the "Like" Button when you need it? :p

[Lyanna Stark]

The North Remembers.

:lol: +1

Well, I am glad someone does. One day they will all stand there with "Winter is Coming" signs and tell the rest of us what sweet summer children we were. :p

[daskool]

I'm not well-versed enough in other countries' immigration policies to answer that, but even if that were true I can't believe how shortsighted and narrow-minded you have to be in order to vote for literally one of the dumbest parties on the ballot just to get the immigration policies you desire.

Like, even if we assume that these policy changes in immigration were the appropriate ones, everything else that you get with SD is just so terrible that I can't fathom why they get any votes. They're a bad party. They are incompetent, they are fascist and xenophobic, they have a bunch of grand ideas but nothing to back those ideas up when it comes to making them a reality, they want to decrease taxes and increase spending and think that the funds for this will magically appear as long as we stop those scary muslim immigrants from coming here because we all know that about 85% of the budget goes straight to those jihadists.

But sure, vote for them because it might get you the reform in immigration policies you so desire...

If all the mainstream parties are in lockstep on immigration why not vote for a party that has immigration policies you want (even if their other policies are insane)? You know they won't secure a majority or form a government so their other policies become irrelevant. However should they get balance of power then it's inevitable that the governing parties will have to take action on immigration or else get none of the rest of their agenda through. Seem entirely rational to me.

[Lyanna Stark]

If all the mainstream parties are in lockstep on immigration why not vote for a party that has immigration policies you want (even if their other policies are insane)? You know they won't secure a majority or form a government so their other policies become irrelevant. However should they get balance of power then it's inevitable that the governing parties will have to take action on immigration or else get none of the rest of their agenda through. Seem entirely rational to me.

Cos the other parties are consistently blocking them from having any influence on immigration, so the only practical influence they will have is on other issues?

This is the kind of dumbass voting kungtotte was pointing out before. It just shows a lot of the voters are totally out of touch with reality and just really want to vote for something to prove they're generally Unhappy about Stuff.

[kungtotte]

Not to mention that this assumes that SD's immigration policies are desirable in the first place, which I don't think they are because it basically comes down to "Nope".

[Happy Ent]

I still don’t understand why it isn’t valid to disagree with Swedish immigration policies.

Do we all agree that Swedish immigration policies are extreme from an outsider’s point of view? (They are.)

Under this premise, it seems entirely rational and valid to disagree with those policies. (As far as I understand, most Swedes do disagree.) Then it comes down to how important you think immigration policies are, and which ramification immigration has on other political issues (health care, labour market, education, feminism, secularism, etc.). If you value these issues highly, or believe immigration has considerable effect on other issues that you care highly about, there’s pretty much nobody else to vote for than SD.

I’m sure most SD voters would be happy to be vote for somebody-else-than-SD if such a party existed. Say, KD with SD’s immigration policies. Or S. Currently, they can’t. So they vote for SD in spite of many of SD’s features, but because it’s the correct way to change the current trajectory of Swedish immigration policies.

[daskool]

Cos the other parties are consistently blocking them from having any influence on immigration, so the only practical influence they will have is on other issues?

This is the kind of dumbass voting kungtotte was pointing out before. It just shows a lot of the voters are totally out of touch with reality and just really want to vote for something to prove they're generally Unhappy about Stuff.

Yeah but they've never held the balance of power before. If the left forms a government and want to put through a tax rise to fund an expansion in welfare either they'll have to get the main opposition to agree with them, do a deal with the anti immigration party or not get anything passed.

[Recovering forum addict]

If all the mainstream parties are in lockstep on immigration why not vote for a party that has immigration policies you want (even if their other policies are insane)? You know they won't secure a majority or form a government so their other policies become irrelevant. However should they get balance of power then it's inevitable that the governing parties will have to take action on immigration or else get none of the rest of their agenda through. Seem entirely rational to me.

They did have the 'balance of power' for the last four years, with the result that the government made a deal with the Greens exclusively covering immigration policy. The end result was an immigration policy that if anything is more liberal than what the government would have come up with on its own.

[daskool]

They did have the 'balance of power' for the last four years, with the result that the government made a deal with the Greens exclusively covering immigration policy. The end result was an immigration policy that if anything is more liberal than what the government would have come up with on its own.

So you think the left coalition will make side deals with the main opposition? Sorry I'm not an expert on Swedish politics just interested in the idea that voting for a party that represents some of your interests but is otherwise 'insane' cannot be rational.

[Lyanna Stark]

I still don’t understand why it isn’t valid to disagree with Swedish immigration policies.

Do we all agree that Swedish immigration policies are extreme from an outsider’s point of view? (They are.)

I don't see how that matters though. "From an outsider's point of view" being what outsider? Are we talking someone from Japan? Cos in that case yes, we are super extreme. If we're talking Germany then perhaps we're not that extreme. So it all depends on which outsider point of view you take.

And besides, how Swedish citizens view immigration policy should be something decided within Sweden, without necessarily thinking "Wow, I wonder if these other countries will think us strange?"

Under this premise, it seems entirely rational and valid to disagree with those policies. (As far as I understand, most Swedes do disagree.)

Well, no. Judging by the election result, this is not a massive issue for everyone BUT the SD votes, which means that 87% of the voters think other things are more important, so where you get that "understanding" from is totally alien to me. Where is it from?

I disagree with how immigrations handled once it gets to the practical details (for instance I completely disagree with the policy of not building rental flats subsidised by the State) but that's not regarding whether or not we should accept immigrants or not, but how the process here could be improved. Which is a completely different matter and something SD has nothing to say about.

Then it comes down to how important you think immigration policies are, and which ramification immigration has on other political issues (health care, labour market, education, feminism, secularism, etc.). If you value these issues highly, or believe immigration has considerable effect on other issues that you care highly about, there’s pretty much nobody else to vote for than SD.

Actually no, if you value those issues highly, you should NOT vote for SD since SD has few, if any, constructive ideas. It is a party built around protesting against modern ideas and wishing for things to be like they were fifty years ago. If you care about feminism, it is an extremely bad idea to vote SD since they are anti-feminist and gender essentialists.

I’m sure most SD voters would be happy to be vote for somebody-else-than-SD if such a party existed. Say, KD with SD’s immigration policies. Or S. Currently, they can’t. So they vote for SD in spite of many of SD’s features, but because it’s the correct way to change the current trajectory of Swedish immigration policies.

I doubt it. KD has an old people appeal and most uneducated countryside people aren't exactly tempted by the Latter Day Saints or the Baptists. Now, if you could get one of the parties to really, really care about the countryside, I think we'd see a difference. Looking at the map (and I like looking at maps) the pattern is overwhelming: the countryside favours SD far more than the cities.

You really need to get out of the academic duck-pond more often and visit us in the rest of the country. :) We have real countryside dumbasses, one of the lowest education levels in the west region, lots of unemployed previous factory workers and quite a high number of immigrants from various countries. And white trash heaven: GeKås. Maybe you could go the GeKås camping and ask them why they're voting SD?

[Lyanna Stark]

So you think the left coalition will make side deals with the main opposition? Sorry I'm not an expert on Swedish politics just interested in the idea that voting for a party that represents some of your interests but is otherwise 'insane' cannot be rational.

On immigration? With about 99% certainty yes. As all the left and right parties already said so before the election.

That's not to say voting for SD isn't rational (it may perfectly represent some people's interests), but in general it probably doesn't represent people's interest in more than one issue. And that issue they will not be allowed to actually have any influence in, meaning you are left with the rest of their politics.

For instance, if I was against nuclear power, I could pick the Greens (MP) or the Centre party ©, but I would also be aware that if this was my main goal with voting that neither of these parties would manage to actually remove nuclear power since none of the other big parties really wish to. Hence you have to look at the rest of their politics as well.

Now, some people clearly don't do that and they vote single issue anyway.

[Multaniette]

since when is it not valid to "disagree" with sweden's immigration policy? (would help if folks were a bit more specific)

edit: it seems to me that a lot of folks, doubtless influenced by the banal and populist nature of the discourse around this topic, direct their ire at the immigration policy (grounded in certain values that supposedly form the very pillars of this hallowed and enlightened western society, mind you) when their real beef is with issues that are rooted in how integration has been handled over the year (very much an economic and ideological issue, oft sacrificed at the altar of political expediency).

[daskool]

since when is it not valid to "disagree" with sweden's immigration policy? (would help if folks were a bit more specific)

I don't think that's the issue, more that white working class voters are 'wasting their vote' by supporting SD. IMO such thinking has become common place among western progressive politicians and their supporters as they've migrated from representing the workers with a concentration on redistributing economic surplus to representing sections of the middle class with a focus on identity politics and environmentalism.