SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

POLITICS

OPINION: Has Sweden’s prime minister paid the price for his passivity?

Sweden's government collapsed on Monday after a vote of no confidence won enough support. The Local's columnist Lisa Bjurwald questions if the vote is the natural result of the prime minister appearing to hand over the reins on crucial issues.

OPINION: Has Sweden's prime minister paid the price for his passivity?
Prime Minister Stefan Löfven hasn't appeared to be the one in charge for quite some time, writes Lisa Bjurwald. Photo: Anders Wiklund/TT

“Mr Speaker, a dishonest coalition wish to kill off the January Agreement. They have agreed on one single thing: what they are against.”

There was no lack of drama in today’s parliament showdown, where disparate political underdogs the Left Party (V), the Christian Democrats (KD), and the Sweden Democrats (SD) joined forces with the Moderate Party (M), traditionally one of the two major parties in the country, to overthrow the Swedish government.

There are, of course, several ways to regard this ambush. You might view them, like Centre Party (C) leader Annie Lööf, quoted above, as an “unholy coalition” of leftists, conservative Christians, and ultra-nationalists, lacking a roadmap of their own but nevertheless hellbent (for a bunch of differing reasons) to get rid of “passive,” “not fit to lead” social democratic Prime Minister Stefan Löfven – even if that means throwing the country into political turmoil.

Others, including leading political commentators, view the events of the last couple of days as a natural and healthy democratic cleansing process.

The current minority coalition government was always a shaky one, built on the 73-point so-called January Agreement of 2019 and confusing to many voters, who presumed it was just a temporary deal. Not so. Had the government been more stable, the Left Party’s ultimatum on rent control (which kicked off the whole process) would probably have been deemed as more irresponsible.

A majority of parliament members, 181 of a total 349, seemed to take the second position and at 10:52am Monday, the verdict was read out: the prime minister had been ousted, the first ever in Swedish political history to lose in a vote of no confidence. 175 votes were required.

“It’s nothing to applaud, but it is an expression of our vibrant democracy,” one Moderate Party lawmaker offered after the historical vote.

Is Stefan Löfven one of the first European leaders to suffer the political consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic?

Maybe, but he is certainly a victim of the whims of populist parties (in this instance, at both the far left and right of the spectrum). It’s always a risk with fringe parties and Löfven should, in hindsight, have taken the threats of the Left Party more seriously.

Leftist voters are now jubilant, having proven that their party – currently at only nine percent in the polls – is a force to be reckoned with. New Left Party leader Nooshi Dadgostar has certainly increased her clout as well.

The message is clear: if they don’t get their way in key issues (in this instance, the rental market), they won’t hesitate to bite the hand that feeds them.

So, what now?

Stefan Löfven has a week to decide on how to move forward and is likely to go for a snap election, as the other option would be to hand over the process of putting together a new government to the speaker of the parliament.

At least now Löfven’s got a chance to stay in power until next autumn’s regular parliamentary elections.

The problem is, the Swedish PM hasn’t seemed fit for the fight for a long time.

Handing over the Covid-19 response to the Public Health Agency may or may not have been a good idea, depending on your stance, but it’s clear that state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell appeared to be the one in charge for most of the pandemic year.

Many Swedes are sure to lament that Tegnell won’t run in a forthcoming snap election.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

WORK PERMITS

Business leaders: Work permit threshold ‘has no place in Swedish labour model’

Sweden's main business group has attacked a proposal to exempt some jobs from a new minimum salary for work permits, saying it is "unacceptable" political interference in the labour model and risks seriously affecting national competitiveness.

Business leaders: Work permit threshold 'has no place in Swedish labour model'

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise said in its response to the government’s consultation, submitted on Thursday afternoon, that it not only opposed the proposal to raise the minimum salary for a work permit to Sweden’s median salary (currently 34,200 kronor a month), but also opposed plans to exempt some professions from the higher threshold. 

“To place barriers in the way of talent recruitment by bringing in a highly political salary threshold in combination with labour market testing is going to worsen the conditions for Swedish enterprise in both the short and the long term, and risks leading to increased fraud and abuse,” the employer’s group said.   

The group, which represents businesses across most of Sweden’s industries, has been critical of the plans to further raise the salary threshold for work permits from the start, with the organisation’s deputy director general, Karin Johansson, telling The Local this week that more than half of those affected by the higher threshold would be skilled graduate recruits Swedish businesses sorely need.   

But the fact that it has not only rejected the higher salary threshold, but also the proposed system of exemptions, will nonetheless come as a blow to Sweden’s government, and particular the Moderate Party led by Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, which has long claimed to be the party of business. 

The confederation complained that the model proposed in the conclusions of the government inquiry published in February would give the government and political parties a powerful new role in setting salary conditions, undermining the country’s treasured system of collective bargaining. 

The proposal for the higher salary threshold, was, the confederation argued, “wrong in principle” and did “not belong in the Swedish labour market”. 

“That the state should decide on the minimum salary for certain foreign employees is an unacceptable interference in the Swedish collective bargaining model, where the parties [unions and employers] weigh up various needs and interested in negotiations,” it wrote. 

In addition, the confederation argued that the proposed system where the Sweden Public Employment Service and the Migration Agency draw up a list of exempted jobs, which would then be vetted by the government, signified the return of the old system of labour market testing which was abolished in 2008.

“The government agency-based labour market testing was scrapped because of it ineffectiveness, and because it was unreasonable that government agencies were given influence over company recruitment,” the confederation wrote. 

“The system meant long handling times, arbitrariness, uncertainty for employers and employees, as well as an indirect union veto,” it added. “Nothing suggests it will work better this time.” 

For a start, it said, the Public Employment Service’s list of professions was inexact and outdated, with only 179 professions listed, compared to 430 monitored by Statistics Sweden. This was particularly the case for new skilled roles within industries like battery manufacturing. 

“New professions or smaller professions are not caught up by the classification system, which among other things is going to make it harder to recruit in sectors which are important for the green industrial transition,” the confederation warned. 

Rather than implement the proposals outlined in the inquiry’s conclusions, it concluded, the government should instead begin work on a new national strategy for international recruitment. 

“Sweden instead needs a national strategy aimed at creating better conditions for Swedish businesses to be able to attract, recruit and retain international competence.”

SHOW COMMENTS