It's not saved by forming the government

No history Swedish policy has been so strong in the last half-century as that of the liberal revolution. How they sat in a safe at the SAF in the 70s and made plans to then bring out the beautiful new world, reform for reform. Sture Eskilsson, his Prime Minister, the demonstration against funds, the EC, Kjell-Olof Feldt, how DDR Sweden has disappeared. They formed an opinion for an idea and how that idea won.

Carl Bildt is right

It was a one-way policy headed by all Swedish politicians who mattered little.

About half of socially democratic writers still live in this story. Have you read Göran Greider. For him, the vandals have never stopped to carry it. If Göran finds a fault somewhere, Göran blames neoliberalism.

Indeed, the real strength of history is not that liberal reformers have succeeded. What makes the story so attractive is that it happened in the past.

The right is also nostalgic.

Timbro fears left

For a group of not so restricted bourgeois politicians and operators, the history of the liberal revolution is a complete affair. Happy days when the company still cared about politics. When Timbro was a word that left horror in the left before SAF became a Swedish company and disappeared between engineering companies and technology companies or longstanding discussions about whether women had the power to lead their honorable association.

These people consider that no real opinion formation for social change, that is, increased deregulation, has occurred for 20 years. It's their story of neoliberalism. That he was abandoned.

We can think of this for a week like this, when Sweden had a choice and maybe a government.

The company's favorite reforms are on the table of all negotiations. He can not play this big role Stefan Löfven or Ulf Kristersson becomes prime minister.

Business wins anyway.

The midnight kingdom has become Ayn Rands

The elements of a more modern history on the political behavior of the Swedish capital are well known.

The story of the transformation right of the student union of the Central Party in the late 90s and how a young Ulf Kristersson of Timbro found that the new generation of green women – a very competent woman from Värnamo among others, had conveyed the message.

It's a cliché today, the story of how the middle realm has become good, Ayn Rands. A snapshot explaining this week's request for Stefan Löfven: You can decide whether you are conducting totally liberal market policies.

The story of how the leadership of the Social Democratic Party in the mid-1990s clarified its economic policy is not so boring. How some people – more or less attached to professional organizations – have seen change and helped work to place the party safely right also within the framework of economic policy

Central supporters and Swedish Democrats are proud to present themselves as opposites in Swedish politics, but in this regard, both parties represent the liberal iron ax of the market in parliament.

We can say a lot about it.

How amazing it is that today there are five right wing parties in the Riksdag, in a system built for a total of only five parties. How was social democracy insufficient or indifferent to face this strategic and structural offensive? The way the electoral movement actually went is a constituency movement in which the conflict between the traditional economic right and the left has tightened, even though it was difficult to say whatever the message of the parties or media.

But this is still not the big deal.

The great thing is what conditions the left has in such a landscape. Citizenship is undone, but the right still controls 60% of members.

How to act then if you are social democratic?

Stefan Löfven in a fragile government

In the past, there was much talk of a Social Democratic anthem in power. A slight bet was made after the elections. The first weeks swore and sighed from the center's parties because the journalists accepted the description of the social-democratic reality more than the center party. The idea that the biggest party in Sweden would release a shattering party that called the alliance to power without being charged for it, did not really work.

But that's the only thing left of makthegemonin.

The truth is that Social Democracy has lost the elections. Let their politicians across the country be replaced by bourgeois. That the party has also fallen in traditionally strong areas. It does not matter how many tenths you have won under the spur if you only have 28.

You can understand that the party does not really want to discuss it.

But does the management think seriously that everything is not going to work out, Stefan Löfven could continue to be prime minister? In a fragile government – based on concessions that value your own party – and who still sits trying to deal with an impending recession?

Yes, you have always been willing to go right to have influence. The mid-1990s was a single, long electoral process in which the left had initially claimed the right to be inhumanly cold and difficult to implement the government's policy on the right to liberty. right.

But social democracy no longer seems in the 90s.

Social democracy operates in an international environment where leftists associate the successes of right-wing populism and new conservatism with the power of world capital, with deeper divisions. The former housing agency of market liberalism, The Economist, argues for increased progressivity of tax systems. This evolution has not only influenced Swedish economists, but also radicalized its own party.

You can understand the horror.

Juholt and Sahlin in the opposition

Social democracy has the image of not acting as an opposition movement. Years with Mona Sahlin and Håkan Juholt discourages without a doubt. We have, let us say people in the mouth of the party, never managed to renew us without the pressure this implies for the government. This can be true

But if you fail to act as an autonomous party, as a society for those who want something with society but who depend on the government office as a prison kid, yes, maybe we should ask ourselves why there is a party.

You can focus on your own movements, people and ideas. As moderators did after the 2002 election disaster. Go into opposition and think long term now that no one is doing it.

There is an option that exists.

The problem of social democracy is not that this week has been formulated with equally awfully high demands on the part of the right. The problem is that there is no answer to a crucial question:

What are the social democrats really doing to negotiate with Annie Lööf and Jan Björklund under these conditions?

Torbjörn Nilsson is a political journalist on Expressen and author. Read more of his feature articles right here.

READ MORE – TORBJÖRN NILSSON: It took three years – then Jimmie Åkesson got as he wanted