The Social Democrats are Sweden’s largest party. During the autumn, the party presented social analyzes in a number of areas. They have often been strongly self-critical and, among other things, it has been concluded that the migration policy was too generous, that this contributed to increased crime and that the climate policy was incorrectly designed.
In addition to self-criticism, some of the criticism has also been directed at the Green Party, the party that S has collaborated with the most in the last decade.
The purpose, according to the party, of these analyzes is to lay the foundation for future policy. But the purpose is also different.
Public restraint
Opinion has fundamentally changed in Sweden in recent years. Opposition to immigration has increased, there is strong support for harsher punishments and, in addition to this, the parties on the right have been able to exploit widespread dissatisfaction with high electricity and fuel prices in the last election.
That S engages in public self-deprecation is therefore not surprising. It is not least about showing the voters that you understand them and that you are prepared to strike a new line.
In addition, they want to try to triangulate away conflict issues about immigration, crime and energy policy. Thus, S hopes that the political conflict will rather revolve around welfare, taxes and economic policy – subject areas that the party is better equipped to handle than when it comes to, for example, refugee policy and crime.
Triangulate away substantive issues
Whether this succeeds remains to be seen. If wins the next election, the idea is to cooperate with, among others, the Green Party. S leader Magdalena Andersson’s speech at the MP congress last fall cannot be interpreted in any other way. And MP does not at all draw the same conclusions as S about how the policy should change. Rather the opposite. Former spokeswoman Isabella Lövin called S’s latest analysis of climate policy and how it has been unfairly “pitiful”.
The newly elected spokesman, Daniel Helldén, has also made statements that run counter to S’s attempt to triangulate away substantive issues that could become troublesome for a red-green government alternative.
In recent years, voter opinion has become increasingly positive towards nuclear power, and here S has taken a wait-and-see position. Daniel Helldén, on the other hand, seems to want to make it a point of contention and says that all plans the current government has to build new reactors must be stopped.
Nervousness in the Social Democrats
Opinion that is critical of immigration has also strengthened, which S has taken to heart and now advocates a restrictive refugee policy. Daniel Helldén does the opposite and says that Sweden should reintroduce permanent residence permits, which would most certainly increase immigration.
Such statements create nervousness in S, which does not want to be associated with a policy that risks alienating broad groups of voters. Within parts of S, people still remember the election in 2010 when tough demands from above all the Left Party, but also their own inability to maintain a clear line, crushed all hopes of an election victory.
Now it is certainly several years until the next parliamentary election and a lot will happen before then. But the Social Democrats are wise to clear up any differences of opinion with intended cooperation parties in good time before the election.