Connect with us
// (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


Sweden’s Parliamentary Election Crisis

86 days have passed since Sweden’s last election without a government having formed – a record by a wide margin.

The Duran



Authored by Kent Ekeroth via The Gatestone Institute:

“Sweden has always been extremely stable when it comes to our governments …”and the time it takes to form them.

After the election in 2014 (we have elections every four years) the government took office 19 days later. Until this year, in fact, it has never taken more than 25 days after an election to form a government; the average time is just six days.

Today, however, 86 days have passed since Sweden’s last election without a government having formed – a record by a wide margin.

What changed?

Sweden’s national parliament consists of 349 members, divided in eight parties, of which seven formed blocs:

Socialist bloc:

  • Left Wing party (V): extremely left wing on economic policies, globalism, liberal on immigration. 28 seats.
  • Green party (MP): environmentalist, for raising taxes, extremely liberal on immigration. 16 seats.
  • Social Democrats (S): largest party, historically almost always in power, more to the center than V and MP but still on the left. Also liberal on immigration but less than MP and V. 100 seats.

Liberal bloc (named the Alliance coalition):

  • Center party (C): liberal economic policies which means lowering taxes and making it easier to hire and fire. Extremely liberal on immigration and values (supporting feminism, affirmative action, hate speech laws, gender policies etc). 31 seats.
  • Liberal party (L): similar to Center party. More focus on pro-EU. 20 seats.
  • Christian Democrats (KD): liberal economic policies (lowering taxes, easier to hire and fire etc), a bit more conservative on values and culture (less feminism, affirmative action, gender policies etc). 22 seats.
  • The Moderates (M): the second largest party and historically the party that has competed with the Social Democrats for the post of the prime minister. They are also liberal on economic issues and used to be extremely liberal on immigration. They did, however, change drastically in the last few years, due to the success of the Sweden Democrats. 70 seats.

Social-conservative ‘bloc’:

  • The Sweden Democrats (SD): new kid on the “bloc”. Entered parliament as late as 2010. Economically liberal too, but with more focus than the Alliance on upholding the welfare state. Conservative on matters of culture and values. Emphasis on anti-immigration, anti-EU. Pro-nuclear power; tough on crime and border control. 62 seats.

The political system in Sweden has been named the “politics of the blocs,” as, until the appearance of the Sweden Democrats, those two different sides — three socialist and four liberals — formed blocs with each other to reach majority in parliament.

What has changed since this year’s election was the continued growth of the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats’ (SD) party combined with the fact that members of the Alliance coalition — who want to lower taxes and make it easier for companies to hire and fire, and are pro-EU — learned a lesson after they voluntary gave away power after the election in 2014 to the socialist parties, whose members want to raise taxes, put restrictions on companies and focus more on gender and environmentalist policies.

In the 2010 election, a new party, the Sweden Democrats (SD) — the main focus of which was to stop the extreme mass immigration to Sweden — entered the parliament, thereby forming a third block in parliament.

In the graph below, the parties are dotted along the GAL-TAN scale, where the horizontal line depicts the parties’ positions on the economic scale (socialist to liberal) and the vertical line depicts the parties positions on the value scale (GAL: Green, Alternative, Libertarian; TAN: Traditional, Authoritarian, Nationalist):

Surrender to the Socialists

To everyone’s shock, after the 2014 election, the liberal Alliance-parties gave power to their arch-enemies on the Socialist block merely to keep the SD from political influence – a decision that completely shut out the SD and let the Socialists run the country for four straight years.

This astounding decision, named “the December agreement”, came to take a huge toll on the Alliance-parties: the voters did not like this unconditional surrender to the Socialists. People who voted for the Alliance had expected to get liberal economic policies advanced, not socialist ones.

This year, before the 2018 years election in September, the Alliance had sworn not to repeat the same mistake. In the September election, however, the new anti-immigration SD, grew from 12.9% to 17.5%, mostly due to ever more people getting fed up with Sweden’s extremely high immigration.

In response, two parties from the Alliance-coalition — the Center party (C) and the Liberal party (L) — made it their highest priority, once again, to not let the SD have any political influence.

Voting against their own candidate

In essence, those two parties repeated the “December agreement”, in which they gave political power to the Socialist bloc just to keep SD from having any. This time, however, the other two members of the Alliance-parties, the Moderates (M) and the Christian Democrats (KD), refused to repeat that decision. Instead, their members said they were willing to form a government with the support of SD – but without negotiating with them.

This split inside the Alliance coalition led to complications when forming a government. L and C first said they would never support the current Social Democrat party leader Stefan Löfven, who until six weeks ago was also Sweden’s prime minister, for the post of prime minister again. So, L and C voted no to Löfven. On September 25, he was ousted, 204 votes to 142.

When, on November 14, L and C then had a chance to for their own candidate, Ulf Kristersson of the Moderate party, part of their own coalition, to win — they voted no to him too. He also failed to become prime minister; there were 195 votes against him and 154 in support.

The reason he apparently lost was that a government led by Kristersson would require the backing of SD – which L and C reject due to SD’s negative stance on immigration.

Uncertain situation

Now, after two no-votes, the speaker of the house Andreas Norlén, after having met all the party leaders several times during the past 85 days, has said he will once more test what support there is for Löfven (S). According to his Norlén’s analysis, after the Center party failed to find a government solution, “there is a new situation”.

Exactly what “situation” he thinks is “new” is still unclear: no deals or agreements between the Center party, Liberal party and the socialists have been presented.

Both the party leaders from C and L seem to be willing, once more, to let their arch-enemy, the Social Democrats, come to power and rule simply to keep SD from having any power. For C and L, the most important issue Sweden is to keep extremely open immigration, which SD opposes. SD was formed, in fact, to stop it.

The chance of Sweden forming a government with the two remaining members of the Alliance coalition, M and KD, supported by SD, is currently zero. These three parties would have a majority against them in parliament from the other five parties; the socialists plus C and L.

Betrayal or re-election

The only chance to form a government in the current situation — unless C and L suddenly change stance on SD, which seems unlikely — is if C and L desert the Alliance coalition and move over to the “enemy” socialist bloc. That is where the discussions are at the moment.

This morning, December 5, we will get more information from speaker Norlén when a third vote on who is going to be prime minister will be held. Once again, Löfven (S) will most likely be running for the position. If C and L betray their Alliance-coalition and supports Löfven, he wins; if negotiations fail, he loses for the second time.

If Löfven is not elected tomorrow, the speaker of the house legally has two more tries to get parliamentary approval for a prime minister. If those tries fail, Sweden will have a re-electionfor the first time since 1958.

A prediction

There are a lot of ins and outs that would be hard to describe here, but probably we will not have a re-election.

The main reason Sweden will probably not have a re-election is that if we did, the party that would have the most to gain is SD – which all the other parties are fervently trying to stop.

Also, if there were a re-election, both the Liberal party and the Green party have a high likelihood of failing to get enough votes even to get into parliament.

In fact, out of the 349 seats in Swedish parliament, it would take only 21 more seats to go to SD, M or KD for these three parties to get a majority in parliament.

Additionally, as both L and MP would risk getting voted out of parliament, while SD, and possibly KD too, would stand to gain more seats, a re-election could very well put these three parties, M, KD and SD, above the 175 seats needed for a majority in parliament.

This combination, were a re-election to occur, means that a new bloc could be formed, in which the Moderates and Christian Democrats would form a government, supported by SD. Call it a conservative-ish government.

This is a scenario that the socialists, together with the Center and the Liberal parties, would want to avoid at all costs. So, for that reason C and L will probably strike a deal with the socialists. A deal would mean that that they will avoid a re-election and thus avoid the risk of a conservative-ish government being formed. Instead, there would be another four years possibly, of a socialist government, supported by C and L.

The list of demands that C and L proposed to the socialists, however, would be hard for them to accept.

Yesterday afternoon, December 4, the Center party warned the Social Democrats that the offer they were given was a “hostile bid” and warned them that they have “once last chance” to better the deal, or C would vote no to the socialists, thus stopping them from a achieving victory for the post of prime minister once more, and taking Sweden one step closer to a re-election.

Speaker Norlén also confirmed that “government negotiations” are now ongoing and have postponed the date until December 10, when Löfven will report to him on how the negotiations have gone.

Some of us are hoping to have that re-election – Sweden needs it – but do not think it will happen. We are hoping to be wrong.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement // (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
1 Comment

Leave a Reply

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
George Hartwell Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
George Hartwell

France is signaling what may happen if the conservative tide is bucked. By putting off the conservatives, one risks revolution.


Germany Wants Nuclear Bombers

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them.

The Duran




Germany’s armed forces are currently studying the possibility of acquiring nuclear bombers capable of using the new American B61-12 atomic bombs.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon itself plans to deploy these new atomic bombs in the German region of Eifel, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The German air force already has multi-tasking Tornado warplanes, which are already capable of deploying American atomic bombs. But those aircraft are going to be replaced, possibly, by European-developed Eurofighters, or by United States manufactured F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Either way, the warplane that Germany selects will have to be equipped with the AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control) system, which allows the use of the new American atomic bombs and enables the regulation of the power of the explosion as well as at what height the bombs explode after they are launched.

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them, and believes that this gives it the right to sit on the UN Security Council sharing the permanent member position occupied by France.

Both countries would thus represent the European Union, under the auspices of NATO.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


1st since Notre Dame: Yellow Vests back despite ‘unifying’ disaster & they are angry

‘Yellow Vests’ march in Paris for 23rd straight week.





Via RT…

Yellow Vests protests brought clashes and tear gas back to the streets of Paris, despite politicians’ calls for “unity” in the wake of the Notre Dame fire. For protesters, the response to the fire only showed more inequality.

Saturday’s protests mark the 23rd straight weekend of anti-government demonstrations, but the first since Notre Dame de Paris went up in flames on Monday. Officials were quick to criticize the protesters for returning to the streets so soon after the disaster.

“The rioters will be back tomorrow,” Interior Minister Christophe Castaner told reporters on Friday. “The rioters have visibly not been moved by what happened at Notre-Dame.”

For many of the protesters, grief over the destruction of the 800-year-old landmark has made way for anger. With smoke still rising from Notre Dame, a group of French tycoons and businessmen pledged €1 billion to the cathedral’s reconstruction, money that the Yellow Vests say could be better spent elsewhere.

“If they can give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame, they should stop telling us there is no money to respond to the social emergency,” trade union leader Philippe Martinez told France 24.

Saturday’s protests saw a return to scenes familiar since the Yellow Vests first mobilized in November to protest a fuel tax hike. Demonstrators in Paris’ Bastille district set barricades on fire and smashed vehicles, and police deployed tear gas to keep the crowds at bay.

Sporadic incidents of vandalism and looting were reported across the city, and some journalists even reported rioters throwing feces at police.

60,000 police officers were deployed across the country, and in Paris, a security perimeter was set up around Notre Dame. A planned march that would have passed the site was banned by police, and elsewhere, 137 protesters had been arrested by mid afternoon, police sources told Euronews.

Beginning as a show of anger against rising fuel costs in November, the Yellow Vests movement quickly evolved into a national demonstration of rage against falling living standards, income inequality, and the perceived elitism and pro-corporation policies of President Emmanuel Macron. Over 23 weeks of unrest, Macron has made several concessions to the protesters’ demands, but has thus far been unable to quell the rising dissent.

After Notre Dame caught fire on Monday, the president postponed a television address to the nation, during which he was expected to unveil a package of tax cuts and other economic reforms, another measure to calm the popular anger in France.

Macron’s address will be held on Thursday.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


O Canada! The True North Strong and Free – Not

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence.

Jim Jatras



Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

Canadian visitors to Washington sometimes wonder why their embassy stands at the foot of Capitol Hill.

The answer? To be close to where Canada’s laws are made.

A main showcase of Ottawa’s craven servility to Washington is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s complicity in the US-led regime change operation being conducted against Venezuela. Not content with ruining his own country with multiculturalism, polysexualism, and the like, Li’l Justin has acted in lockstep with Big Brother to the south inslapping sanctions on Venezuelan officials and serving as a US agent of influence, especially with other countries in the western hemisphere:

‘A Canadian Press report published at the end of January revealed that Canadian diplomats worked systematically over several months with their Latin American counterparts in Caracas to prepare the current regime-change operation, pressing [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro’s right-wing opponents to set aside their differences and mount a joint challenge to the government. “The turning point,” said the Canadian Press [Global News], “came Jan. 4, when the Lima Group … rejected the legitimacy of Maduro’s May 2018 election victory and his looming January 10 inauguration, while recognizing the ‘legitimately elected’ National Assembly.” The report cited an unnamed Canadian official as saying the opposition “were really looking for international support of some kind, to be able to hold onto a reason as to why they should unite, and push somebody like Juan Guaidó.”

‘One day prior to Maduro’s inauguration, [Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia] Freeland spoke to Guaidó, the newly-elected National Assembly speaker, by telephone to urge him to challenge the elected Venezuelan president.’

But that’s not all. Canada is out front and center in the “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies’ war on China’s Huawei – with direct prompting from US legislators and intelligence.  As explained by Col. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Gen. Colin Powell, it’s not that Huawei violated any law when circumventing US sanctions but it is the US that is acting illegally by unilaterally imposing sanctions that were never agreed to internationally. But that’s OK – when it comes to Washington’s claims of jurisdiction over every human being on the planet, Justin and Chrystia are happy to oblige!

Also, let’s not forget Chrystia’s role in keeping the pot boiling in Ukraine. It would of course be cynical (and probably racist) to attribute anything relating to Ukraine to her own interesting family background …

To be fair, the lickspittle attitude of Canadian officials towards their masters south of the 49th parallel is hardly unique in the world. Also to be fair, it’s natural and would be generally beneficial for Canada to have a positive relationship with a powerful, kindred neighbor rather than a negative one. Think of Austria’s ties to Germany, or the Trans-Tasman relationship of Australia and New Zealand, or the links that still exist between Russia and Ukraine despite efforts by the west to set them against each other (as, for example, Spain and Portugal were at loggerheads for several centuries, when the latter was a loyal ally of Spain’s foe, Great Britain, to such an extent that Portugal was sometimes shown on maps and globes in the same pink as British possessions; a similar situation existed between Argentina and British ally Chile).

A close and mutually advantageous relationship is one thing, but Canada’s de facto loss of independence is another. Not only does the US control Canada’s diplomacy, military, and intelligence but also her financial system (with, among other levers, the notorious FATCA law, which places Canadian institutions under the supervision of the IRS, with Canada’s revenue service acting, care of the Canadian taxpayer, as a cat’s paw for not only the IRS but the NSA and other snooping agencies). As explained by one Canadian nationalist (yes, they do exist!), the redoubtable David Orchard, trade is also a critical issue:

‘Canada …, after almost three decades of “free trade” with the U.S., has more than $1.2 trillion in federal and provincial debt, large deficits at every level, no national child or dental care, high university tuition, miserly old age pensions, years of massive budget cuts, and giveaway prices for its exports of oil, gas, timber and minerals.

‘For 150 years, great Canadian leaders have warned that without an economic border with the United States, we would soon no longer have a political border.

‘We once owned the world’s largest farm machinery maker, Massey Harris, headquartered in Toronto; built the world’s largest and most respected marketer of wheat and barley, the Canadian Wheat Board, based in Winnipeg; created a great transcontinental railway system, beginning in Montreal, which tied our country together; and saw Vancouver’s shipyards produce the beautiful Fast Cat ferry.

‘Instead of spending hundreds of billions on foreign-made machinery, electronics, automobiles, ships, fighter jets and passenger aircraft (even payroll systems for federal employees!), we can build our own, both for the domestic and export market.

‘We once designed and built the world’s most advanced jet interceptor, the Avro Arrow, so we know it can be done. [Emphasis added] With Canada’s resources and ingenuity, it could create a prosperous, domestically controlled economy that would give Canadians multiple benefits, security and pride of ownership. All that is required is some of the will that drove our ancestors to create an alternate power in North America. As George-Étienne Cartier, the great Québécois Father of Confederation, put it, “Now everything depends on our patriotism.”’ [Note: Orchard is the author of the must-read book The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. To begin at the beginning, in the late 1680s, as part of English-French rivalry in North America, Massachusetts Puritans sought to root out the nest of popish deviltry known as Quebec. Following their disastrous 1690 defeat, they decided to fight Satan closer to home by hanging witches. The rest, as they say, is history…]

Scratch a Canadian patriot and you’ll hear about the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. As a watershed moment in Canada’s downward slide into subservience, the cancellation of what by all accounts was a magnificent aircraft – and a snapshot of what Canada’s international competitiveness (including in advanced aerospace) could have looked like had it been able to develop independently – might have been the point of being sucked into the American vortex. As noted by one response to my suggestion that Ottawa’s stance on Venezuela amounted to Canada’s annexation by the US: “Canadian here…unfortunately, the above is true (not literally of course, but in practice). It goes back even before the time of Diefenbaker, who canceled our Avro Arrow program on demand from the US – thus destroying our aerospace industry and causing brain drain to the US/Europe.”

To this day, the decision of then-Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to kill the Arrow project (and “put 14,528 Avro employees, as well as nearly 15,000 other employees in the Avro supply chain of outside suppliers, out of work”) on what came to be known as “Black Friday,” February 20, 1959, remains controversial and shrouded in mystery. A mix of budgetary, political, technological, and personality factors has been cited, none of them conclusive. Pressure from the US side, including unwillingness of Washington to purchase a Canadian aircraft when the US could pressure them to buy American planes and missiles, no doubt played a key role: “Instead of the CF-105, the RCAF invested in a variety of Century Series fighters from the United States. These included the F-104 Starfighter (46 percent of which were lost in Canadian service), and (more controversial, given the cancellation of the Arrow) the CF-101 Voodoo. The Voodoo served as an interceptor, but at a level of performance generally below that expected of the Arrow.”

While we may never know reliably why Diefenbaker cancelled the Arrow or how Canada or Canadian industry might have followed a different path, there’s no question of the superior capabilities of the Arrow. As it happens, one of the few pilots who had a chance to test the Arrow in an impromptu friendly dogfight is now-retired USAF fighter pilot Col. George Jatras, later US Air Attaché in Moscow (also, this analyst’s father). As he related in 2017:

‘I’ve received a number of messages in the last couple days about this bird, including some that say it may be revived. I don’t know how The Arrow would compare to today’s aircraft, but I had a first-hand lesson on how it faired against the F-102.

‘In 1959, I was stationed at Suffolk County AFB on Long Island with the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron. We had an informal exchange program with a Canadian fighter squadron stationed near Montreal. From time to time, two or four aircraft from one of the squadrons would fly to the other’s base on a weekend cross country.

‘On one such exchange, I was #3 in a four ship formation led by [former Tuskegee airmanErnie Craigwell (I don’t recall who the other pilots were). As we entered Canadian airspace, cruising at about 40,000 ft., we spotted a contrail well above our altitude (probably at 50,000ft.) and closing very fast.  As the other aircraft appeared to be passing by, we could clearly see the delta shaped wing and knew it was the Avro Arrow that the Canadian pilots had told us about. Then, instead of just passing by, he rolled in on us! Ernie called for a break and we split into elements. When we talked about the encounter afterwards we all agreed that our first thought was, “This guy is in for a surprise; he doesn’t know that he’s taking on the F-102.”  Well, we were the ones in for a surprise. Even with two elements covering each other, not one of us could get on his tail. His power and maneuverability were awesome.  After he had played with us for a few minutes, like a cat with four mice, he zoomed back up to about 50K and went on his way. What an aircraft! What a shame that it never went into production.’

What is perhaps most curious about the Arrow’s demise is that “everything was ordered brutally destroyed; plans, tools, parts, and the completed planes themselves were to be cut up, destroyed, scrapped and everything made to disappear.”  Why? Well, security of course! Don’t engage in conspiracy theories …

The Canadian national anthem finishes with a pledge: “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.” It should be noted that understandably resentful Loyalists fleeing the US following the American Revolution were a major contribution to the growth of Canada’s English-speaking population. American troops – back when we were the plucky underdog fighting the mighty British Empire – invaded Canada in 1775 and during the War of 1812 but were defeated. Relations got testy during the American Civil War as well, and even afterwards the US was wary of a proposed united “Kingdom of Canada,” hence the choice of the name “Dominion” in 1967. If today’s Canadians think we-all down here don’t know whom they’ve mostly had in mind to “stand on guard” against all this time, they’d better think again.

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence – eh?

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter