
Debater criticizes the Social Democrats' cooperation with the red-green parties and calls for a new political direction.
AI-generated summary
The Social Democrats have had difficulty forming a stable government coalition with the Left Party, the Green Party and the Center Party.
S-leader Magdalena Andersson looks to be on her way to a resounding fiasco with her government negotiations with the other so-called red-green parties.
You could sense in advance that something was already going wrong when the Social Democrats decided to go to the elections as a single party and not try to form a permanent block before the elections. One began to wonder even more when the Left Party seemed to become radicalized in its positions regarding the Gaza war with activists of various kinds and Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) began to score points with his comments about "terror romantics within S".
When Ebba Busch (KD) was then able to score points with remarks about anti-Semitism in the left-wing ranks, and this was not met with force and discussion by the other red-green parties, but the demarcation had to be cemented, I sensed confusion. I agreed with both Kristersson and Busch in their reasoning. Why did the Social Democrats keep quiet then?
When Aftonbladet's editorial page became a nest for this romance of terror without further critical perspectives and how they had basically all joined the radicalized left, it was already clear.
In that situation, the Center Party came into the picture and said very clearly that V is not a party fit for government, which Magdalena Andersson also repeated. In general, her role in the election campaign was to play second fiddle, and we were never told what kind of policy the party really wanted in a new government if it was formed.
The Social Democrats' election campaign was as bland as Magdalena Andersson's clothes. No outlines, no clear, powerful messages, and it was clear how the different phalanxes had free rein about most things. In particular, their message on migration policy became very different depending on who was speaking.
It says a lot about this election that it was the environmentalists who were the most tidy and decent without any anarchist edicts or tricks.
Now this rough-and-tumble between C and V continues week after week, which has completely blocked all government formation on the red-green side, while Magdalena Andersson doesn't seem to be able to put her foot down. There is no other word than that this is a colossal fiasco and a catastrophically embarrassing failure for the Social Democratic Party.
This is also followed up in smaller places in the country, such as here in Södertälje, for example, where the Social Democrats are now allowed to sit in opposition for the first time in decades. Something has gone completely wrong in the Social Democrats. Or time has passed them by.
It could be that it is the three other red-green parties that have become more "radicalised", fanatical, polarized or whatever we should call it because these red lines have arisen? I think that due to the polarization that emerged when SD became an established party and everything seems to either be drawn to them or repelled from them as if they were magnetized has created this situation in the Swedish political landscape.
What was previously considered left-wing politics has now split into extremes and the moderate left, which currently consists of the Social Democrats. In the same way, it is on the Tidö side, although there the other parties have been drawn too hard to SD. They are stuck there.
The Social Democrats' and especially Magdalena Andersson's quest to move away from polarization and find the "middle" in Swedish politics that does not pull society apart, but rather finds the common ground is an increasingly impossible task together with the red-greens. It's like that block toy where kids try to fit different shaped blocks into holes that show the same shape. It doesn't always work, no matter how hard you bank and try. The V-, MP- and also C-shaped block does not get through to the Social Democrats' box anymore.
The Social Democrats must be able to stand alone or eventually merge with other more moderate forces where the extremes on both sides are left to their fate. How it goes this time with the formation of the government is unclear. But at some point you have to start.
I don't think the Social Democrats belong anymore with the red-green extreme parties or the fanatical Center Party. It's time to realize that.

Anti-Zionist hatred has increased in Sweden and Europe since October 7, 2023, with expressions such as 'ZioNazi' and 'Genocide' becoming increasingly common. The article describes anti-Zionism as a modern form of Jew-hatred that uses human rights language to justify hatred of Jews and the existence of Israel, which has led to violence against Jews worldwide, including deadly attacks in Australia and Great Britain, as well as increased threats to Jewish institutions in Sweden.

The proportion of voters who are members of the Riksdag parties has fallen from about one in ten in 1991 to one in thirty-five in 2025, a decline of 60 percent. This leads to fewer candidates, empty ballots in municipalities and increased burden on remaining members, which threatens the party's recruitment base and the functioning of democracy despite continued political interest among voters.

A laboratory employee in Shelekhov, Russia, has died of pneumonia, leading to extensive quarantines. Unconfirmed information claims that an accident with a test tube containing an antibiotic-resistant plague bacterium may be behind the outbreak.

The article proposes a decency manifesto to defend basic democratic principles in Sweden and the world, including respect for facts, rule of law, public service, culture, climate investments, equality, human rights and refugee reception, as a response to growing right-wing nationalism and authoritarian tendencies globally.

Mattias Svensson's new book "The world after September 11" depicts the war against terrorism as a failure characterized by state abuses and restricted freedoms that have not reduced the threats.

The article reflects on the reactions to Magnus Karaveli's debate article from 2003 where he warned of Islamism and cultural separatism in Sweden. It describes how he was subjected to harsh criticism, silence and threats, but was later vindicated in many of his fears. The author compares with similar debates in the UK and questions whether the condemnation of Karaveli was genuine or driven by opportunism and fear of being singled out.