in the Past it was a matter of course to openly talk about what SD stands for, now it is called exaggeration. Before the election, it was acknowledged that there were problems with that lean against Jimmie Åkesson, is now dismissed as ”myths”.
It is a taste of how reluctant many would be to speak in clear text on SD the day the government stands and falls with the party. And how fast it goes.
Only ”if the sky is falling down”, we form a minority government, " said Ulf Kristersson before the election. Then it took another few weeks – so the sky was lowered.
that the shift is due to The sweden democrats has changed, more than that they have grown in public opinion, will be disappointed. The leaders of the SD has been longer than most of the other parties. The interest to make up with his history have been non-existent. Neither the values or sakpolitiken have avradikaliserats the last time. Possibly, then, on the contrary: partitoppar have both spent exhortations to ”victory or death” and motions in the parliament to confiscate the refugees ' valuables. But now – suddenly – it is still obvious that this is one if not suitable, so in all cases useful partner for the bourgeoisie.
So what happened?
a relation is logical. For what has happened is, of course: power. The election gave the unpleasant news that the ruling coalition parties had agreed either need's or SD to get there.
When the Centre party and the Liberals, therefore, gave the social democrats a bid with liberal political issues that Stefan Löfven will need to arrange to be prime minister hånskrattades it of the bourgeoisie. Why would the S-leader push liberal policies?
But why are not the same people the same question about The sweden democrats? Why would Jimmie Åkesson accept liberal policies? For he would – unlike Stefan Löfven, who would get the government – not get something for it, if you believe Kristersson.
And is it not a little strange? Conservatives repeats ceaselessly that the SD's voters must be taken seriously, but to require a party votes without giving their constituents something for it – surely it is not to take them seriously?
sounded a bit naive, it begins now approaching pride. ”We have tested the thesis that the SD would support without a hearing, and that was what happened, so you were obviously wrong.” It explained Kristerssons deputy editor-in-chief Niklas Gillström for me after statsministeromröstningen on his head.
Åkesson been clear that he expects that this service leads to reciprocity on the part, does not affect Gillström. Not that SD clearly stated that the party has the same feelings for Annie Lööf and Jan Björklund, the two have for Jimmie Åkesson.
But the Conservatives are not to be discouraged. Only it stands on a piece of paper and called ”guarantee” it will go fine to avoid a hearing. It'll just be a little call. Or how it now was.
”you have to talk to SD” has been repeated so often the past year that it may appear that no one has ever spoken with sverigedemokrater. It is not true. For example, there was just talk that someone did with Jimmie Åkesson, the time he told me that he prefers Viktor Orbán in front of Angela Merkel, a Hungarian leader who has created what he calls an ”illiberal democracy”. It was also in a conversation he announced that he is not prepared to choose between a French president, elected by the people, and a Russian president, chosen by itself.
And it is precisely the talk which occurred the many times SD management talked about the fact that it is the liberal society that should be replaced.
Conservatives repeats ceaselessly that the SD's voters must be taken seriously, but to require a party votes without giving their constituents something for it – surely it is not to take them seriously?
But the bourgeoisie has become deaf in that ear, and it is a pity. It doesn't matter how much you talk with sverigedemokrater if you are not also listening to what they actually say.
Perhaps it was precisely because the Moderates and Tobias Billström in the election campaign could get to the problem with SD is that it is ”a party without core values”? When, in fact, is the strong ideological conviction, the values, which form the core of and the problem.
For the other is not the concern that they have taken a little impression. After the election we could see Ebba Busch Thor in the ”Agenda” explain that it does not even need to be made some awkward political concessions for Åkesson to be satisfied, it is enough to relate to ”reality”. That is apparently what a KD-leaders call SD-wishes now-a-days.
can förkläs in care about the voters, care about political issues and care about the Alliance's cohesion. But what it boils down to is a right that want to have the power, at a very high price. Who is furious that Annie Lööf and Jan Björklund actually delivered what they promised the voters. And this week, will do everything it can to get them to fall for the huge pressure – and the release of a government which is dependent on Åkessons blessing.
they should not. For The sweden democrats is still the same party. They are still self-proclaimed enemies to the liberals.