Kristerson ended up in Bush’s shadow – again

If it was such a good idea now to provoke a mistrust of Justice Minister Morgan Johansson (S) with 100 days left until the election, one might think that Ulf Christerson himself could have thought of the idea.

And if it is in the opposition’s interest, after all, to avoid a government crisis in the delicate situation we are in–let’s say by making a compromise proposal–well, then perhaps it should have been the leader of the opposition who took the lead.

but not. SD provoked distrust. hung m. Ebba Bosch made a compromise proposal. Ulf Christerson stood behind him.

Full bowl, Åkesson

The Swedish Democrats are the anarchist pilots in the Swedish Parliament. That’s what their voters – and everyone else – expect of them. The party has everything to gain from stirring up chaos and arousing suspicion. It reduces trust in the system and established parties – and thus increases trust in sustainable development.

And now they’ve brought the entire opposition with them, until Jimmy O’Keson appears as the leader of the opposition, as a reward. full bowl.

Ebba Busch is an expert on taking advantage of the moment. Everyone was forced to associate with her coup d’état during the party leader’s debate, in which she offered Magdalena Anderson a way out of the situation. Feather in the hat you take with you, even if it does not become relevant.

We can certainly spend the rest of the term debating whether it is right or wrong for moderates and liberals to stand behind the mistrust of SD.

Demonstrating that you are in opposition is sure to come, not least after your capitulation to the December agreement in 2014, say those who support the resolution.

But not even everyone on their side is convinced. GP’s former principal owner and political editor, Liberal Peter Horney, sees this as A tactical error that can be considered a contentious political game.

Christerson did not judge

No matter which leg you land on, it’s easy to see that Ulf Kristersson isn’t the one controlling the process, not in any single situation. So: There is no good week at work for a moderate leader.

As for the liberals, it is hard to see that they gained anything from what happened. Admittedly, they have made it clear that they are now on the sustainable development side of Swedish politics. Sadly for the party, he is not allowed to participate. Ebba Busch informed M and SD of their plans to discuss – but not L.

Above all: the way liberals can make the most of the right-wing bloc in elections is by attracting voters across the bloc’s borders. It can be seen as highly uncertain that this is the correct path.

The risk of increasing distrust

Trust in Magdalena Anderson is great. But will it be great when this story is summed up? The hasty announcement that the entire government would resign if Morgan Johansson fell was motivated first by the fact that mistrust was directed at government policy – and later by the fact that the Minister of Justice was invaluable to the NATO operation. Besides, there is a certain weakness in answering Ebba Bush during the party leader’s debate – would Morgan Johansson have been sacrificed after all?

In addition, negotiations with the savage politician Emine Kakapavi, who, if nothing else, risks sowing a seed of mistrust: Are the Social Democrats now so eager to bring Sweden into NATO that they may negotiate with Turkish President Erdogan about the country? The position of the Kurds?

Confidence in politicians and politics as a whole has certainly taken a hit during the week – at the same time that the party that started the whole spectacle really appears to be the big winner.

Maybe worth thinking about for others, before hopping on the carousel next time.

Read also: Morgan Johansson’s fate will be decided in a parliamentary vote

Read also: Four difficult years.. Here are the government’s biggest crises

Read also: I don’t think it’s about shooting