Search

There is Magda chaos in the politics. Just like everyone with a functioning brain knew it would happen if the red-greens won. For four years, you have said that you are a team and that everything will be resolved as soon as you get to form a government. You have had four years to talk things over. And for four years, you have said that you will solve that after the election. (translated)

Sergel wants Mohamed Abdukardir Ali's debt restructuring to be revoked. The collection agency Sergel Kredit demands that the Enforcement Authority strikes off Ali's debt restructuring. The company points out that the income of the V-party member has increased significantly since he was elected to the parliament, writes Expressen. Sergel also wants the Enforcement Authority to investigate whether Ali has himself reported that his finances have changed after the election. – If such a report has not been made, this is a circumstance that should be considered as part of the agency's ongoing investigation. The total debt of the V-party member is just over 160,000 kronor. (translated)

If Tidö had won the election, one could have now moved on to the next step in the constitutional amendment to then enact a law stating that citizenship can be revoked if granted on false grounds or in cases of serious crimes. It is now not possible due to the small parties on the right outside of parliament. I propose that we call the rule that all criminal immigrants retain their citizenship Lex Kasselstrand-Allard. (translated)

Anders Ygeman and I were on Aktuellt. C did not want to come. Those of us who were there agreed that we must move forward now, even though we did not have quite the same view on how. But the alleged V and M bloc seems to have no one arguing for it for long. Good! Four parties have won the election, and therefore we should govern together. V has erased our stance towards C, now it's time for C to do the same job. Without V in the government, agreements on policy will not hold; it will just be nice words on paper. Before we negotiate policy, we must of course agree on who will implement the policy and in what way; otherwise, the negotiations will be blind. S and MP now need to put pressure on C so that they also erase their stance. It's not about bickering but about making sure that all four are respected equally. That V should solve this by themselves when C even declines the invitation for coffee does not feel reasonable. Mutual trust can only be built if all parties’ voters are respected. I sent this to S, and I also think that MP needs to step up. Otherwise, nothing will happen if C is just allowed to remain in their own room. That MP claims during the election campaign that they want V involved is good, also for MP, whose voters have that perception. But talking about something is not the same as working for it, and more than V needs to do that if there is going to be a new government. So far, all pressure has been directed at V, even though V does not say no to any party in Magdalena Andersson's support and that our "stance" only pertains to our own party's right to influence. To be "neutral" in a situation where one party does not respect another is not being a good "friend." And without pressure on C to accept V equally, we will get no government negotiations where we can start to give and take in the actual policy. I believe that is what the voters want to see and expect from us! (translated)

Bizarre situation is unfolding now in Sweden. The four red-green parties that say they have won the election are unable to meet and talk to each other. Then SVT steps in as a mediator and tries to help put together a red-green government in Aktuellt. Only in Sweden. (translated)

Two weeks of intensive reports about irregularities, election fraud, and bought votes culminate in the fact that the Social Democrats, who believe they have won the election, do not want their prime minister candidate to be tested in the parliament but instead walk away from the misery they have created. This is truly distressing. (translated)

Simona is right: Magdalena has acted pathetically. She has declared herself the winner of the election, and her party secretary actually demanded before the election results were finalized that the prime minister resign. Therefore, it is logical that she goes up for a vote and has her alleged electoral victory tested in practice. The speaker should proceed with a sharp vote immediately. (translated)

It was fun on Aktuellt yesterday when Daniel Färm, the most independent publisher of the Social Democratic leadership, launched the idea of forming an S/MP government – but with a promise of V participation IF FOUR YEARS. That is to say, just in time for Gunnar Strömmer to have won the election and everyone has been eaten by AI. (translated)

We moderates warned. But the media did not care to examine the opposition's government capability before the election. They helped the opposition to deceive voters into thinking there was some sort of red-green government alternative. No uncomfortable questions that disturbed the opposition's election campaign. A great shame. (translated)

Today's (so far) most important article is written by Sven Otto Littorin. He argues that Sweden has been a highly trusting society and that the electoral system is built for that. I, who can be a bit less diplomatic at times in public discourse, would say that our society and our democracy are in decline. Luckily, the decline is happening from a relatively high altitude. From the article: "The election administration has reported over 4,000 incidents to the Electoral Authority this year, compared to 489 in 2022. Part of the increase is due to the fact that reporting is now mandatory, but behind the numbers, there is a pattern that cannot be dismissed: Up until 4 PM on election day, over 300 incidents in the category of unlawful influence had been reported, of which around 90 involved group voting. The police have received 58 reports of improper conduct during voting. The National Anti-Corruption Unit is investigating suspected electoral fraud in Dalarna with pre-marked ballots, driven voters, and possible payments. In Stockholm, at least four vote collectors with ties to gang crime have received ballots, and no law prevents this. In four municipalities, nearly 600 votes have been lost or rejected. The Election Review Board has received nearly 12,000 appeals. The previous record from 2018 was 723." Regardless of everything else one might say about this, I agree with the author of the article on the need for "a parliamentary electoral integrity commission to be appointed immediately, with the task of presenting legislative proposals in time for the 2030 election." You can read about a number of proposals in the article. I don't know myself if I would support all of them, but it is a starting point. Personally, I can also add that it is a major problem that the left is currently trying to meet all discussions about shortcomings in the election with a dismissive attitude and attempts to discredit those who raise criticism or constructive proposals. The way in which debaters and the media have treated Peter Wennblad after his very concerning article about irregularities in Järva is in itself a sign of weaknesses in democracy. It tends to become a form of circular reasoning. If someone writes and talks about what sources report from Järva, Borlänge, or Rosengård, the criticism and reporting are labeled as a threat to democracy because questioning whether the election was conducted well is itself seen as a threat to democracy, which has the decidedly undemocratic consequence that the election and democracy cannot be discussed without democracy being threatened. Somehow, we must get over this. And move forward. Because I believe it is correct that our electoral system is not made for the society that Sweden has become. (translated)

To the voters, Magdalena Andersson said that she could manage to form a government. She asked for the Swedish people's trust to do it. The four parties she wanted to form a government with got 176 mandates. She declared the four opposition parties the winners of the election. Ordered cakes to Sveavägen. It is therefore Magdalena Andersson's responsibility to seriously try to deliver on the task she said she would manage. The result of that now needs to be accounted for. Voters need the result of her first exploration reported in black and white. My appeal to the Speaker today was therefore that the only reasonable thing is that Magdalena Andersson needs to be tested in a vote after a few additional days of exploration. (translated)

The coffee has become expensive. But I am still quite satisfied with the situation that has arisen after the election. Why? Because, to put it bluntly, Jonson and Strömmer are still in place. And politics is in place: defense decisions, financing, NATO membership, and the criminal policy reforms. Even a transitional government can and should handle the security problems that arise. So by all means: continue to assert red lines. While the aforementioned gentlemen and their subordinate authorities - full of competence and patriotism - do the job. It works for now. If not indefinitely. And even this Wednesday, one can buy an espresso in a paper cup and experience a ray of pale sun around Helgeandsholmen. (translated)

After declaring herself the winner of the election, Andersson managed to create foreign policy uncertainty about Sweden's commitment to the Baltic Sea region during a time of war and state terrorism against our neighborhood, even before she had received a mandate for exploration. (translated)