Per Molander: The Left Party should take after the Sweden Democrats

A basic rule in negotiation theory is that the party that has the easiest time living with a negotiation breaking down is also the one that is the strongest and can achieve a better result. In the ongoing government negotiations, C and V are the main parties, while S most likely has the role of mediator and MP is biding his time.

If the negotiations break down definitively, there will be by-elections. Most likely, the right-wing bloc would win this election and be able to form a government on its own. You would have an extremely heavy argument in the election campaign: the red-green parties have had the chance to form a government and have shown their inability to take advantage of the opportunity. Who has the easiest time living with that outcome? V, which is as far away as you can get from the right-wing bloc in the political spectrum, or C, which in important areas such as the economy and the labor market is a right-wing party? The question is rhetorical.

Maturing as a person means, among other things, realizing that life is sometimes a choice between a bad alternative and one that is worse.

If the red-green parties together against the odds should win a by-election with roughly the same strength ratio as in the recent election, you are back to square one. Since Sweden must have a government after all, it is likely that in such a situation C would agree to form a government with M, L and KD. After all, SD has generously offered to give up ministerial posts to make such a solution possible. It would be a betrayal debate, but C's party leadership could refer to the necessity to solve the government issue without any of the "extreme parties" sitting in the government. In addition, fraud debates usually do not have long-term effects on voter sympathies, and the next election would be several years away.

"It's now or never," says a central source within V (DN 9/10). What is the basis for such a categorical statement? After all, SD has been outside the government during the past mandate period and is now considered by its coalition partners to have qualified to sit in the government. Why wouldn't V be able to make a similar trip?

"It is in the government that the ultimate power lies", has been another watchword for V. But during the past mandate period, a central criticism from the opposition and opinion leaders in society has been that the SD had an unreasonably large influence over the policy pursued, despite the fact that it has not sat in the government. It is obviously possible to exert a strong influence on the basis of a common platform, representatives in the government office and participation in press conferences and similar events, where the policy is presented and discussed. Why would V not be able to succeed with such a solution?

"Unfortunately, there are still parties that do not accept the parliamentary reality that the election results imply," V's party leader wrote in a comment on the latest failure. But exactly the same comment can be made about V's behavior during the probes. It is not enough to look at the latest election results; one must also make an analysis of the negotiation situation and the conceivable future alternatives, as indicated above.

Maturing as a person means, among other things, realizing that life is sometimes a choice between a bad alternative and one that is worse. This also applies in politics.