The grand launch ( in the DN Debate 4/2) of a social democratic internopposition, “Reformers”, has this week brought both the noise and enthusiasm in the regeringsbärande Movement.
From the outside world are the reactions more desaturating: the left-wing will not get any influence, it is usually the not get. Or: It is tactical cunning of S management is to direct its own opposition, they have done this in the past.
well, We'll see. The “new political landscape” as it is usually talked about, in fact, applies also for the social democrats.
but before the SD's growth, the refugee crisis and the Alliance the following tribulations, they were completely dominant stories about american politics, so was the other. One of the most dramatic stories was precisely the social democrats, and culminated around the year 2011 when the first Mona Sahlin, and then Håkan He is shot down and removed from the leadership.
It was not just or even mainly about the bitter personstrider. At the bottom was a much larger question, about what kind of party Socialists should be in the 2000's:
A socialist party, which would go on to roll back the marknadiseringen of Sweden and instead increase public power over the community?
socialliberalt party, which is certainly liked and managed the welfare state, but who sought their new political project on the other, according to the spirit of the times, more modern direction?
No small conflict. So big, it turned out, that the only solution was to not pretend about it.
In came Stefan Löfven, and with him a kind of lowest common denominator social democracy: We shall not reduce the tax. Preferably not raise it either, but try to increase employment and add to the surplus that hopefully will arise in the resurstillskott to welfare.
for a long time. The social democrats could only sit still in the boat while the alliance government lost the election 2014 to the SD, and then four years further respite by decemberöverenskommelsen.
as long As P could control in a rödgrönt block was Löfvenmodellen the right handy – man needed to usually not think so much ourselves. It was enough to balance the V's socialist aspirations and the MP:s green halvliberalism to reach a result that everyone in the party could live with.
But it was with the new political situation.
on the Alliance's collapse this winter, but less of the red-green block termination. Despite the fact that the latter places the involved parties in the face at least as big issues as the first.
the social democrats reached her goals of “collaboration in the middle”, but it was the liberal parties that came to dominate the content. Why it became so is a relevant discussion. C and L had been gratefully negotiating position, but they also had much more clear ideas to the table.
A negotiated balance point between the V and the MP may have been a moderate socialist, but a balance point between MP, L and (C), Jan Björklund on outdoor holiday. Which now has been proven.
that is completely okay with it, who think that a good role for the party in the future is to affirm a social liberal agenda and, if possible, push the government.
But there are also others, who have not given up the idea that Sweden might yet have broad and relevant the left, with the system changing ambitions and aiming at future majority.
To stand on both feet will in the long run not be possible. If or when the battle will be seriously it will be much bloodier than this week's show of good-natured disagreement, and you should probably not take for granted who is left when the dust settles.
viktor's choice: Solution of L – a dead beaver?