The formation of a government remains deadlocked, and the right wing is trying to win over the Center Party. Now, KDU Chair Louise Hammargren is taking a tougher stance against the Sweden Democrats and demanding that the party drop its demand for ministerial posts—saying that after its election setback to 17.5 percent, the SD ”just has to suck it up.” Meanwhile, Jimmie Åkesson insists that the party will either be part of the government or go into opposition, while Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist is exploring a centrist alternative.
Chairperson of the Christian Democratic Youth Association Louise Hammargren levels sharp criticism at the Sweden Democrats and urges the party to drop its demand for ministerial posts. In an interview with Svenska Dagbladet, she says that the Sweden Democrats ”just have to suck it up” after losing ground in the election, and that the party should accept remaining outside the government if the Center Party does the same.
Hammargren wants to see a government consisting of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals, working in cooperation with both the Center Party and the Sweden Democrats. She points out that the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals increased their share of the vote, while the Sweden Democrats fell from 20.5 to 17.5 percent. According to her, the results show that voters did not vote for the Sweden Democrats to be part of the government.
– The SD did so poorly in the election that they’ll just have to suck it up. If the C gives in, the SD will have to do the same, says Hammargren.
The Center Party and the Sweden Democrats Must Back Down
She hopes that the Center Party will abandon its hard line against the Sweden Democrats and accept active or passive support from the party. That way, she believes, the Center Party could push through its policies, while a center-right government could be formed with the support of the Sweden Democrats’ seats.
The statement comes at a time when the formation of a government remains at an impasse. Jimmie Åkesson has previously made it clear that the Sweden Democrats must either be part of the government or serve in the opposition, and the party has not indicated any willingness to drop its demand for a ministerial post. The Center Party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist For her part, she has rejected cooperation with the Sweden Democrats and is instead exploring the possibilities for a centrist alternative. Åkesson has invited her this week to discuss the parliamentary situation, but the Sweden Democrats’ position remains unchanged.
Reveals how others view the SD
Ahead of the election, he promised Ulf Kristersson that the Sweden Democrats would be allowed to join the government if the “Tidö parties” won. Now, following an election in which the center-right parties, together with the Sweden Democrats, failed to secure a majority on their own, the Sweden Democrats are under pressure to accept a role as a supporting party with no influence in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Hammargren’s remark that the party just has to ”suck it up” reflects how parts of the right view the Sweden Democrats’ position following the election results—a party that remains the third-largest in the Riksdag but is expected to step aside to facilitate the formation of a government without its ministers.
"The 8th Swindlers,"?
We do have alternatives, after all.
Exactly!
The utterly repulsive Louise Hammargren uses language that is enough to disqualify her from being anything other than the treasonous proponent of hate speech that she is. Know your place, you piece of filth!
The fact that the SD deserves just as much criticism from the perspective of treason is another sad story.
To everyone with limited brainpower who doesn't understand the significance of election results—such as Louise Hammargren—here's the deal: The election results determine the influence each party gains, not the change from the previous election.
If that weren't the case, we'd probably have a sham debate among intellectual luminaries like Jakob Forssmed, Pål Jonson, and others about how, in reality, it was the results of one or more previous elections that should count toward the allocation of seats. :)
Agreed.