Martin Liby Troein: Who was it really who was in the gun when the Alliance brought about life?

Sure do you remember Cluedo? Party game where you must solve a murder mystery – to figure out who the killer is, where the murder took place and with what weapon? Where a winning answer may be ”Colonel Mustard, in the library, with a candlestick” or ”Reverend Green, in the dining room, with a blyrör”. I have not been able to help but to think of it, when it has been debated who actually is responsible for the Alliance's death.

Several suspects have already been identified. Should I believe Ulf Kristersson was the Annie Lööf, who did end up on the Alliance when she's in the parliament left the news that the Centre party entered into januariavtalet with the social democrats. The weapon? Judging by the bitterness, a knife in the back.

Jan Björklund, accusing in turn, Anna Kinberg Batra, to she – also in the Reichstag – opened talks with the SD. She injected with a poison in the Alliance, you understand, as it never recovered from.

on the question who killed the Alliance, however, must first decide if it really is dead. And for what it is, or was, for something.

Consider the Alliance as a community of values is the jagged edge. The parties are split on key issues – particularly on how one should relate to the rise of populist nationalism. But the essence of togetherness, the belief in free individuals and markets, live in the very highest degree.

But with such definitions existed in the Alliance long before Fredrik Reinfeldt Lars Leijonborg, Maud Olofsson and Göran Hägglund, sat in the hot tub.

you See, instead of the Alliance as an ambition to form a bourgeois government, is probably also alive. No party has departed from the position that they will take power at a valvinst.

But with such definitions existed in the Alliance long before Fredrik Reinfeldt Lars Leijonborg, Maud Olofsson and Göran Hägglund, sat in the hot tub. A fundamental consequence of consensus and the aspiration to form a government has been around for decades.

No, the Alliance must be given a more precise meaning: It was from the beginning a joint approach to the government and surrender until the summer – a pact with the meaning that the four parties would hold together in all modes, regardless of the election results. They would offer the voters an alternative, and then either move into in a Comment, or go in opposition together. Around the economic policies would only make up with each other. In that sense, the Alliance is dead.

Who brought it to an end? What was the weapon? And where did it happen?

It is of course impossible to ignore the sweden democrats ' entry into parliament – and the difficulties to govern the country within the framework of a hard policy of blocs when the two formations became three.

In the elections of 2006, it was unproblematic with watertight bulkheads in between the blocks, they were the only two. The alliance was greater than the red-green, and was able to take power. Had it not been it would, Göran Persson, have continued as prime minister and the Alliance joined in the opposition. Regardless of the outcome, Sweden would have got a government with majority support in the parliament.

Despite SD's foray worked the pact between the bourgeois parties, also the following term of office. Then, there was still no compulsory statsministeromröstning after the elections, Fredrik Reinfeldt was able to reign on. And the Alliance was able to push through most of its economic policy.

also showed the difficulties to control the Sweden based block policy principles when the number of operators went from two to three. The government's vulnerability is revealed when the red-green 2013 ignored in practice, and with SD's support broke out in parts of the budget. In addition, a constitutional amendment that the next elections would be followed by a mandatory statsministervotering.

It is tempting to point out Jimmie Åkesson as the Alliance's slayer.

It was against this background, and with a view to ruling coalition parties had agreed would be able to hold together in all modes, as Fredrik Reinfeldt of the election campaign 2014, launched the idea that the largest block would be given the power. And that was why he released until Stefan Löfven to statsministerposten after the red and green become the greatest.

to point out Jimmie Åkesson as the Alliance's slayer. Not just to his party's entry into parliament, impeding the logic of blocs. But for that the SD leader, from the villa of Sölvesborg, with a cell phone sent the call ”give'em hell” to partikamraterna before budgetvoteringen in the autumn of 2014. When The sweden democrats voted in favour of the Alliance's proposal, and declared that they intended to trap any government that does not agreed to their demands – made the party slarvsylta of Fredrik reinfeldt's plan to keep the bourgeois parties in the pact alive.

It was just that the Alliance survived the attack. Decemberöverenskommelsen formalized the four joint approach to the government and surrender until the summer.

had several of the circumstances that facilitated the Alliance changed. Instead of a bourgeois electorate which is more or less mangrant identified by its antipathy toward social democracy, there was a clear divide on whether the S or SD formed the opposition. Moreover, migrationsdebatten the focus from the economic issues where consensus was strongest. Decemberöverenskommelsen created further tensions. They found expression in a campaign to put the point of the settlement.

When Decemberöverenskommelsen fell on the christian democrat national conference of the party also ended the borgerligas joint approach to the government and surrender until the summer that has existed since 2004. After it I M, KD, C, and L never equal if the circumstances under which they could move into a Comment and put forward an economic policy together.

if a death foretold. Towards the end was the Alliance of a difficult external circumstances. Although it survived until 9 October 2015. It took someone who wanted to keep in the weapon, found a suitable place and a useful weapon.

”Sara Skyttedal, in a congress hall in Västerås, sweden, with a champagne bottle.”