Looking back, I didn't write much about politics at the end of last year, but the two last entries were both about the crisis in the Social Democratic party. The first just sums up their leaders mistake and ends on a political scientist joke (aka maybe not that funny) about the similarities about Juholt and Nixon. The second one more or less is a pretty decent (from my perspective... I wrote it so that's obvious) run-down of what ails the party. Then it became quiet, Juholt was on vacation in Mexico and the governmental parties said hardly anything meaning it left the field open for the other parties to finally get their voices heard in the media shadow that is Juholt. That was to good to last many social democrats felt and they were right. This monday he returned, the same day a poll was published leaving his party at 23,6 %. And the social democrats thought 27,7 % was bad. (Of course that was two different polling institutes so the numbers aren't that good to take at face-value, but it's still a big contrast to the 40 % party we know and love to hate)
It doesn't end there though. He returned to speak at the "Folk och Försvar" conference (direct translated as people and defence, a conference discussing event around the world and how they affect Swedish or even the worlds security and stability). His primary speak goes as planned, everything seems forgiven and forgotten... and then comes the follow-up questions. It's about the new defence that are unveiling in front of our eyes where the draft has been abolished and we turn it into a volunteer armed force. The decision was taken 2009 and 2010 when the Alliance had a majority in the parliament and Juholt himself was part of the defence committee and have had a place there since 1994, even being chairman of the committee at one point. So defence questions should be easy for him. What happens? He totally screws up. In an attempt to force the Sweden Democrats (SD) upon the Alliance he told the press (and the world) that the new defence was made together... before SD even entered the Riksdag in September (or was it October, it's hard with wikipedia down) 2010. Most caught on to that rather quickly (especially tragic for him is that SD would have supported S since they preferred the draft like S) and his attempt at the defending the statement was that he used more drastic languish to illustrate the problem with a minority government (although S have been in minority government almost all the time except certain instances in the 50's (when they governed together with C) and after their 50 % victory in the red waves of 1968). So his defence was to illustrate a point about a question that wasn't true, when it didn't even apply? And S still keeps him because...?
And today it's time for a party leader debate in the Riksdag. One of the high points in a political scientist year and I'm currently waiting on the analysis from the newspapers and SVT to see what was said. Yeah, I hardly listened to what they said, better get the summarize plus some outside perspective. This gonna be interesting and probably one of very few debates since there's no election until next year... and that's just the church election. Usually we could look forward to the European parliament election, but that isn't until 2014 and that's if EU don't collapse on the euro.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar