Something has broken in the Social Democrats

Prime Minister Stefan Löfven became a prisoner in his own rhetoric of the election campaign in 2014, when he was interviewed in Swedish television on Tuesday evening.

A heavy night.

A heavy night.

The message that opened the door to Rosenbad for former party leader Stefan Löfven 2014 can now also make the prime minister refrain from power after only one term of office.

Swedish governments usually lose their support during a term of office. But that they have ever been resold is not uncommon. If Löfven succeeds in reversing the opinion, then something of an Indian reply is needed, although the Social Democrats are often inclined to withdraw certain elections at the end of the electoral movement.

But the rhetoric of the last elections is even worse now. Nevertheless, during the evening, Löfven went on with welfare against tax cuts and reiterated that the state had invested too little in the public sector. Investments are also a language novel for current regular expenses.

In the 2014 election campaign, the S-labeled rebellion was that "something has been broken in Sweden". Now the tone mode is different. The promises of the Social Democrats about healthcare – one of the most central parts of prosperity – proved far from the forefront according to SVT & # 39; s calculations, and the queues have also been considerably longer since the compromise was ended. The person now pointing to problems in medical care is now being accused by the premier in the interview for "blackmail".

Even in this interview, the social-democratic response to welfare challenges was saying no to tax cuts. It is actually a rather unusual strategy of the party that dominated Swedish politics. Social democracy has different sides, not the least depending on who leads the party. But the part of social democracy has a history of reform and is known for budgetary discipline. Now the answers are, instead, recurring restrictions and stops – not reforms and changes. Moreover, the approach of civil parties is bad. The moderators are no longer a party to system change and the "neoliberal & # 39; era is over. The Reinfeld treaty showed the electorate that civilian parties hijack the health care purchasers and implement reforms that open more health centers.

Add to this that the rhetoric of tax cuts as a threat of well-being also went on patrol.

"You can not lower taxes and improve prosperity, you can not," said the prime minister.

The program leaders requested figures from the Swedish Financial Reporting Agency and the Riksdag Investigation Service on how tax cuts can be produced as something that hampers prosperity when schools, care and health care receive more resources, both under the Persson government and Reinfeldt, while the winners enjoy more could keep their wages.

In that context it was at least not entirely successful when Löfven's words about a future S tax proposal were interpreted as referring to the so-called "Entrepreneurial Tax 3: 12" rules. There are problems that bourgeois parties must also take into account that labor income is taxed as capital, but to put a similarity between increased taxes and better welfare does not work anymore. More work, more working hours through deduction of workload and taxes that encourage entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship also give more to the welfare.

Stefan Löfven had a few short good moments. He seems to be the best in terms of new hot conflict issues pertaining to the dimension of the country of the city or, for example, order and discipline as opposed to a more radical criminal policy.

The State Secretary has not wisely defended the position that the consumption of Swedish meat is a precondition for a climate-friendly Swedish agricultural future. He addressed the complex issue of the impact of high CO2 tax on auto-dependent rural communities. Even the removal of the so-called youth discount in terms of sanctions defended Löfven by force.

Here, Löfv & # 39; s heart questions are reflected. Industry, production and rural areas.

Unfortunately for Löfven he is most involved in issues that also emphasize the differences between the government partner, the Environmental Party. A party that he mentioned yesterday with which he wants to keep working.

While ministerial colleagues today criticize the alliance parties because they have too few common proposals, the red-green parties have not presented any election. Others get criticism because they do what the government does not do.

It was not just the best evening of the prime minister in yesterday's electoral movement.

Source link

Leave a Reply