|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 10 2018 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
many different reasons. One is that they've successfully distanced themselves from their nazi past. Another is that a lot of swedes became disillusioned with their immigration policies and all the 'mainstream' parties saying 'it's fine' while sweden democrats were saying it's not fine, for the mainstream parties to change to 'okay it's not fine' and implementing quite some of SD's policies (without the rhetoric, though). Or that's what I've heard anyway.
Third partial explanation I read (although pundits seemed to disagree a bit on this) is that it's not just immigration, but that the financial crisis hit sweden quite hard and increased the divide between people with education and ones without, once again with 'elites' not really acknowledging the problems, and the 'moderate' right wing government making changes to labor environment that made people's jobs less safe.. So kind of the same story as you see everywhere else.
The interesting thing is that when jobs feel unsecure going left is logical. Instead they switch to a different right side party.
https://valresultat.svt.se/2018/10000.html
Has live counting updates. Though final count isn't for another week since the counting at the vote locations isn't what sets the final result but a count at more centralised locations.
Another interesting thing is that the center party has tried to take the enviormental role in the right block. To this time get passed by the party renamed to the liberals in their normal block. Even the left party is more for enviormental actions. SD being the least for them. Green party losing a lot of votes makes me sad since all the other stuff is good enough in both blocks to not really matter (in my personal opinion).
|
On September 10 2018 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
many different reasons. One is that they've successfully distanced themselves from their nazi past. Another is that a lot of swedes became disillusioned with their immigration policies and all the 'mainstream' parties saying 'it's fine' while sweden democrats were saying it's not fine, for the mainstream parties to change to 'okay it's not fine' and implementing quite some of SD's policies (without the rhetoric, though). Or that's what I've heard anyway.
Third partial explanation I read (although pundits seemed to disagree a bit on this) is that it's not just immigration, but that the financial crisis hit sweden quite hard and increased the divide between people with education and ones without, once again with 'elites' not really acknowledging the problems, and the 'moderate' right wing government making changes to labor environment that made people's jobs less safe.. So kind of the same story as you see everywhere else.
On the topic of the rise of the Sweden democrats is that the right wing goverment did nothing to curb the massive immigration between 2008 and 2014 and all parties agreed that it was fine. At the same time SD was painted as nazis while they worked very hard on improving their image, expelling anyone with racist opinons from the party. Some people however did not think everything was fine and we switched goverments. The left wing goverment also said everything is fine untill 2015. About 10000 refuges a month caused the system to collapse. Goverment tried to hold on for a while but eventually started closing the borders.
Now this was basically what SD had been saying all along. Meanwhile they have worked very hard on scrubbing the party. So if you listened to them talking or read about their party they do not seem to be racist. Media was still painting them as nazis however but many people stopped listening.
As they grew in the polls most (not all) parties shifted their politics towards them while still trying to paint them brown.
What has happened today is that many parties have similar politics (SD are harsher but basically the same).
However people choose to vote for SD as they dont quite trust the other parties to impliment what they say they will (based on their track reccord) and they dont distrust SD enough (based on their lack of track reccord).
|
Economics seems to me like a pretty poor explanation for the shift to the far right. In the countries hardest hit by the crisis we've seen a resurgence of the far left (Syriza, Podemos). In addition it has cropped up in countries not hit or not hit hard by the crisis at all (Germany, Sweden, Denmark) and has existed before the crisis France and THe Netherlands.
I don't really see how the left is going to solve anything about job security. The increased regulation will just make it more expensive to hire workers and price those same people without job security out of the market (see France).
|
Norway28917 Posts
yea I totally agree that going left is the logical thing to for job security purposes, but I think the left is generally more guilty than the (far) right of having a 'things are going fine' type of attitude, which really doesn't resonate well with people who feel things aren't going fine. basically economic turmoil makes the anti-immigrant sentiment much more powerful.
I'm not intimately familiar with SD, but I have the impression that they - like most right populist parties that are deemed far right - aren't far right in terms of economic politics.
|
On September 10 2018 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yea I totally agree that going left is the logical thing to for job security purposes, but I think the left is generally more guilty than the (far) right of having a 'things are going fine' type of attitude, which really doesn't resonate well with people who feel things aren't going fine. basically economic turmoil makes the anti-immigrant sentiment much more powerful.
I'm not intimately familiar with SD, but I have the impression that they - like most right populist parties that are deemed far right - aren't far right in terms of economic politics.
Personal opinion. Things are going fine. So saying that resonates well with me. Though I think it went mostly fine in the economic crisis as well so I guess I am a bit of an outlier...
|
On September 10 2018 04:41 RvB wrote:
Economics seems to me like a pretty poor explanation for the shift to the far right. In the countries hardest hit by the crisis we've seen a resurgence of the far left (Syriza, Podemos). In addition it has cropped up in countries not hit or not hit hard by the crisis at all (Germany, Sweden, Denmark) and has existed before the crisis France and THe Netherlands.
I don't really see how the left is going to solve anything about job security. The increased regulation will just make it more expensive to hire workers and price those same people without job security out of the market (see France).
Yeah, but the storyline has been that "the left" cares for the workers and "the right" for the employers.
Since "the left" is quite visibly not capable to do so when governing, it is turning into a cultural-liberal movement similar to American democrats, because that is all that is left, or going under reproposing the solutions that didn't work for the many.
Also keep in mind it is not the unemployed that turn right, the poor and unemployed are what makes for the slow rise of the "far-left" in europe. It is the middle-income, middle-age people from rural or former industrial regions, regions from which the young are emigrating, that turn right.
People there are trying to vote against change, a change that is induced by technical advantages, global interonnectedness and progressive cultural laws (gay rights, abortion, the English language etc.).
|
Norway28917 Posts
my own personal opinion is also that things are going fine, for me, they are. For reasonably well educated people from middle+ class urban areas, things are mostly fine.. But even if things are fine for 75% of society it makes sense to me that a lot of the other 25% feel that the party saying 'things aren't fine at all' represent them better than the parties stating that things are fine, are.
|
On September 10 2018 04:33 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
many different reasons. One is that they've successfully distanced themselves from their nazi past. Another is that a lot of swedes became disillusioned with their immigration policies and all the 'mainstream' parties saying 'it's fine' while sweden democrats were saying it's not fine, for the mainstream parties to change to 'okay it's not fine' and implementing quite some of SD's policies (without the rhetoric, though). Or that's what I've heard anyway.
Third partial explanation I read (although pundits seemed to disagree a bit on this) is that it's not just immigration, but that the financial crisis hit sweden quite hard and increased the divide between people with education and ones without, once again with 'elites' not really acknowledging the problems, and the 'moderate' right wing government making changes to labor environment that made people's jobs less safe.. So kind of the same story as you see everywhere else. The interesting thing is that when jobs feel unsecure going left is logical. Instead they switch to a different right side party. https://valresultat.svt.se/2018/10000.htmlHas live counting updates. Though final count isn't for another week since the counting at the vote locations isn't what sets the final result but a count at more centralised locations. Another interesting thing is that the center party has tried to take the enviormental role in the right block. To this time get passed by the party renamed to the liberals in their normal block. Even the left party is more for enviormental actions. SD being the least for them. Green party losing a lot of votes makes me sad since all the other stuff is good enough in both blocks to not really matter (in my personal opinion).
from some of the research i've read; votes have very little to do with logic in general. And when things are bad (or perceived to be bad) people vote for change; if the country is left they shift right; and if they're right they shift left. Basically it tends to flip to the other side regardless of the logical coherency of such a position based on the policy stances. That combined with a shift away from the center positions for roughyl the same reasons.
|
On September 10 2018 04:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yea I totally agree that going left is the logical thing to for job security purposes, but I think the left is generally more guilty than the (far) right of having a 'things are going fine' type of attitude, which really doesn't resonate well with people who feel things aren't going fine. basically economic turmoil makes the anti-immigrant sentiment much more powerful.
I'm not intimately familiar with SD, but I have the impression that they - like most right populist parties that are deemed far right - aren't far right in terms of economic politics. Personal opinion. Things are going fine. So saying that resonates well with me. Though I think it went mostly fine in the economic crisis as well so I guess I am a bit of an outlier...
I think part of the problem deals in messaging; left leaning political groups throughout the world are being forced to figure out a way to package "things are fine" in a way that can compete with the hot rhetoric of the right and others dissatisfied with things. Here in the US, things are arguably not fine in the way a lot of establishment democrats think they are, but I don't think this is the case in much of Europe. That said, I can't speak to that on a personal level.
|
On September 10 2018 04:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yea I totally agree that going left is the logical thing to for job security purposes, but I think the left is generally more guilty than the (far) right of having a 'things are going fine' type of attitude, which really doesn't resonate well with people who feel things aren't going fine. basically economic turmoil makes the anti-immigrant sentiment much more powerful.
I'm not intimately familiar with SD, but I have the impression that they - like most right populist parties that are deemed far right - aren't far right in terms of economic politics. Personal opinion. Things are going fine. So saying that resonates well with me. Though I think it went mostly fine in the economic crisis as well so I guess I am a bit of an outlier...
i don't think that's being an outlier. I would agree with you as well, think everything's (more or less) fine, going fine and thought the same during the crisis as well.
I'd assume it's the same for the large majority of people. Yes times were tougher but the people who actually got to feel that are in the minority. It's not like you had 50% unemployment or anything that severe for "most people" to actually feel the pain themselves.
It's just the general principle of people who aren't happy with how it's going being louder than people who are happy with the situation. And it's completly understandable, if you want change you're going to scream and yell, if you're fine with what's on the menue, so to speak, you're not going to complain or go out on the streets with signs "EVERYTHING IS FINE AND I LÌKE IT!". Why would you.
I personally think this is just a thing of our generation nowadays. No, I'm not blaming millennials just statint that our situation is different. You didn't have social media a couple years ago and people sharing their stories of how hard a crisis hit them, reinforcing your own perception of how bad it is if you happened to be hit as well. So you nonstop hear these horror-stories about how bad things are and get a really warped perspective.
Take brexit for another example. Look at any interview with Farage and you'll hear him talk about how the population, the "real" people is overwhelmingly in favor of brexit and it's just the politicians who are out of touch with things. I genuinly believe that's just his own bubble he's in to some degree because like I said, you just don't hear about those people who are fine with where things are going and people who are against the status quo will always be more motivated than someone who's okay with how things are going.
|
Im just sad that the 'refugee crisis' is the front and center hot issue right now in european politics, when the actual REAL issue we should be tackling is climate change.
I highly doubt society is going to look back in 50 years and lament the immigration policies when everyone is burning up in 30C degree weather in winter.
If this refugee shit wasnt going on right now then it would be much easier to focus on that for politicians.
|
On September 10 2018 05:05 solidbebe wrote:
Im just sad that the 'refugee crisis' is the front and center hot issue right now in european politics, when the actual REAL issue we should be tackling is climate change.
I highly doubt society is going to look back in 50 years and lament the immigration policies when everyone is burning up in 30C degree weather in winter.
If this refugee shit wasnt going on right now then it would be much easier to focus on that for politicians.
In 50 years they will look back at this nice refugee situation and wish they had it again. More people will be moving due to climate change than this recent (mostly) peaceful period of time. We should be using it as a learning experience and optimising for the worse ones on the horizon. Not stopping the learning and assuming it won't happen soon again.
|
Though Sweden wasn't particularly badly hit since the financial crisis, SD voters (and politicians) tend to be those who have themselves become economically worse off since 2008 (though they are not exclusively unemployed, poor or middle class as a demographic). Easy to see how the politics of understandable, if misplaced, resentment can worm its way in. Also worth thinking about Thomas Piketty's thinking on the rise of the far right in Europe - the centre left parties are perceived to have become dominated by an educated elite, while the right wing parties have become dominated by a well off elite. The fairly similar rise in vote share for the Left party and the SD suggest this isn't just a story of far right extremism, but a deeper rejection of the established political order.
|
On September 10 2018 05:10 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 05:05 solidbebe wrote:
Im just sad that the 'refugee crisis' is the front and center hot issue right now in european politics, when the actual REAL issue we should be tackling is climate change.
I highly doubt society is going to look back in 50 years and lament the immigration policies when everyone is burning up in 30C degree weather in winter.
If this refugee shit wasnt going on right now then it would be much easier to focus on that for politicians. In 50 years they will look back at this nice refugee situation and wish they had it again. More people will be moving due to climate change than this recent (mostly) peaceful period of time. We should be using it as a learning experience and optimising for the worse ones on the horizon. Not stopping the learning and assuming it won't happen soon again.
There are nukes. Don't forget that. The right is painting it as an invasion and once those pictures nest they, or others more radical will demand defense by violence.
We have the technology to stop migration, don't forget that.
|
It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch.
|
On September 10 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:
It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch.
Climate change demonstrations and enviromental actionism are far out-weighting anything the right does. There are thousands demonstrating every day but when 500 elderly take to the street in Chemnitz I should "understand that they are angry". Excuse me to go full Marxist on this one, but there is simply no interest from those who hold the capital to regulate themselves or shed light on the topic. The top 1% controls 50% of the capital, they have the sole individual responsibility for what they produce from their share of property, not the consumers or anybody else. That's what property means. I don't polute the enivroment when I eat cattle. The cattle has already lived. And it is completely delusional to believe that not buying stuff helps, when any crisis of demand leads to central banks making money easier available for the supply side.
|
On September 10 2018 05:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:
It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch. Climate change demonstrations and enviromental actionism are far out-weighting anything the right does. There are thousands demonstrating every day but when 500 elderly take to the street in Chemnitz I should "understand that they are angry". Excuse me to go full Marxist on this one, but there is simply no interest from those who hold the capital to regulate themselves or shed light on the topic. The top 1% controls 50% of the capital, they have the sole individual responsibility for what they produce from their share of property, not the consumers or anybody else. That's what property means. I don't polute the enivroment when I eat cattle. The cattle has already lived. And it is completely delusional to believe that not buying stuff helps, when any crisis of demand leads to central banks making money easier available for the supply side.
I'm not clear on your cattle point; while true that you don't directly pollute via the cattle you eat, since it already lived; is it not the case that you contribute to the use of cattle (and the pollution they thereby generate) by buying it to create demand for it?
|
On September 10 2018 05:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:
It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch. Climate change demonstrations and enviromental actionism are far out-weighting anything the right does. There are thousands demonstrating every day but when 500 elderly take to the street in Chemnitz I should "understand that they are angry". Excuse me to go full Marxist on this one, but there is simply no interest from those who hold the capital to regulate themselves or shed light on the topic. The top 1% controls 50% of the capital, they have the sole individual responsibility for what they produce from their share of property, not the consumers or anybody else. That's what property means. I don't polute the enivroment when I eat cattle. The cattle has already lived. And it is completely delusional to believe that not buying stuff helps, when any crisis of demand leads to central banks making money easier available for the supply side.
I'm kind of struggling to see the relevance of this to P6's point, which was that the intransigence democracies all over the world show towards a genuine potentially annihilatory threat stands in contrast to how quickly alarmist anti-immigrant parties can take hold of the public debate. You're right, individual action almost certainly isn't enough to prevent climate change - but it's also far from clear how any political resolution can be reached, as democratic politics inherently discourages the focused, long term policy required to make any difference.
|
@bigj: 500 elderly are purely assumed for the sake of argument here or am I missing something?
I think the more tangible threat to western countries is automation, even in front of climate change (albeit the latter being strikingly more imminent!).
And nobody seems to have any clue how to tackle the challenge of rethinking work life for the masse (at least as far as I am aware of). This should be a prime target for a coordinated policy approach on a European level. At least research or strategic thinking wise because national parliaments are way too preoccupied dealing with the matter of the moment, the latest viral outrage.
|
On September 10 2018 05:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2018 05:30 Big J wrote:On September 10 2018 05:17 Plansix wrote:
It is easier to fear monger about being invaded by refugees. The “climate” is to large of a problem for voters to feel they can change it.
Or to put it another way, “vote for me so we can change then weather” is a hard pitch. Climate change demonstrations and enviromental actionism are far out-weighting anything the right does. There are thousands demonstrating every day but when 500 elderly take to the street in Chemnitz I should "understand that they are angry". Excuse me to go full Marxist on this one, but there is simply no interest from those who hold the capital to regulate themselves or shed light on the topic. The top 1% controls 50% of the capital, they have the sole individual responsibility for what they produce from their share of property, not the consumers or anybody else. That's what property means. I don't polute the enivroment when I eat cattle. The cattle has already lived. And it is completely delusional to believe that not buying stuff helps, when any crisis of demand leads to central banks making money easier available for the supply side. I'm no tclear on your cattle point; while true that you don't directly pollute via the cattle you eat, sinc eit already lived; is it not the case that you contribute to the use of cattle (and the pollution they thereby generate) by buying it to create demand for it?
Not if any crisis in demand is met with measures such as:
- increased exports (dropping trade barriers for those struggling)
- cheaper money (so that instead earning money you get cheaper credits and your older credits dont have to be repaid at the former rate)
- other political measures (e.g. subventions, cheaper labor measures, deregulation)
As long as any loss in production or employment is met with political action the property owner doesn't actually suffer the blow. The consumer structure may change - instead of me some Russian is eating the Austrian cattle, or someone else is just eating more due to cheap prices from political measures - but the production stays the same or increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
