A motion of no confidence is intended as an ultimate guarantee for parliamentarism. But the Riksdag’s sharpest weapon has increasingly come to be used as an expression of dissatisfaction rather than a demand for responsibility.
This is the development S says they want to mark against when they cast their votes. If someone like S in a government position has gone to the extreme against using the weapon of distrust for political reasons, it will be difficult to abandon those principles in opposition. If nothing else, it would have opened the door to accusations of hypocrisy.
“Nothing speaks for a conviction”
It is likely that the party would have acted differently if they believed that the no-confidence motion would pass. But there is no evidence that C and MP would have managed to scrape together the 175 yes votes required even if S had been on board.
The Social Democrats probably also know that if they had chosen to accept the demands of the small parties, the opponents would have immediately tried to make a show of the fact that it is C and the MP who hold the baton, not S. Pointing to the MP’s influence over a possible S-led government looks The Tidö parties as one of their strongest cards.
IS’s second balance lies in the cohesion of the government’s own foundation. When they mark against using a vote of disbelief to show that one dislikes the policy, it simultaneously becomes an implicit criticism of C and MP.
In addition, the abstentions can be interpreted as saying that S, although not supporting, is in any case tolerating the Minister of Climate and Environment.
“The motives of the parties vary”
C and MP reason differently. They believe that Romina Pourmokhtari is breaking the climate law by increasing emissions. The fact that the climate action plan lacks concrete measures to compensate in the short term for reduced reduction obligations and reduced fuel tax became an opportunity to square the criticism. But the motives vary:
C: Has both lost confidence in the climate issue and ended up in the dark. Initiating a vote of no confidence gave an opportunity to be seen in one of the party’s most important profile issues.
MP: The former mouthpiece Per Bolund rejected The Centre’s initiative with the argument that such a maneuver would rather strengthen the government. But the parliamentary group protested. Letting C appear as the government’s sharpest critic was judged to be a greater risk for a party that wants to maintain its position of strength in the environmental and climate issue.
V: Immediately supported C and MP’s demands and the explanation is simple. When asked if the Riksdag has confidence in the minister, it is impossible for the party to answer anything other than no.
“Difficult accusations to defend against”
A principled objection is that the government is collectively responsible for the policy pursued. Thus, the mistrust should rather be directed at the prime minister. But raising it against Ulf Kristersson (M) was never relevant. Such a maneuver had opened the door to accusations of irresponsibility in a difficult security political situation, accusations that C and MP had found it difficult to defend against.
The question is whether the Social Democrats’ decision means that there will be less distrust in the future. Much speaks for it, at least as long as the Tidö collaboration is intact and the government has a majority.
In any case, it is clear that Romina Pourmokhtari can clearly demonstrate with tomorrow’s exercise that she has the Riksdag’s support for her policy.