There is something in moderation



• The party leader Ulf Kristersson is a strong debater, has high confidence figures and a solid social past, an asset in a welfare state that is chosen. The favorite trick of the Social Democrats, which is going to storm legitimate socialism, does not even make Annika Strandhäll. He knows more about her about social security structures.

• The party can recruit people from a permanent circle. Eight years of good new government experience is still in the background and murders are heavy names like Carl Bildt who are willing to take over the responsibility.

• The traditional opponent is historically weak. The opinion polls of the Social Democrats are at levels that the party has never experienced before. The mandate period is filled with large and small failures. Stefan Löfven competes with Fridolin over who is the worst in the election debates and avoids the party strategists to expose him.

• The moderates increase sympathy as a counterforce for both S and SD. Liberal debates such as Linda Nordlund write on Expressen on support for M. Through the leadership page of DN has discovered that the moderate project is the most important at the moment.

• For moderately-bourgeois voters, the moderates are the only guarantor for non-being a still S-government, which should be attractive. A vote on the Center Party and the Liberals can land anywhere because both in terms of content and in spite of it have opened up to cooperation with S. Jimmie Åkesson has his sympathy for the right, but repeatedly states that he does not exclude the support of an S-government as his migration policy.

• The questions of the electoral movement, unfortunately still with an exception to the climate, lie in the midst of moderation. If there is a party that puts the mind and heart, then it is M. The defense and security policy, two other classic M issues, is now a bit exaggerated but associated with the wider security discussion. The Valmanifestet is a serious government program with great efforts in the field of internal and external security.

• The return to the usual moderate volume-critical migration policy came early. Internally in 2013, when Tobias Billström, Ulf Kristersson and Elisabeth Svantesson were commissioned to make proposals to reduce immigration. Fredrik Reinfeldt closed the discussion with known results, but the current party summit should not have any problem to discuss how migration policy should be developed in the future.

But the moderates do not work well. After enjoying a lot of air under the wing as a newly elected M-chairman, Kristersson peaked in the winter and dropped below 20 percent. At the same time, the Swedish Democrats have risen to a new level and are steadily changing over the moderates. The riot of the Swedish Democrats in the electorate is, as Di Tomas Nordenskiöld wrote last Saturday, a political earthquake.

And the moderates are in the epicenter of the earthquake. To become less than a party that entered the Riksdag 2010 is a serious rejection and jeopardizes the position of the moderates as the heavy, serious and large bourgeois party. If today's opinion mode exists and M becomes less than SD and the alliance is less than the reddish one, it is difficult to pull the loyalty of the government into the tile.

So what is needed to prevent the disaster and turn all the obvious advantages into a winning victory? Within the party, you experience half of your work to die for an alliance victory. One also feels unjustly misunderstood by an environment that does not pay attention to all the thoughtful proposals that the party brings and that does not review the inadequate line of government issues or SD's lack of enforceable policy.

Perhaps, however, Fredrik Reinfeldt's dogma of previous choices is still valid: those who have no answer to how they can form a government do not matter. The moderate project is largely a powerful tool. Many voters vote for M to get rid of S because the Social Democrats take their money. It is one of the most important core values ​​of the party.

The M-lead has taken into account the ultimatum of the Center Leader on SD and still seems to be afraid of the grotesque excesses of S-machinery. At the same time, anyone who can see that it is impossible to form and work in a union of alliances or an m-government that SD has received. Jimmie Åkesson is absolutely right in this.

The sum of all commitments in the Alliance to never cooperate or trust SD results in a new version of the December agreement. In that spirit it is difficult to lift as an M-leader.

That's why it's better to be the adult in the room and give some cool message about power politics:

• If it is possible to form an alliance as such migration policy that gives SD green light is preferred.

• If that is not the case, the moderates will do everything in their power to form the government. And the slogan of the party "Equal to all" also applies to the parliamentary riksdag. If SD is willing to support the moderates policy, the party will of course try.


Source link

Leave a Reply