Aggregated public profile · Not an official account.

Ida Gabrielsson questioned whether the Stureplanscenter was allowed to dictate the terms for the entire Center Party. She wrote that the Left Party and C governed together in many municipalities and regions, but that C risked leaving Stockholm without regional governance for tactical reasons related to national government negotiations, according to her. Gabrielsson stated that C had told the media that the party could let V in Stockholm when the government issue was resolved. She argued that C showed greater maturity and responsibility in collaborations elsewhere in the country, and warned that political games could create instability within Stockholm's healthcare. Gabrielsson questioned whether C could build stable collaborations and expressed concern for the party's ability to govern the country together with others. (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson criticized the editorial page of Dagens Nyheter, stating that it often exhibited the same contempt for people that it accused its opponents of. She argued that DN portrayed itself as a mediator of decent truth and responded to people who disagreed with condescension. According to Gabrielsson, the newspaper's view of decency lacked class and equality. She also criticized the Center Party (C) for not wanting to discuss substantive issues or collaborate within the majority that had reached an agreement in the parliament. She wrote that C did not want to participate in joint preliminary meetings before the committees and that C had not answered affirmatively to the question of whether the Left Party (V) was included in the same government support. Gabrielsson called it common sense for V to want to know which parties would govern together before a government agreement was negotiated. She questioned how this could be interpreted as S coddling V. Gabrielsson wrote that DN's view of decency did not seem to encompass issues such as unemployment benefits, health insurance, working conditions, and funding for welfare. She also highlighted the working conditions in the gig economy, asking whether it was decent not to prioritize that nursing assistants could live off their pensions. She wondered if it was competent for the government to privatize the employment service, which she believed had opened the door to crime while job seekers were left without help. She asked whether a society could be built together without understanding how people were affected, for example, by the risk of being denied sickness benefits after decades of work. Gabrielsson argued that understanding was not the same as agreeing, and that it was necessary to effect change. She warned that voters might lose faith that their vote made a difference, and wrote that political opponents should try to win support for their direction rather than attempting to impose their will by condescension or circumventing compromises. #politik #samhälle #jämlikhet (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the Left Party needed to be part of the government to abolish the market school. Otherwise, according to her, the issue would not be implemented but would only become words on paper. She said that was why the Moderates did not want the Left Party in the government. #politik #utbildning #Vänsterpartiet (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson criticized the Centre Party (C) for what she claimed was fabricating reasons for why the Left Party (V) should not be part of a government. She wrote that parties with different positions could resolve issues through agreements and referred to the fact that parties with differing opinions on the matters raised by C had governed together in other Nordic countries. According to Gabrielsson, V would respect agreements and membership in a government. She accused C of being unwilling to negotiate the obstacles the party had highlighted and asserted that V could have resolved the issues. Gabrielsson also wrote that C refused to coordinate the ongoing policy within the parliamentary majority the party had helped create. She urged DN and others who claimed that V blocked policy issues to talk to C. Gabrielsson referred to a TV4 segment the day before, where Rikard Nordin from C, according to her, did not answer yes to the question of whether V was part of the government support. She wrote that Nordin simultaneously emphasized C as the most constructive party. Gabrielsson also stated that Thand Ringqvist responded that there was nothing V could do to facilitate a joint government cooperation. She criticized C's statement that the party could possibly support an S government in the future, provided it followed C's policies, and wrote that this implied V was expected to vote in favor of policies to the left of itself. She wrote that she wished the issues had been resolved before the election and that V had tried to unite the opposition without success. Gabrielsson said she found it hard to understand that C had not prepared for the election result that she claimed most polls had shown. #politik #samarbete #regering (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the Social Democrats' 28 percent, the party's lowest result ever according to her, should lead to greater humility towards the voters. She said she appreciated the industrial town mentality's emphasis on not putting oneself at the center. Gabrielsson stated that the Social Democrats had commented on her and Nooshi's maturity and said that they therefore could not become government ministers. She pointed out that she herself had not expressed interest in the position and said that there were more or less suitable people in all parties. She did not want to compile a list of politicians' maturity herself. She argued that the Left Party's demands for political influence concerned the party's electoral politics, not specific individuals, and asked why the Social Democrats' executive committee focused instead on individuals' maturity. According to Gabrielsson, the Social Democrats needed to accept the situation regardless of their own preferences. She wrote that the party's leadership risked making it difficult for Magdalena Andersson to be elected and that the Left Party only demanded a place in the government if its mandate was needed. The Social Democrats could seek other collaborations or accept sharing power with the Left Party, she wrote. #politiken #ödmjukhet #samarbete (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson criticized Thomas Bodström for allegedly claiming in Aktuellt that she and Nooshi Dadgostar wanted ministerial positions for their own gain because they were bored in the parliament. Gabrielsson questioned the credibility of former top S members, who had held ministerial positions themselves, accusing others of only seeking such positions. She wrote that the Left Party wanted influence over politics to implement its reforms. According to Gabrielsson, the party could forgo the position of Deputy Minister of Culture and should focus on the areas it ran on in the election. She believed that everyone should be included in the formation of the government. #politik #Sverige #Socialdemokraterna (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that it was C, and not V, that excluded the other party. She objected to Anders Ygeman's description in Aktuellt of the situation as a mutual exclusion and argued that the portrayal of C and V as equally responsible did not clarify the government issue or facilitate a quick formation of government. Gabrielsson stated that V said yes to all parties needed to elect Magdalena Andersson, while C said no to V. According to her, this prevented Magdalena Andersson from gathering a majority. #svpol #politik #regering (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the situation was not so dramatic and that they would not be able to manage it under current conditions. She stated that C did not want to participate in the joint preliminary meetings, where the ongoing parliamentary work was handled, and described the group as their "cartel." According to Gabrielsson, the government support was still unclear from C's perspective, with L and KD instead of V. Therefore, she assumed that all red-green parties believed that a transitional budget was the solution. #politik #budget #Sverige (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that there was very little time left before the budget tables needed to be ready and that she saw it as unrealistic to manage to produce a budget, even if the work started immediately. She stated that C had not yet decided whether V would be part of the government support. A transitional budget was, according to Gabrielsson, the solution when a new government was not in place. It would allow parties that later agreed to govern together to allocate the reform space in a supplementary budget. She wrote that V could agree on individual issues in the ongoing work of the parliament, even in the budget work. Gabrielsson described S, V, C, and MP as a common cartel but said that C still refused to participate in the coordination and did not want to attend the parties' joint preparatory meetings. Therefore, none of the red-green parties could claim that they would manage to produce a common budget, she wrote. She argued that V had not primarily blocked the work. Before the parties agreed on cooperation during the term, they needed, according to Gabrielsson, to clarify who would cooperate, how it would take place, and what the negotiations would aim for. However, she wrote that this was not primarily the reason the parties had failed to agree on a common budget. https://t.co/YtGI6l7zpX #Budget #Regering #Politik (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the Left Party, unlike most other parties on the red-green side, had not campaigned primarily with the message of saying no to the Sweden Democrats (SD). According to her, the party had not repeatedly talked about an SD government, presented proposals for twelve SD ministers whom she described as more or less uncouth, or warned that Jimmie Åkesson could become prime minister. She wrote that the Left Party also believed that SD was wrong, but that voters needed to know what policies they were voting for. Gabrielsson thought that the negative campaigns and the political representatives' approach to each other had made it confusing to distinguish between SD and the other Tidö parties. She emphasized that the rhetoric had come from, among others, Ebba Busch, Simona Mohamsson, and moderate ministers, and that the politics had been presented jointly. According to Gabrielsson, the Left Party had therefore primarily focused on the policies it wanted to change. A campaign solely against SD risked, she wrote, appearing to target a group of people and giving someone the opportunity to adopt a victim role. She also believed it was contradictory to claim to be able to collaborate with everyone except SD, or preferably with the Tidö parties without SD, while campaigning on a different policy. Gabrielsson wrote that the Left Party had campaigned on its own policies and with Magdalena Andersson as a candidate for prime minister, well anchored in the red-green side. Therefore, according to her, the Left Party should not have to settle for having achieved a no to SD. #politik #Val2024 #rödgröna (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson argued that the government formation should be based on the fact that S, V, MP, and C had campaigned for a change of power and had Magdalena Andersson as a common candidate for prime minister. She wrote that C could not count in parties that did not support Andersson and at the same time demand influence based on their mandates. According to Gabrielsson, voters had given C 7 percent and V 8.4 percent, and V would not accept C pursuing right-wing policies with the support of V's mandate. Gabrielsson stated that C could seek support from Ulf Kristersson or try to get KD and L to switch sides. If that did not happen, C needed to negotiate with S, V, and MP to get a majority behind Andersson, according to her. She wrote that V was willing to compromise, but that the parties supporting a prime minister candidate must also be able to accept each other as a government basis. She criticized C’s growth proposals, including continued privatization of the Employment Service and permanent tax subsidies to cleaning companies and large restaurant chains. Gabrielsson claimed that the Economic Institute, the Fiscal Policy Council, and others had assessed the proposals as ineffective, expensive, and ineffective in creating jobs. She also wrote that the proposals would be financed through cuts to unemployment benefits and sick pay as well as cuts in welfare. Gabrielsson asserted that the most voters preferred a red-green government, followed by the Tidö alternative, while C's centrist alternative lagged far behind. She wrote that more people had voted for S, V, and MP than for the previous Alliance if SD was excluded. Finally, she urged C to first clarify its political direction and implied that the party needed to choose a side if it could not find a centrist solution. #Regering #Sverige #Politik (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that the red-green coalition had met and listened to a joint situation report. She described the conversation with representatives from C, S, and MP as pleasant and said that meetings were a prerequisite for better understanding each other. She thanked C for the arrangement and wrote that V wanted to start negotiating a new government as soon as possible, but that the group had at least managed to have coffee. #politik #Sverige #regering (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson questioned after a discussion with Martin Ådahl whether there was any other party that the Center Party considered sufficiently acceptable. She wrote that C had tolerated the Social Democrats and the Green Party because they had previously agreed to govern with bourgeois economic policy so that C would not collaborate with the Sweden Democrats. At the same time, she argued, C had criticized S for its migration policy and rejected the Left Party despite V agreeing with C on the issue. Gabrielsson contrasted this with what she described as a contradiction in the Center Party's rhetoric on decency. She pointed to ministers from the Moderates whom she considered increasingly Trump-like and accused them of going after journalists and conducting negative campaigns, as well as statements from the KD leader, the right's talk of voters as voting cattle, and comments from Member of Parliament Lars Beckman (M) and Alice Teodorescu (KD), whom she described as conspiracy theorists. She wrote that Ådahl and C seemed to believe that the former alliance parties did not really support their current policy, but had been kidnapped by SD and deep down wanted to return to the era of Fredrik Reinfeldt. Gabrielsson argued that Ådahl and Magdalena Andersson seemed to think that the parties would return to the center when the Tidö cooperation ended. She called the view condescending and emphasized that the changes could also have been made deliberately and voluntarily. During the election campaign, Gabrielsson stated, she had spoken with a leading center-right politician from Stockholm about more people voting for SD in the area where she grew up. She recounted that she had highlighted material and social reasons for dissatisfaction and mentioned a neighbor who worked almost around the clock on his farm and cleared snow in half of Norrland during the winters. According to Gabrielsson, the center-right politician had responded that a difficult life did not excuse a vote for SD, as others with difficult lives did not vote for the party. Gabrielsson also relayed that her father, who grew up in Ockelbo, used to refer to C and the farmers as "the right aristocracy." On Tuesday, he had told her that he had closed the door on a DN Kultur journalist who wanted to discuss the family's background and life in the countryside and in the industrial town of Åmotsbruk. Her father had also criticized C as the worst party of the day and said he preferred the party when it was at least a farmers' party. Gabrielsson wrote that she had corrected him, but at the same time agreed that a party with 7 percent could be perceived as self-satisfied if it assumed that others would follow its line. #Centerpartiet #Sverige #politik (translated)

Ida Gabrielsson wrote that she had difficulty understanding why the Social Democrats did not listen to the Left Party, both with regard to common electoral promises and to the interests of the Social Democrats and voters. She stated that the Left Party had said since the time after the January Agreement that the party would demand influence in a government if its mandate was needed. Since the mandates were now required for the Social Democrats to form a government, Gabrielsson argued that the Left Party should be included. For Magdalena Andersson to be elected, the Social Democrats, according to her, needed to accept this and begin working towards a four-party government. She referred to the fact that the Social Democrats had 28 percent, not 45, and wrote that the party therefore needed to share and cooperate in a coalition government. #politiksverige #koalitionsregering #valse2022 (translated)