Cooperation resolution – Barometer

The environmental party and the social democrats do not really have much in common. It has shown the current government with the desired clarity and it seems every time government representatives describe the cooperation.

The Sunday hearing on the MP language pipeline Isabella Lövin, Minister for International Development and Climate, once again emphasized that the reddish block used in opinion polls does not actually exist.

The incompatibility has become as clear as possible in the so-called high school law, the law that gives a limited group of asylum seekers a new residence permit. From the S perspective, the law is clearly confidential – it undermines the prime minister's message that no one should be no.

From a MP perspective, the law is even worse because a large part of the target group is unlikely to find work within six months of graduation and still have to leave the country. Preparing yourself for standing and ordering costs well.

During the hearing it was also established that there is no consensus on the direction of the migration policy. Lövin was of the opinion that Sweden could receive more asylum seekers than now, Löfven has said that the level must be further reduced than now.

Since the temporary legislation was meant to be at the EU minimum level, it is not difficult to see in advance the problems when S and MP agree on new rules. To judge from Lövin's answer, the Environmental Party is the only party in the cooperation for humanity.

But also in environmental policy, which is commonly referred to as the fate of today's time, the parties are divided. Social Democrats can be happy with strong GDP figures, even if the increase is due to the increase in car sales on petrol and diesel.

The environmental group is a fundamentally growth-critical party. Lövin's language colleague Gustav Fridolin regretted that MP could not have turned his life into a dream "about another society in which we do not measure prosperity in consumption and gadgets." That dream does not meet understanding in social-democratic contexts.

In the meeting of the initial values ​​of the parties there were equally foreign hybrids as in the area of ​​migration. The government was closely involved in subsidies, including products that had performed well on a free market. It wants to build high-speed trains between the metropolitan areas of Sweden, a measure that would be climate-neutral in the very long term, but clearly negative in terms of the campaign of environmental activists.

The government is also committed to private car ownership – now via bonus malus system. It therefore encourages driving in practice because measures that reduce the number of kilometers are not rewarded. And it focused on energy efficiency of homes in vulnerable areas, not because the need was unusually high there, but because it was where the respective brand building of the parties broke out. The effort has become a failure.

Environmental policy is becoming more expensive and worse due to dysfunctional cooperation between S and MP. If you take the environment seriously, you can not wish to continue.

It was a fatal Alliance mistake during the 2014 election campaign to begin to resonate as if there were indeed a governmental alternative consisting of S, V and MP. When the election results became as it was, there was nothing left but to release this alternative – and the rest is a really confusing story.