Debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are many hard-working Swedes who have had it tough in recent years. You, mother or father who work hard and have pinched every penny but still haven't been able to afford what you should have been able to afford – we see you. You, retiree who turned away from the coffee shelf because the package cost almost 100 kronor – we have seen you. And you, entrepreneur who really would have needed to hire one more person but who had to wait due to the low activity in the economy – I know. This budget is for all of you.

Mr. Speaker! There may certainly be many who, just as I feel, that it is rather gloomy when one looks out over the world right now. There is war over land and war over tariffs. Here in the Swedish economy, we have previously had high inflation, and now we have a prolonged recession. This obviously affects us all, but some are affected significantly more than others. There are many who feel anxiety – anxiety for their finances, anxiety for their jobs, and anxiety for the future of their children and grandchildren. I understand that there is a lot of anxiety.

Mr. Speaker! I feel both confidence and faith in the future when I think about Sweden's future and our, the Swedes', future. I will explain why. I see that many of the basic prerequisites are in place for Sweden to be able to become stronger, safer, and wealthier, and I would like to mention a couple of the most central ones. We have good conditions to succeed. In many ways, these conditions are quite unique for Sweden.

The first prerequisite is that we have a unique economic strength. We have world-class public finances. We have a low national debt. While other countries struggle with high interest expenses that crowd out important investments, we can make large investments. We can now do what is required so that hard-working people get more money in their pockets – more to live on after some very tough years. At the same time, we can make large investments in defense, the police, and the justice system. Infrastructure will receive 14 billion more next year than this year. The list can be long, but we have a strength in our economy that we shall use.

The second prerequisite that Sweden has, and which is very important for success, is that there is political stability and decisiveness. There is a broad consensus here in the Swedish Riksdag regarding economic frameworks, defense, and Ukraine. Now, when it comes to the economy, there is – which perhaps is even more important – a majority for the budget that I have placed on the Riksdag's table. It is crucial for getting things done.

Mr. Speaker! Our four parties, the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals, promised three years ago to make Sweden stronger. We were to get back on the right track and the right course. And our policy is yielding results. The shootings have decreased year by year. Significantly more serious crimes are being solved. The police officers patrolling in outer service are more than ever, while the asylum-related immigration is lower than in a very long time. Our census has yielded results – Sweden has never had such good control over how many people are in the country and where they live. Inflation was at 10 percent when we took office. It has been combated. Now real wages are rising. Electricity prices are lower. Diesel is around 500 kronor cheaper per tank. The aviation tax has been abolished, the plastic bag tax likewise – I do not know if there is anyone who misses it. Marginal taxes, Mr. Speaker, are lower, as is the tax on savings. The total tax burden is the lowest in 50 years.

We have done all this at the same time as we have doubled the defense budget in just a few years. During these three years, welfare activities have received large supplements, especially in the very troublesome high-inflation environment that caused pension costs to spiral. Now it looks significantly brighter, even though it is of course tough in many places.

These are just a few examples that show that Sweden is on the right track. But we are not there yet. The situation when this budget is presented is that Trump's tariff policy and the geopolitical situation during the year and the spring have created a lot of uncertainty and unpredictability. A long-awaited recovery in the Swedish economy arrived during the autumn. Swedish households began to have confidence in the future again. Then Donald Trump stepped onto the arena and threatened with tariff wars – and also carried it out. The recession, which has become more prolonged than some of us thought from the beginning, is due to the fact that domestic demand is dampened. In other words: Many households are waiting and do not feel that they dare to invest.

With this budget, our four parties want more people to feel confidence and faith in the future. That is also why it is an injection of energy into Swedes' finances and, in that way, also into the Swedish economy. Together with previous tax cuts on labor and fuels, the budget means that a completely ordinary family will have 5,000 kronor more in their wallet per month next year compared to when the government took office. That makes a difference. I want more parents to be able to say "absolutely, we can do that" when the children ask if they can buy a takeaway pizza, go to the cinema, or watch a football match.

For the country's pensioners, the tax is lowered to the same extent as for those who work, and the difference in taxation between those who work and those who receive sickness and activity compensation is removed. The housing allowance for families with children is increased for the first time in 28 years. It has remained unchanged since 1997, Mr. Speaker. This will make it easier to make the money stretch for those who are struggling.

In summary, all this means that in a difficult time, which it is and has been, that the purchasing power of Swedes will have increased when this mandate period is over, despite the inflation.

Mr. Speaker! The second important part that has to do with economy in this budget is a four-part subsidy reform. Oh, how it is longed for! It rests on the valuation that everyone must do their part and must do their duty to be able to claim their right. Those who have great needs for social assistance or other compensations should know that the money exists, but then everyone who can work must do so.

This is correct. It is about more people being active. We also have an activity requirement as a first part of this reform. Those who receive subsistence support must in some way provide a counter-performance and be active with the aim of getting closer to the labor market. It is also fair for the family that struggles every day, those with several children and those who go to work every day whether they like it or not, to introduce a benefit ceiling. The neighbor might have just as many children and come from roughly the same country. That they today have exactly the same benefits is completely unreasonable. One must know that there is a difference between working and not working.

The third part of the reform concerns a job premium that encourages and stimulates when one moves from a long-term benefit dependency to work.

The fourth part is perhaps so important. Every single part of these four parts, Mr. Speaker, is important. It is about the fact that we are now introducing that when one immigrates to Sweden, one shall qualify for welfare services to a greater extent. Much in Sweden today happens more or less automatically, which is unreasonable.

These four parts are important from a moral perspective but also from a structural perspective. We must not leave behind and forget people in exclusion. Many more immigrant women will enter the labor market with these reforms.

Mr. Speaker! The third part of the budget concerns long-term growth and the conditions for companies. In this year's budget, we took large steps towards infrastructure investments and a major research proposal. Much of this constitutes important basic prerequisites. We ensure that the energy system will now function better with new nuclear power. Step by step, we are making Sweden better.

In this budget, we are temporarily lowering the employer contributions for young people. We want more people to be able to hire at least one more person. We are also permanently lowering the tax for many of Sweden's small-scale companies. It is 60,000 of them that will receive a tax reduction. For everyone affected by the 3:12 rules, one-third of the administrative costs for the bureaucracy will disappear.

We are investing in AI and easing regulations for construction. It may seem a bit much for some but very significant for others. I am glad that the unfair taxation, or the VAT, on weekend assignments is now being changed so that we do not penalize having a little fun on the weekend.

Alongside all of this, alongside reforms to strengthen the economy of Swedes and families, we continue to invest together in defense. I am very pleased with the responsible parliament that both invests in defense and continues the support for a free Ukraine.

Something else that the government is doing is to now get new nuclear power in place. We are intensifying the work. With the proposals in the budget, climate emissions are also expected to decrease next year and onwards.

Not least, it is about the school. We are now making the largest school reforms in 30 years to re-establish the knowledge school. Every youth, every child, in Sweden shall have the right to a good education. Parents' wallets and parents' occupations shall not be decisive. I have said it before: I am myself very grateful for the Swedish school which has given me opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot in a budget of 3,300 pages. I will mention a few things as well. I am very pleased that we are strengthening the work against homelessness. Homelessness, and elderly pensioners who do not have a home to go to, are not things that belong in Sweden. We are investing in a homelessness strategy and money for Bostad först. It is important so that more people can have their own bed and their own pillow.

We continue, of course, to invest in shortening the healthcare queues. Here, both we and the regions need to do significantly more together.

Mr. Speaker! We shall move forward. Sweden has such incredible potential. We have made many difficult journeys before. We have risen out of poverty and then became one of the world's richest countries. Now we have had five testing years in different ways. We can and need to take a new initiative again. That is what we do in this budget, Mr. Speaker.

My message is: We in Sweden are on the right track again, but we are not there yet. You who toil at work every day and make our country function, I want you to feel confidence and faith in the future.

It may be the last state budget that we present for this mandate period, but we are not finished. Step by step, and budget by budget, we in our four coalition parties will continue to do what we can so that Sweden will become an even better country to live in.

Mr. Speaker! With this budget, I hope that even more Swedes will be able to have a brighter sense of hope and a brighter view of the future. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that our best time lies ahead of us.

(Applause)

In this speech, Boriana Åberg (M) as well as Sara-Lena Bjälkö and Erik Hellsborn (both SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard Elisabeth Svantesson account for her farewell budget. It is astonishing that the Finance Minister is so satisfied. She thinks she has done everything right. She speaks of the policy yielding results. Sweden is on the right track.

Looking at how reality looks, I would rather expect an apology to the Swedish people from the Minister for Finance. The result of the SD government's and Elisabeth Svantesson's economic priorities speaks for itself.

The recession has been prolonged as a consequence of the Finance Minister's priorities. 100,000 more people have no job to go to. The crowns are pouring out, and the bankruptcies among the companies are at record highs.

Sweden's growth has been at the bottom of Europe. Prices are higher. A family with children can pay 30,000 kronor more for their food per year. Real wages will not recover for several years. These are the economic consequences. But there are other social problems that are connected to it.

Growth is low, but emissions are at record highs. It is backwards. Sweden was previously a country that had strong growth and decreasing emissions. Sweden today has low growth and increasing emissions. Sweden risks billion-dollar fines when the SD government's policy takes us further and further away from the climate goals.

At the same time, we have the continued wave of violence. The explosions are increasing. 200 percent more children under 15 years old are involved in murder cases in our country. Just this weekend, we have had two fatal shootings, while the explosions continue.

Mr. Speaker! No government has succeeded in reversing this development, nor has this government. But how can one be so enormously satisfied with the result?

Mr. Speaker! Throughout the entire parliamentary term, the SD government has put municipalities and regions on a starvation diet. The result is clear: We have had a crisis in healthcare with unacceptably long queues. In schools and preschools, tax money continues to leak out to venture capitalists instead of going to teachers in the classroom and better conditions for the students.

With this budget, the development is not being reversed. It is a budget full of temporary measures but without a real direction toward the future. There is no real growth policy or anything that will reverse the job crisis. There is no credible welfare policy, no long-term energy agreement, no mafia legislation, and not sufficient measures to break the new recruitment to the criminal gangs.

Mr. Speaker! One thing is clear. The high earners are once again the big winners. The budget simultaneously means that one is trying to cheat those who have been hit hardest by the economic policy.

Perhaps the clearest example is when the government first went out and said that they would now increase the housing allowance for the most vulnerable families with children. In reality, it turned out to be a deterioration.

First, the government reduced the supplement to the housing allowance for families with children by at most 2,100 SEK per month. Now it is putting back 1,000 SEK and says it is an improvement when it is in fact a worsening.

The Sweden Democrats and the government continue to make the same mistakes that have been made for several years in a row. They can afford to lower taxes for those who already have the most, but as the only country in the Nordic region, they cannot afford to increase the child benefit. They cannot afford to remove the unfair quarantine deduction that affects workers all over Sweden, or to make it cheaper to collect medicine for our elderly who are forced to choose between medicine and paying the bill.

Mr. Speaker! It does not quite seem that the Minister for Finance has understood what reality looks like in our country.

Are we on the right track when elderly people with poor finances have to choose between medicine and bills? Are we on the right track when more and more young people graduate from university and do not get jobs immediately? Are we on the right track when single parents are forced to turn over every single krona to make everyday life work?

These groups may not be the Moderates' core voters. But they are real families, and they are real people who build our country – people who deserve respect.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! It is often claimed that the government inherited high unemployment. But what it actually inherited was unemployment on the way down. It is under this government that unemployment has increased again. Are we on the right track when 100,000 more people are unemployed compared to when the government took office? That is as many as live in Jönköping, Lund, Norrköping, or Umeå. Over half a million people lack a job to go to.

Since the 2022 election, unemployment has increased in 16 of 21 counties. Nearly 30,000 companies have gone bankrupt. At Billerud, 650 employees are now at risk of losing their jobs. Scania has announced redundancies for 750 positions. In the coming days, employees at Volvo Cars are awaiting news on what will happen with the large redundancy there.

Then Elisabeth Svantesson blames trade tariffs and economic uncertainty. And it is true that the world is exposed to this, but the fact is that Sweden is performing worse than many comparable countries. Tariffs and geopolitics also affect our neighboring countries, but unemployment has nevertheless decreased in many countries in Europe while it has increased in Sweden. Sweden now has the third highest unemployment in the EU. Is Sweden on the right track?

This is nothing that is prioritized in this budget. There are some mandatory small splashes on various initiatives, some temporary measures that I do not know if the government believes in, and then a completely empty list of propositions from the Ministry of Employment. Is that what one expects in such a situation, with such low growth and such high unemployment?

Mr. Speaker! With this government, Sweden has fewer companies, more unemployed, and more people living on benefits. The SD government's work line lacks work. The growth policy lacks growth. Time and again, the Finance Minister has had to revise down his growth forecasts. Most recently, before the summer, Svantesson had to bite the bullet and admit that he had misjudged the situation again when the growth forecasts for our country for the current year were more than halved.

A major contributing reason why growth has not picked up is that the government has let ordinary people and Swedish welfare take the economic hit during the crisis. The government has also completely ignored the construction sector, which has been hit hard by the economic climate. I see nothing in the budget regarding this, and now important structural reforms are being left out. I mean that this is serious.

This was a misguided policy that will go down in history as a period when Swedish authorities failed in their economic policy. They failed to provide companies and industry with the conditions they needed to invest.

Let me quote Svenskt Näringsliv, Mr. Speaker: ”Now an extremely long negative trend must be broken. We are in the 12th quarter of weak economic activity among Svenskt Näringsliv's member companies – the longest such period in the history of the measurement. It is a record streak that no one can be proud of.”

Are we heading in the right direction? I believe many are surprised that the government does not take the issue of growth more seriously. That one does not tackle unemployment is one thing, but sufficient efforts are also not being made in other areas, such as investments in industry. Nothing is being done to get housing construction started, nothing to raise the investment level, and nothing to provide long-term assurances to industry on important future issues.

Mr. Speaker! I mean that the government lacks a plan for what Sweden shall live off in the future. It is particularly serious in the time we live in, when the conditions for security, prosperity, and growth are rapidly shifting. Geopolitical tensions are growing, protectionism is increasing, and the industrial map is being redrawn. The world is in the midst of a technological shift that will have a major impact on our economy.

This places new demands on Sweden, and it requires new solutions. But I mean that this budget does not provide those answers. The government is living a little bit in yesterday.

We Social Democrats know that it is about being at the forefront of technological development, because when more companies are created and when there are more jobs, Sweden and all Swedes become wealthier. Then the café can hire an extra waiter, then the high school student can get their first summer job, then new companies within the industry can create the solutions of the future, and then the nursing assistant can get more colleagues. Then ordinary people in ordinary jobs can get proper wage increases. That is how it is connected. A strong economy gives more companies the opportunity to grow, more people in work, increased resources for the welfare system, and higher wages for those who work.

But this is not what Sweden delivers today. The government leaves behind a country that has developed worse than the rest of Europe, with lower growth and higher unemployment. It leaves behind skyrocketing deficits and large emissions that make the future more dangerous and more expensive. It is not sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a new direction – a policy that truly kickstarts growth and stands on the side of ordinary people.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lena Bäckelin, Joakim Järrebring and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Since the electricity tax was introduced sometime in the early 50s, it has been basically raised, raised, and then raised a bit more – until now. The Sweden Democrats and the Tidö parties will now, for the first time in exactly how long it has been, lower the electricity tax.

A fairly common villa household pays in the magnitude of 10,000 kronor net per year in electricity tax. Now we let this villa household pay less than that and keep more of its money itself. For my part, I could without any problem come up with approximately a thousand things that are more fun to spend one's money on than paying the electricity tax.

I do not think that one should see this as an individual proposal but rather as part of a fairly clear common thread in the Tidö parties' budget policy.

Thus, Mr. Speaker: One should not have any overconfidence in the power of politics. Things happen outside this chamber that we have marginal or even non-existent control over. But the common thread in the Tidö parties' budget policy is that it should become a little easier to make everyday life work.

We have made it significantly cheaper to drive a car, with 500 or perhaps as much as 600 kronor per individual refueling. Then you have 500–600 kronor left in your wallet that you can do something more fun with. Over a year, that becomes quite a few thousands of kronor for an average driver. Then everyday life, and life in general, has become a little easier.

It has become easier to be a motorhome owner, Mr. Speaker. We have removed the strange surcharge taxation on motorhomes, which could actually amount to quite a few kronor per year. Now we move forward and remove the tax on caravans as well. We have made it cheaper to fly by removing a straight-through meaningless tax on flights. If one wants to go on holiday somewhere, one should be able to do so!

The plastic bags are cheaper. We have removed the plastic bag tax, so now you don't have to deal with those worthless paper bags. Now you can carry home your groceries in plastic bags, which don't break the first thing they do. You also don't need to buy trash bags made of plastic, because now you already have such. In fact, everyday life became a little, little simpler even from this, in context, much small reform.

Speaking of food – it is also going to become cheaper because the food VAT will be lowered, and not just lowered but even halved. A common shopping basket with milk, butter, eggs, meat, fruit, and vegetables will become cheaper. Probably this benefits almost everyone, as everyone shops for food at some point. But it likely benefits families with children somewhat more, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. In any case: Everyone will need to spend a slightly smaller portion of their private finances on just food and groceries. That is money that can instead be spent on something else.

Furthermore, it is the case, Mr. Speaker, that all these things – cheaper fuel, cheaper electricity, and cheaper food and groceries – collectively lead to lower inflation. Remember that when the Social Democrats were in charge of the Ministry of Finance, inflation was up over 10 percent! That is what we inherited. Now it is essentially down to the Riksbank's target level. This, in turn, has meant that the Riksbank has been able to lower the interest rate from 4 percent when it was at its highest to 2 percent today – that is, a halving.

If I am not mistaken, a new interest rate decision will be issued as early as tomorrow. I have no insight whatsoever into that for natural reasons, I want to point out, but in the best-case scenario, we will receive further interest rate cuts as early as tomorrow.

But in any case: All else being equal, this means that even the costs for households' mortgage loans have been halved. If they haven't done that, I think one should change banks.

Add on top of that the relief in the amortization requirement, which we also agree on within the Tidö parties. That will result in quite large effects in a downward direction regarding households' housing costs. That definitely makes everyday life easier to manage.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have implemented large, broad tax cuts for every wage earner and pensioner – once, twice, and now three times. Everyone who works or has worked gets to keep a significantly larger share of their own income themselves. Instead of paying tax, one can do something more fun with their own earned money. A completely ordinary wage earner gets to keep more than 400 kronor more every single month with the third job tax deduction, and then, consequently, twice as much for a household with two working adults.

Speaking of the electricity tax, by the way: It will be lowered. It will become a little less unpleasant to pay one's electricity bill. But the electricity tax is only a part of the electricity bill. If we want low electricity prices that are less volatile and more stable – regardless of whether it is blowing, where it is blowing, and whether it is blowing too much or too little – we need new power production in the form of nuclear power.

We could have lowered the electricity tax even more. It would have worked. But if it is windy, it will still be expensive, because previous governments have created an energy system that is far too dependent on unpredictable, unreliable, fluctuating, and volatile power production.

We in the Tidö parties are on the completely right track regarding the expansion of nuclear power. I deeply and sincerely hope that the Swedish people do not think it would be a good idea to vote for the other group so that they come to power and tear up everything that we have done regarding getting new nuclear power in place.

We know what happened with electricity prices during the last parliamentary term, especially in the southern parts of the country, when the four parties made the decision to shut down fully functioning nuclear power. It wasn't particularly fun, was it, neither for households nor for companies. It became quite dull. Let us therefore stop being dependent on whether it is blowing or not blowing.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker: It does not get any better because those wind turbines are so damn ugly to look at. They disfigure our otherwise beautiful and wonderful Swedish nature.

Mr. Speaker! Everyday life should become a little simpler for ordinary people. That is the common thread here, if you ask me.

Not everything is budget and taxes either. I can mention a few more examples.

It shall become easier to build one's residence, one's dream home at best, a bit more coastal, a bit more lakeside. The shore protection, as it has looked, has been hopeless.

Microbreweries can now sell their alcoholic products directly to customers without having to go through Systembolaget. We have also lowered the tax for them.

The forest farmer will get greater autonomy over their own land.

There are more examples than that, Mr. Speaker, but the common thread is that everyday life should become a little easier for ordinary people.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats support the budget bill. The Tidö parties deliver. I would like to thank the Minister for Finance for good cooperation. Now, from the Committee on Finance's side, we take command of the continued process.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Dennis Dioukarev, Nima Gholam Ali Pour and Erik Hellsborn (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Where is Sweden heading? Swedish healthcare is in free fall. In an increasingly fragile Sweden, Leo, who is turning five, cannot invite his friends from preschool to a children's party. Parents who struggle and strive to do everything for their children had their housing allowance reduced by the government and the Sverigedemokraterna just in time for the summer.

The vast majority in this country try to do their best and a little more, given the circumstances. Potlucks are held at the churches. Food parcels are distributed to Swedish pensioners who, despite having built up the country and provided for us others, now cannot afford both to eat and pay the rent.

My friend who is a nurse tells me about her days in an overcrowded emergency room, about the constant feeling of not being enough, and about patients lying in the corridor, struggling against illness and anxiety.

This is not how it should be in a welfare state.

There are very many people out there who keep fighting and help each other when misfortune strikes. But, Mr. Speaker, when will the Swedish government do its part?

Mr. Speaker! There is now one year left until the election, and the final autumn budget of this parliamentary term is being discussed. I thought we would allow ourselves a small summary.

Hello, is anyone home? It is a question one has wanted to ask throughout the entire mandate period. Everyone else has noticed how the costs are hitting, that it is almost impossible to get an appointment at the health center and that the medicines are becoming more expensive. But it seems that the government went and hid as soon as the government statement was read.

Free for all! That is what one wanted to shout when households were left completely alone to handle the consequences of the crisis. You can come forward now! Swedish healthcare does not work.

And when they finally appeared, we were met with pure denial, with home-made charts showing how the climate goals were achieved. Growth will come, the Finance Minister boasted. I will save the healthcare staff, said the Prime Minister, and the promises stood like poles in the ground. We believe it when we see it, the voters thought quite rightly.

It also doesn't help to rename the steel bath the government dumped on Swedish healthcare as a historical investment. Nor does "We are investing broadly in households" fly when 50,000 per year are delivered to them with a whole fortune in monthly salary. The Finance Minister himself, through his budget proposal, has received more in his wallet during one month than the average wage earner receives in an entire year.

"Is it a hidden camera?" my father asked over the phone from the TV sofa after having calculated that for him it amounted to barely a hundred.

Mr. Speaker! The alternative description of reality does not, however, seem to have resonated with the voters. The costs in everyday life remained despite the Finance Minister's tales. Waiting times in healthcare did not become shorter just because she said so at a press conference. If that is to happen, the politics must work for it.

What did the government do then? Did they crawl to the cross, saved the welfare, and invested for jobs and growth? I wouldn't believe it.

But the activity nevertheless increased dramatically at the Government Offices in step with the fact that the public opinion became increasingly weaker. In what way? you might wonder, Mr. Speaker. Through a reform agenda to stop criminals from laundering money in elderly care? perhaps you others think.

I must allow myself to disappoint you. Don't be so old-fashioned! These are new times now.

But of course the Tidö government stepped up, especially on its Twitter accounts. Don't look at us! Unemployment is not our fault; it is the immigrants'. Welfare is not threatened by criminals, high profit extractions and the government's underfunding. It is threatened by families with children who receive far too much in child allowance.

At the same time as the whole world witnesses how children are starving to death during the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the Minister for Enterprise argues that Israel is doing the whole world a favor. Jewish youths protesting against the Israeli military are met with the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs spreading posts on social media calling them monsters.

At the same time, strangely enough, "Don't bring the Middle East here" seems to be the ministers' favorite saying in pretty much any issue when they want to lecture dissatisfied citizens. But when the Middle East, for example through Saudi Arabia, owns and makes money from Swedish welfare, one is not as meticulous.

Mr. Speaker! Despite all the efforts made to shift the blame and move the focus, the voters are not impressed. The fact is that we have a historically unpopular government. Taking from pensioners with old-age support and from long-term unemployed construction workers to give to Ulf Kristersson and others with an address in Stockholm's city center is not a vote magnet. Hate rhetoric does not put food on the table. The fact that someone else has it even worse does not pay people's rent.

Mr. Speaker! As strange as it may sound, it seems to have suddenly struck like a bolt from the blue for the government and the Sweden Democrats that – oh yes – it is, after all, in Sweden we find ourselves. In Sweden, we still have democracy.

Panic is total in the Tidö government when they realize that the election does not take place on Twitter. Troll armies cannot do anything about the fact that every person has a vote: the bank director, the shop employee, the childcare worker, the finance minister, and I. You don't need to be an Einstein to calculate that with only moderate core voters, you win no elections.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we stand here today with a budget that has a full 80 billion in reform space. We have to go back to the pandemic to reach similar figures. It is cynical, dishonest and desperate. Had one wanted to do something, one would have done it earlier. Then one would not have deepened the recession that one has now put people in, but instead would have protected households and welfare.

This feels like a partner who has been notoriously unfaithful year after year and suddenly promises to improve. That is how the government is acting. Because they do not care enough about how it turns out, only how it sounds, it will be clear that it will not be gold and green forests this time either in the budget. The budget that the Finance Minister hands over is in fact as substantial as a bouquet of flowers bought at a gas station to say sorry.

The Finance Minister and the government are playing roulette with the taxpayers' money. Coffee and cake with the food giants did not lower food prices. Vänsterpartiet said it time and again and submitted proposal after proposal that were rejected. Now, with one year until the election and far too few votes in the polls, they have suddenly chosen to act. Even if temporarily, at least until after election day, the food VAT shall be lowered.

The Sweden Democrats have, for three long years, only contributed by tipping voters off that they can shop cheaper. Now they are beating their chests and saying that this will now become Jimmie's grocery bag. But because the government has not cared to ensure that the reduction goes to the intended target, that is, to households and lower prices, the tax cut risks instead becoming a 20 billion gift card from Jimmie to the Ica Group.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is more fragile than it has been in a long time. We live in restless times. Internal and external security has deteriorated. A strong and secure Sweden would have been needed here. We who want to change the government in a year must win the election on our own merits, with a policy that we believe in and are rooted in, with a reform agenda for jobs, growth, welfare, and the transition.

Sweden needs to go in a completely different direction. More than ever, leadership for community is needed, where we stick together, where politics exists for the citizens. That is how resilience is built, and that is how Sweden becomes stronger.

I look forward to returning and discussing the Left Party's proposal in the budget debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to say a few brief words about the violations that Nato has been subjected to in our immediate vicinity and the importance of us in the chamber agreeing on major defense investments. Furthermore, I want to say something about the importance of us more than doubling the support to Ukraine so that they can continue to be the shield of free Europe, that we at least give them 1 percent of GDP per year.

I also want to pay a thought to the ambulance driver who was affected by yet another of these unnecessary acts of violence. It should not have to happen in our country.

Mr. Speaker! I want to say something about faith in the future. It can be many things. It can be a young girl or boy who has finally received their first job at a small company, who has lost their job under this government, or who has never received a job. It can be a young boy or girl who attends a rural school where there has been no investment during these years. They finally get a chance at a job within the shortage occupations. It can be a small company that finally gets lower cost burdens when hiring, not higher – with this government.

It is a fascinating day when the government is to present its budget, how lightly one takes everything. The record unemployment is not the government's fault; there is nothing that can be done about it, rather it is a natural phenomenon. Climate goals are missed, but it is nothing the government is ashamed of. Yes, exactly that – then it was the countryside.

Does anyone remember what we talked about during the last election? Take responsibility, I think. It would have been one thing if the growth had been just as low everywhere, but it is now half of what it is in the EU and a third of what it is in the OECD. It would have been one thing if other Western countries had also had the Tidö unemployment. But Denmark has 2.9 percent, USA – even with Trump – 4.3 percent, Germany – which is doing very poorly according to the Finance Minister – 6.4 percent and France 7.3 percent. Only Sweden has Swedish Tidö unemployment at 8.7 percent. While the average in the EU has fallen, the number of people directly affected has increased by 100,000.

The Minister for Finance speaks of a budget for hard-working families, but she forgets the half a million who do not have work. Previously, it was called mass unemployment. But now unemployment affects everyone, and even academics now have difficulty finding jobs.

This costs an unreasonable amount, not just for the half million but also for their families and for all young people. Unemployment goes hand in hand with exclusion and crime.

Unemployment also hits the public finances. The difference in unemployment in the EU and in Sweden is 45–50 billion kronor for the welfare system – which we lose. That corresponds to 75,000 teachers or 115,000 care assistants in elderly care. They are needed out there!

Today we see what the government's solution to these three years of problems entails, namely 80 billion kronor. Now pour in everything you have! I heard the Finance Minister say: We have seen you. Yes, it is good that you see the people after three years. It becomes a kind of giant last-minute budget on SMS-loans, which will be paid back by someone else some other time. It is yet another large grab of election pork. There will be some feel-good around election day – before the taxes to hire are shock-raised again and before the food prices are shock-raised again for households after the election. As usual, one thing is done before the election and another thing after the election.

Mr. Speaker! This is not what Sweden needs.

There should be no more temporary hodgepodges with borrowed money. It is as Svenskt Näringsliv and Företagarna say, namely that substantial long-term investments are needed. You know what! I don't think Elisabeth Svantesson wants the Tidöröran either – this Tidötillstånd. But the refrain of the mandate period is that it is not the Ministry of Finance that decides. It is not the Minister for Finance who decides, but it is Jimmie Åkesson who decides. The budget consists of his populist pick-and-mix.

Yes, we need faith in the future. We need a turning point. We must turn this around and get the job done.

Take the small companies, which create nine out of ten jobs in Sweden. They are not satisfied. Today, a survey was released showing that eight out of ten give the government a failing grade. 97 percent say that red tape is either just as high or has increased. A large proportion thinks so. On these companies, the government has imposed sick pay responsibility, wage requirements on labor immigration, and more labor market bureaucracy.

During a period, the employer contributions for young people have also been raised. I know that they are being lowered temporarily from April, but it is a kind of April Fool's joke, because they will be raised again some half a year later. Imagine a small café or a restaurant with five employees, which are the ones that often give unemployed people their first jobs and which the Finance Minister spoke about. They have been given higher costs of hundreds of thousands of kronor by the government. Now it is being lowered temporarily by over a hundred thousand to hire young people. But it will be raised again as soon as the election is over. It does not add up.

Give the café a chance to hire one, two, or three people! Reward the small businesses that create jobs! Give them long-term, stable rules of the game! Remove the tax for small businesses to hire! Remove the employer contribution for the first ten employees! Remove the tax to hire the long-term unemployed! Halve the tax to hire young people and those with low wages! Remove the sick pay responsibility from small businesses! Then we can actually get the historical job lift we need and break the state of stagnation in the Swedish economy, break the high unemployment and get back tens of thousands and then hundreds of thousands of jobs. Prioritize it!

Do what many entrepreneurs say to me: Invest in education! The government says that they are making the largest investment ever, I even think they said that. But it is the tenth largest investment in 25 years. The dropout of youth in the school system continues, especially in the countryside. They are not reached by further education. Many rural schools suffer, and the grades lag behind.

The countryside, which often bears the heaviest burden in the form of taxes, has the worst roads, in particular the worst railways, unfortunately a school that lags behind, and a healthcare system where the mortality in treatable diseases is twice as high as in the large cities, Mr. Speaker.

No, the government is not ashamed of the unemployment and not ashamed of the inequalities in the country. But least of all is one ashamed of the climate goals. In the budget, it states that a long-term emission goal for 2045 is not achieved, that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector by 2030 is not achieved, that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector by 2040 is not achieved, and that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport, naturally, is not achieved at all. I read it in the government's own budget; for those who are interested, it is on page 16.

Emissions will be 5.8 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents higher because of this government. What does our climate minister have to say about that? Well, she is upset with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which provided the figures. Don't shoot the pianist, Pourmokhtari! You are the one who ordered the melody.

Think if we could instead regain the faith in the future – where we did not brake but invested in green industry, green electricity, green cars and green trucks, so that Sweden can maintain its competitive advantage, so that our fine, green brand holds up and so that emissions go down and growth goes up. That was what we used to tell.

Then we would get that boom in Norrland, the battery factories in Gothenburg and western Sweden, the green industries in Skåne and the electrification – the green future is now in the balance. Hundreds of billions are at stake. Yet not a single wind turbine was ordered at the beginning of the year, because the municipalities that are to do so still have not received any money from the state. They are not getting those billions over several years at all, which could give them new schools and new sports facilities. Then nothing will happen.

You remain trapped in the Tidö cooperation's net. You cannot break free from the claws of populism. You are Åkesson's obedient executors. He has given you your ministerial posts. Therefore, you owe him all these budget lines to the right and left. Rise up from this cooperation! I know that you long for real politics. I know that you long for faith in the future. Tidö is over now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we present and debate a budget that puts more money in our citizens' pockets. We Christian Democrats have prioritized families in that work. Next year, a family with two children living in a villa will have more than 1,800 kronor more in their pocket. The same family with children has received more than 5,000 kronor more in their pocket every month during this parliamentary term.

This government strengthens the work line. It shall pay to work. We break the exclusion. And we continue to invest in our welfare and in our security. This is a budget that, with reforms for almost 80 billion kronor, intends to try to break the recession.

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe there is any other political party that is more associated with its commitment to Swedish health and medical care than the Christian Democrats. It is a commitment that, just as when it comes to the family, is in our DNA.

During the 90s, I was the national chairman for KDU. I left politics in 1996, did something else for over 20 years, and then returned to national politics. Then I was asked by a friend from the federation period: How is it today, Hans? I said: It is very new. The world and Sweden have certainly changed. But the party's commitment to healthcare and the family is the same.

It is therefore pleasing for me to be able to say that in the budget presented here today, we have an investment of a total of 8.3 billion kronor on health and care. The focus lies on increasing healthcare capacity and shortening healthcare queues. We now expect the regions to ramp up their work and utilize the healthcare capacity that exists in the country.

The government also ensures that the work with eating disorder care and care for children and adults who have been subjected to sexual violence is strengthened. There are also continued investments in the health of girls and women. There is also a reinforcement of specialized psychiatric care. There we see that the needs are increasing.

Mr. Speaker! We all know that sedentary behavior is a major health problem. This government, under the leadership of our Minister for Social Affairs, the Christian Democrat Jakob Forssmed, has tried to address this in various ways. The government is now making a major investment in access to sports facilities and sports areas. The sports movement is undoubtedly a key if we are to attract children and young people to a more active and meaningful leisure time.

Another initiative, which was launched exactly one week ago, is the leisure card. It is intended to make it easier for children between 8 and 16 years old to do fun things together with others in their spare time. Let me therefore tell you that after four days, on Friday, more than 115,000 leisure cards had been applied for and granted. More than 20,000 of these were so-called special leisure cards, which are 500 higher than the regular one. The special leisure card is at 2,000 and goes to children who live in a family that received housing allowance last year. 115,000 – it is undoubtedly a success. It feels extra fun to say that given all the detractors who have done the opposite regarding this.

Mr. Speaker! Let me finally mention the rural profile, which is included even in this budget and which has been included in all budgets during the current parliamentary term. It is in the heartland, in the small towns and in the countryside that a higher electricity and fuel price hits hardest. It is here that the diesel car is needed. As we know, it is now 500–600 kronor cheaper to fill a diesel tank. Here we are now lowering the electricity tax. We are also introducing a high-cost protection so that one will not be affected if electricity prices soar.

These measures are important, because we cannot run away from the Swedish people. And you do not cool down the climate by frying the heartland.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the 2022 election campaign, Ulf Kristersson promised that he would get Sweden in order. He would get the climate, crime, and jobs in order. After three years of the Tidö parties' economic policy, we can state that that order has not materialized. Households are instead looking negatively at their finances, especially those with lower incomes. Unemployment is at record levels. Welfare has been put on a starvation diet, and the policy has actively increased emissions. The healthcare queues continue to grow. Crime is unfortunately creeping further down in age, and the school lacks the resources required to give all children a good and fair start in life. Furthermore, we are on track to miss all our climate goals. Virtually no more wind power is being built in Sweden, and the green transition has been torn apart. This is a gloomy result that will cost Sweden dearly.

The Tidö parties' economic policy has been both inefficient and unfair. Tax cuts for high-income earners have been prioritized over measures that would have truly made a difference for those with small economic margins. Instead, the government has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is a double error. Investing in strengthening households with small margins is right in itself, but it is also what was needed to jump-start the economy. We know that it is money in the wallets of those who are struggling that sets the wheels of the economy in motion.

From the Finance Minister, it sounds instead as if the Swedish economy was on the right track before the Trump administration began wreaking havoc with its tariff games and that this failure is actually not hers. But that is not true, because while unemployment is increasing in Sweden, it is falling in Europe. The recession is thus becoming increasingly home-grown, and the responsibility rests heavily on the government.

What we see in this budget is therefore totally insufficient. An inefficient economic policy in combination with an outdated labor market policy has proven to be completely devastating for the Swedish labor market. In order for more people to get the chance to enter employment, significantly more needs to be invested in education and improved matching instead of punishing those who have lost their jobs.

An uncertain global situation demands a political leadership capable of implementing the right reforms at the right time. Elisabeth Svantesson has done almost the exact opposite. Now the government is trying to gloss over its mistakes and claim that it has tackled the recession. It is not entirely serious.

Climate change is serious. Then one of the main tasks for economic policy must be to create the conditions for a just green transition in the entire country – a transition where we break our fossil dependency and ensure that everyone is given the right conditions to be part of the solution. This too, this government fails at completely, and now we have received the Tidö parties' climate betrayal in black and white.

That this government does not lower emissions should perhaps not surprise anyone. But the government is also trying to muddy the waters and make us believe that they have the climate work under control. Nothing could have been more wrong. The climate crisis is accelerating, and this government is fueling it. Budget after budget, they have invested more in measures that slow down the transition than in those that promote it. They have put up obstacles to the expansion of wind power. They have made it more expensive for ordinary people to switch to electric cars. They have forced through cuts in public transport all over the country and significantly reduced the protection of forests. They have slaughtered the reduction obligation and increased the proportion of fossil fuels in fuels. They have stopped climate requirements in public procurement and new construction. They have removed the subsidies for energy efficiency. They have stopped the expansion of new main railway lines and abolished the aviation tax.

This government is not showing leadership, it is showing resignation. Sweden deserves better than a government that lets go of the future. We all know that we can have a just climate transition while simultaneously creating security and faith in the future. We know it is possible, because with the previous government, where Miljöpartiet was included, we saw that emissions decrease when the policy is steered in the right direction. It is not the climate goals that are impossible, as this government has expressed. It is simply the government's policy.

Mr. Speaker! It is expensive to be Swedish. Many right-wing politicians stated this during the last election campaign, and it turned out it would become even more expensive with the Tidö parties' economic policy. During the years that have passed, not much has improved, but quite a lot has become worse. After three years, however, a part of reality seems to have caught up with Elisabeth Svantesson.

It is good and welcome that the government, in this budget, is moving forward with reforms that will provide families with children better conditions. But even this, one does not quite manage to achieve in an honest and straightforward way. One is indeed moving forward with an increased housing allowance, but for those who need it most, it does not in practice become an increase but a decrease. From July this year, the housing allowance has been reduced by 2,100 kronor per month for certain families. And now the government is beating the big drum for an increase of up to 1,000 kronor. But the fact is, therefore, that the housing allowance for families with children who are in a tough economic situation will be significantly lower next year than it was last year. It is to ride a roller coaster with the finances of economically vulnerable families with children.

Furthermore, one is now proceeding completely shamelessly with a poverty reform that one calls a benefit ceiling but which will not do anything against unemployment, but will only make people in economic vulnerability even poorer. This is another proposal from the Tidöregeringen that has been sawed to pieces by the experts. But it continues to be defended with empty words about justice.

At the same time, the welfare system is on its knees and suffers from a lack of resources. Municipalities are sounding the alarm that more state funds are needed for them to fulfill their mandate – that schools need more resources to manage to give all children and young people a fair start in life and that healthcare needs more resources to be present throughout the country and give all patients good care and all those who work in healthcare a good working environment.

I want to conclude with an outlook. In the world, more people are in flight than ever before. Both democracy and human rights are in decline. A genocide is taking place in Gaza.

It is possible to conduct an economic policy that makes things better for more people, not just here in Sweden but for people all over the world, and gives them an opportunity to build their lives free from violence, oppression, and poverty. But instead of standing by the Swedish priority, this government continues throughout the entire mandate period to back away from global commitments and reduce Swedish aid.

But we can do much better than that. When it concerns our civil, military and economic support to Ukraine, we are in agreement. Ukraine shall receive our full support as long as it is needed. It is a strength for us as a country that we are in agreement on this.

I would however wish that we could be equally united on how important a strong global development cooperation also is for our security. Investing in, for example, climate adaptation, conflict prevention, democracy strengthening and health assistance increases safety and prosperity and actually contributes to a more stable world. A strong aid is therefore an entirely necessary security policy investment and a moral duty for a wealthy country like Sweden.

Sweden needs a new direction for economic policy and a new red-green government that gets Sweden in order. After three years of the Tidö parties' policy, the welfare has been eroded and the green transition has been torn apart. But we can build a different Sweden. We can build a Sweden that transitions, creates new jobs and has a welfare that can be relied on – for everyone, for all and accessible throughout the country.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! As usual, we are hearing very different depictions of what we are now debating. I would just like to appeal to my colleagues that we should raise the level and rise out of the sandbox.

That you think we prioritize differently, I have full respect for – it would be strange otherwise – but to say that we on the government's side do not care or that we take the situation prevailing in Sweden today lightly is simply nonsense.

Mr. Speaker! Every child counts. Every child who attends school today deserves a school where they both learn, are educated, and grow in self-confidence. I want every young person to be able to stand with their graduation cap in hand and look back on important and educational years in school while simultaneously being excited about all the possibilities of the future.

In Sweden – one of the world's best countries to grow up in – I want every child to be able to leave school with passing grades. Until then, we cannot be satisfied.

Today I am happy. Today, the Liberals in the government are presenting the largest school budget ever. 4.3 billion kronor will go to schools in 2026 and 14 billion kronor over the next three years.

For the Liberals, it is clear: School comes first, and school must return to the basics. This requires extensive reforms in our school system. Now we are finally moving forward with several of the proposals that have been presented during the parliamentary term.

There is a difference when the Liberals govern the Ministry of Education. We do it in a time when screens have pushed out physical books, when every fourth 15-year-old cannot read properly, and when far too many schools lack school libraries. There is a school party in Sweden, and it is the Liberals.

Teachers need time to be teachers. Therefore, their teaching assignments must be regulated to guarantee time for planning and follow-up of the teaching. It is necessary to improve teachers' working environment and secure every child's right to a good education.

Mr. Speaker! There must be order and clarity in the school system. The profit opportunities for listed companies must not take precedence over the students' right to education. Unfortunately, independent schools, compared to municipal schools, have more unqualified teachers, lower teacher density, poorer access to school libraries, and greater problems with "joy grades" (glädjebetyg). The independent school sector must start behaving.

In this budget, we present concrete proposals, with a clear majority behind them, which will lead to profit limitations and sharpened tools for Skolverket.

The Liberals will continue to prioritize the school and deliver the policy that puts children's right to education first. It is through the school that we can strengthen Sweden as a knowledge nation. It is through completed schooling that the path to work, self-sufficiency, and empowerment is found. It is through the school that we can break exclusion and strengthen integration so that all children can receive the faith in the future that they have a right to.

As a liberal, I am proud of this budget. Together with our previously presented budgets, it takes the school back to the basics.

Mr. Speaker! In this budget, we do not only have the largest school budget – we also have the largest equality budget. Nearly 1 billion kronor within equality policy are presented. Of these, 166 million are new investments.

Women's and girls' shelters are strengthened. A new specific equality policy sub-goal is introduced against honor-related violence, and permanent funds are added to municipalities and regions to strengthen their work against honor-related violence and oppression. Equality is the foundation for an open, safe, and free society. We invest to defend our core values.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a pioneer in the climate transition. We have almost entirely fossil-free electricity production, and we shall continue to be best in class. We shall continue to maintain a high ambition in climate policy.

With the measures in the budget bill for 2026, we will reduce emissions by an additional 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, partly thanks to a billion-kronor supplement to Klimatklivet and an extension of the climate premium for light trucks.

The electrification of the transport sector is crucial for the elimination of fossil emissions. Emissions are estimated to be lower in 2026 than they were in 2022.

It should pay to work in Sweden, and we achieve this in several ways. The government lowers the tax for hard-working people through an additional job tax deduction while we simultaneously lower the tax for pensioners. We also see that it was tough in this recession and therefore implement an increase of the housing allowance. The so-called funkisskatt is abolished, and lower tax on work is good. But for those without work capacity, it is not fair to have to pay higher tax when one cannot take a job.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is war in the east and trade wars in the west. Sweden, which is a trade-dependent country and a trade-dependent economy, is heavily affected by what is happening in our global environment. In that situation, it is a strength for Sweden that this budget will be voted through here in the Riksdag. What we propose will furthermore be implemented. It creates stable conditions for households, companies, regions, and municipalities in a restless time. It is possible to plan for the future.

We do not need to go back very far, only to the previous parliamentary term, to remember how budget chaos and government crises succeeded one another. The state's finances and the Swedes' economy were for a time largely in the hands of a left-party wild card.

One could still believe, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has spent the past three years talking amongst themselves, developing a common policy, and putting together a budget basis. No, they have not done that or have not succeeded. One party says they want lower taxes, but the other three want higher ones. Some are cautiously positive about nuclear power, and others say a flat no. Some say they are now in favor of many of the tools we are implementing against gang criminals, while others continue to vote no.

But there are two things that everyone completely agrees on, Mr. Speaker: higher immigration and higher fuel prices. Where would Sweden have been today if these four parties had governed during these years?

In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues in Sverigedemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Kristdemokraterna for a very good cooperation with this budget. It makes a real difference for Sweden, for the Swedish economy, and above all for hard-working people. We have shown that it is possible to change the direction. We are not there yet, but we are well on our way. Step by step, we will continue that cooperation and make Sweden better.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) as well as Sara-Lena Bjälkö and Erik Hellsborn (both SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly share the Finance Minister's analysis that it is a strength for Sweden that we have a broad agreement both on support for Ukraine and on support for a substantial expansion of the military and civil defense. It provides a strength in our time.

On the topic of stable conditions, I have a question for the Minister for Finance. There is a measure that the entire Swedish business community is truly demanding and which would truly create conditions for increased growth, namely a cross-party energy agreement. An energy agreement would secure new investments, create access to cheaper electricity and provide more new jobs. But this is something the government has not been able to deliver.

We were ready to reach an agreement, but obviously the Sweden Democrats blocked an agreement. Therefore, my question to the Minister for Finance is: How do you explain to Swedish business that you put the Sweden Democrats before Sweden and the future prospects of Swedish companies?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mikael Damberg, for the question! We now have a majority for what Sweden really needs, namely nuclear power. I also perceive that the Social Democrats fundamentally stand behind this. There is a broad majority for it. At the same time, we all say yes to both wind power, hydropower, and solar. There is, therefore, a majority. But we will surely have reason to come back to it.

In some way, Mr. Speaker, it feels as if Mikael Damberg would prefer to talk about other things than just this. This is an issue that we have talked about quite a lot. Reality is perhaps a bit too troublesome and sometimes also Mikael Damberg's worst enemy.

We thus have a majority that is in favor of nuclear power. That is good for Swedish companies. The Social Democrats are welcome to join.

But it is also so, Mr. Speaker, that today I perceive a certain grumpiness from Mikael Damberg. I think that for Sweden's sake it is good what we are now doing for companies, for households, and to strengthen the Swedish economy. I do not know if Mikael Damberg does not want to talk about that in this exchange of remarks.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Ahlstedt and Adam Reuterskiöld (both M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the Finance Minister deserves criticism if we have very low growth, high unemployment, and large deficits in public finances at the same time. It is not a very good result of the policy that has been pursued.

With my question now, I tried to be more creative and constructive. The Minister for Finance has spoken about long-term rules of the game. One can ask the Swedish business community which issue perhaps has the greatest significance for the ability to attract more investments, manage the green transition in Sweden, and create confidence for the future within the business sector. Then the answer is a broad agreement on energy policy.

Now we have received the news that there will be no broad agreement, at least not now. The Sweden Democrats have, as I understand it, blocked the government from making a deal with us. Then one must ask the question: Was it more important to please the Sweden Democrats than to do what was best for Sweden and Swedish business – a long-term energy agreement that can drive precisely new jobs, new investments, growth, and green transition? It feels important for Sweden, and it deserves this debate to be about it.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Mikael Damberg thinks it is difficult to sit in the stands and not be part of the match. I understand that, and I think that Swedish households also need to get some clarity.

As far as I know, the Social Democrats and Mikael Damberg have never ensured that Swedish households and families with children receive 1,800 kronor more per month in just one year. As far as I know, Mikael Damberg has never lowered the fuel cost by 500 kronor per tank – on the contrary, it has been raised.

As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, it was also the case that Mikael Damberg most often votes no when ordinary people, hard-working wage earners, are to get a tax cut. It is interesting, also considering the future and the election. What can Swedish households expect if, God forbid, we were to have a different government with four parties pulling in different directions?

Mr. Speaker! As far as I know, it was actually even so that Mikael Damberg, when he was Finance Minister, did not even manage to get a budget through, and that does not provide particularly stable rules of the game for Swedish companies and households.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! I must ask the Minister for Finance: Does Elisabeth Svantesson now, with the results in hand, think that she made the right priorities during the mandate period when growth is at rock bottom and emissions and unemployment are hitting the ceiling and when Swedish healthcare, which is the very core of a welfare state, no longer functions?

Does Elisabeth Svantesson, with her hand on her heart, think it is right to let Swedish healthcare pay for tax cuts in the billions for those who have the luck to earn over 100,000 a month?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Here, the difference is very clear in Swedish politics. In this budget, we are lowering the nurses' tax for the third time. They get to keep more of their salary. In this budget, we are putting more money into eating disorder care. Here in Stockholm, where Vänsterpartiet is in power, they raise the tax and shut down eating disorder clinics because they do not understand that one can prioritize and have a tax policy that benefits hard-working people.

It is the difference, Mr. Speaker, in Swedish economic policy. It is about always calling for increased taxes and subsidies but not being able to use the money in the best way.

Mr. Speaker! During these years – and I am proud of this – we have prioritized regions and municipalities, healthcare and schools, especially when it was toughest with the high inflation. It was at record-high levels and it still is. There has never been higher state grants than those that will be allocated to regions and municipalities next year.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! As I understand it, there will be no general state grants reaching the municipalities and regions, but rather a purchase billion that does not even suffice to cover the deficit in one region, for example Västra Götaland.

It is clear that if the government pays the cost increases, what healthcare costs, one does not need to raise taxes in regions and municipalities. But instead, one has chosen – and that was what my question was about – to lower the tax. Now they are talking about hard-working people. It concerns those with over 100,000. They put 6 billion there, and now it will be more with an additional job tax deduction and no tapering. Is it worth it? Can one not use those funds better and finance Swedish healthcare so that we can be proud of Sweden and so that people who need care get it and the staff get it better? Could that not have made the budget better, or do you think that this is the right prioritization?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Okay, there is one more difference in Swedish politics. One can prioritize. During these years, when we present budgets, we reprioritize 46 billion kronor. In terms of tax cuts, that is 1,000 kronor every month for a nurse. It is therefore possible to do things in a different way.

For me and for us, it is important to now get the economy to grow. We are very sensitive to what has happened in the rest of the world. Growth reforms will make the economy grow, and the injection we are now making for Swedish households will also have a great effect.

Mr. Speaker! I finally think it is good to remind of something. Sometimes it sounds as if municipalities and regions receive 1 or 2 billion. First and foremost, they have their own right of taxation, but we will always need to provide support. I think that is completely obvious, especially if we add different laws. The financing principle applies. Then remember that the state grants during the pandemic were 258 billion! Next year they are 297 billion – from the state to municipalities and regions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! My question concerns, not surprisingly, the extremely high Tidö unemployment.

We have heard here from the government's representatives, from the Minister for Finance, that they are against subsidies and for jobs. But the truth is that during your time in power, the cost for the unemployment benefit has almost doubled – to 24 billion kronor. The situation is so bad that just the difference between the unemployment Sweden has and the average in the EU corresponds to 45–50 billion kronor of lost money for welfare. That corresponds to tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of jobs, for example for healthcare assistants or teachers, that could have been created if we had only had the same unemployment as the rest of the EU has.

My question is short and sweet: What does the Minister for Finance intend to do about this?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for a very good and important question!

In the recession we are currently in, unemployment remains high. Martin Ådahl knows very well that some of it is cyclical. When demand decreases and companies hold back, unemployment therefore increases. It is serious. That is why we need to break the recession. The most important thing we can do is precisely to get the domestic demand moving so that the economy turns around and people can return to work. It is A and O when it comes to that part.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, concerns structural unemployment. It is, among other things, an effect of very high immigration and a policy of low requirements. But it is also about a mismatch and, at times, a minor failure with Arbetsförmedlingen. I shall not blame Martin Ådahl for that just now, but I may return to it in the second exchange of remarks. Jokes aside: reforms were needed on the tax side, a job premium, and clear requirements regarding a benefit reform, which I hope that both Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet will also stand behind.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! If there is anyone interested in economics following this debate, I would still like to point out that structural unemployment has risen during this government. Almost all the factors that the Finance Minister mentioned have, in that case, worsened during this government, for it is during your time that unemployment has risen by 100,000 people.

I did note one thing that the Finance Minister did not speak about at all, namely the small and growing companies – those that have always pulled us out of such crises. Believe me, they do not think the conditions for hiring are good enough, and that is one of the reasons why the number of companies has decreased, bankruptcies have increased, growth has been poor, and unemployment has risen over a period of three years.

Eight out of ten in today's survey give the Finance Minister a failing grade, Mr. Speaker, and 97 percent think that red tape is the same or has increased. Why is this so low prioritized in the government's budget?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Ådahl, for an important question! It is the companies that are the ones who employ, and Martin Ådahl does not think I mentioned them now. No, but I am acting. In all our four budgets, we have naturally been keen to ensure that we create a good climate for companies. In this budget, we have presented a good proposal regarding 3:12 rules. We continue, as I said, with the line of increasing demand. We have, for example, simplified the receipt hassle, something that I know many are happy that we are doing. We are lowering the employer contribution for young people. We have changed the growth support. We are lowering fuel prices and much, much more.

I understand that many of the Swedish companies want more, and I can promise that our four parties together can deliver that. I am not as sure that the four parties on the opposition side can do so. It requires will and a direction. We shall continue on the path already taken of increasing demand so that there is more money in the households, but we shall also continue to facilitate for Sweden's companies by lowering costs and reducing red tape.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When the Minister for Finance claims that Sweden is "the world's best country when it comes to climate policy and emissions," one is taken aback. Last year, emissions actually increased by 7 percent. That is the largest increase in 15 years. Sweden is one of the countries in the EU whose emissions are increasing the most.

This is not due to bad luck but is the result of the government having dismantled the conditions for households and companies to transition. The government has torn down the climate policy and thrown fantasy sums at the fossil. In the budgets, they have allocated several times more to measures that brake the transition than to measures that promote the transition. In an international comparison of countries' climate policies, Sweden has plummeted from the second-highest ranking to position 37.

I wonder therefore: Has the Finance Minister started throwing around alternative facts?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is no. I can also elaborate on the text a bit.

I think and maintain that it is important to say it as it is. Yes, the emissions increased. Why? Well, because we changed the reduction obligation. Why did we do that? Well, because it was a completely unsustainable situation for hard-working people.

With that said: Sweden is a pioneer. For many years, Swedish companies, Swedish households, and Swedish politics on both sides have had a very ambitious climate policy to reduce emissions, and we continue to have that. It is a fact that Sweden is one of the countries in the world with the lowest emissions per capita. It is a fact that we can say that we have almost all of our electricity production fossil-free – 98 percent. That is not something many countries can do.

This is being a pioneer country. Are we satisfied with this and generally proud? No, we are realists. We know that if we are to get people on board and have legitimacy for what we do, we must also see how it affects Swedish households. How can we both reduce emissions and ensure that the Swedish people are part of that journey?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think the answer was so clear.

Firstly, one can ask which countries the Minister for Finance is comparing Sweden with. It is clear that there are many countries that have lower emissions per capita, but those are developing countries. We usually compare ourselves with other countries in the EU, and perhaps that is what we should stick to.

Secondly, there is the question of whether the Minister for Finance means that the change of the reduction obligation should not be counted. What must be counted, and what can be observed, is that the Tidö government is the first government in 20 years that, through active policy, increases Sweden's emissions. That must be what we should be talking about here.

The government has withdrawn support for public transport and for electric cars. They have lowered the reduction obligation and increased the proportion of fossil fuels in Swedish fuels. They have made gigantic tax cuts on fossil fuels, something that also benefits Putin. They have abolished the aviation tax and so on.

I still haven't received any answer from the Minister for Finance. Has she started throwing around alternative facts, or where does the underlying data actually come from that shows we are the world's best country when it comes to climate policy and emissions?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I stand by that. Of course, we can compare ourselves with comparable countries. That is absolutely the case, but we are very, very successful.

I would like to turn the question around – but I will not do that because the member cannot answer. But how are the C, MP, S and V to reach the ESR goals? From what I know, approximately 4 million tons are missing by 2030. That is the small matter. When it comes to Swedish forestry, 70 million tons are missing. How is this to be solved?

There are two ways. One is to increase the reduction obligation, but that is not enough; we would probably have to shut down every single car in Sweden or alternatively stop using the forest for a fairly long time ahead. That would be a way to reach 70 million. How do you on the other side intend to reach it otherwise?

I like to call a spade a spade and say it as it is: We are going to lower emissions, but we must do it in a realistic way that is possible and where we actually have the Swedish people with us, because believe it or not: We and I represent the Swedish people. Those who have voted for us want us to pursue a good policy both for the climate and for their economy.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Being Minister for Finance is a role that carries obligations. I know how responsible it can feel to be ultimately responsible for the Swedish economy. It means feeling a responsibility that schools and healthcare have the resources required so that teachers, nurses, and police officers can do a good job but also receive their salaries. Being Minister for Finance also means having a responsibility for future generations, so that the economy grows, so that emissions decrease, so that our children and grandchildren have it better, so that there are good and well-paid jobs, and so that the next generation has access to a better welfare.

As said: Being Minister of Finance is a role that one cannot take lightly.

That is why I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to see how Elisabeth Svantesson seems to have lost her grip on the Swedish economy. Growth has been at the bottom of the EU, and 100,000 more are unemployed. Now expenditures are increasing. The deficits are skyrocketing, and Elisabeth Svantesson is sending the bill for her election candy to the next generation. At least as serious is that the Finance Minister does not seem to have the energy to finance proposals that extend beyond the end of the mandate period, which says something about this government's best-before date.

It is difficult to see, Mr. Speaker, because it is clear that we have another Moderate Finance Minister who has not learned their lesson. Once again, the Moderates are losing control over the Swedish economy, despite knowing that this can lead to higher interest rates and more expensive mortgage loans for everyone who owns their home, and despite knowing that it can lead to cuts in healthcare, to cuts in schools, and to new austerity measures in welfare. We have learned that the hard way.

The last time we had such large deficits was during the 90s crisis, if we set aside the pandemic. Back then, we had to step in and steer things back after the Moderaterna. Hasn't Elisabeth Svantesson drawn any conclusions from history?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for the member regarding the school. We stand here with the largest school budget in modern times: 4.3 billion for 2026. We are very pleased to have pushed through one of the most important reforms, which concerns teachers' teaching time. Many teachers have left the profession and many are considering leaving the profession due to the pressured work situation. The time to focus on teaching is not sufficient.

We now move on to the proposal to give teachers the working environment they deserve so that they can plan and have time to lead lessons. It will result in a better knowledge school throughout the country. But instead of supporting this necessary reform, the Social Democrats are using their power to block it. From SKR, they have said no. My question to Member Damberg is quite simply: Why do the Social Democrats not want to give teachers better conditions to do their job?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to emphasize that no one has found those 4.3 billion in the budget. In that case, one must count very creatively and include expenditures that have nothing to do with the school's area of responsibility.

I do not think the school deserves a discussion every year about whether historical investments are being made and that there have never been larger investments. Last year, when the same thing was said, it was in real terms 2 billion less for the school. Now it is perhaps a little plus, I should say, in real terms. But it is not a historical investment in the school, which was also pointed out earlier by Martin Ådahl. It is perhaps in the top ten over the last 25 years. One should probably think about the proportions when saying that one is making large school investments.

If one really wanted to invest in schools, there are other priorities that could have been made in this budget, which would mean that municipalities and regions would have been given good conditions to manage their core mission. This concerns, for example, elderly care, schools, and healthcare.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! If the member wishes to know more about the budget and expenditure area 16, he is welcome to request a reply from me later. I would appreciate it if I could get an answer to the question I asked, which I almost never get when I request a reply from the member. But I will try again.

Sveriges Lärare has shown that the teaching time for teachers has increased by an average of two weeks per school year during the first decades of the 2000s. It is completely obvious that without state regulations, it becomes a worse working environment for preschool teachers and teachers and, in the long run, also worse knowledge results. Actually, we should nationalize the school.

What we are hearing are excuses from the Social Democrats, who neither want to take the step towards nationalization of the school nor give the teachers a better working environment. I therefore pose my question again: What do the Social Democrats think about regulated teaching time? If they do not like it, how are teachers and preschool teachers to get a better working environment, which they deserve?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have been very clear that teachers' working conditions must be improved. That includes working hours and working conditions related to teaching. But then the municipalities, in this case, must also be given reasonable economic conditions.

I have not seen any actor living in this world who thinks that the claims about costs made regarding this reform are even anywhere near reality. There is a risk that there will be deficits in the municipalities, that there will be cuts, that there will be larger classes, and that schools will be closed. That was not the point of the reform, was it? The point must be to change the reality in the classroom so that students receive more support from teachers who have had time to prepare the lessons but also have time to support all students in the classroom?

If the Liberals are serious about providing more money to schools and getting rid of the profit-seeking and the market school, they must end the Tidö cooperation and cooperate with the Social Democrats and other parties that are serious about investments in Swedish schools.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Lower income taxes, lower fuel prices, lower electricity taxes and halved food VAT obviously strengthen households' disposable income and purchasing power – not just a little on the margin but substantially.

If we combine the measures we are taking in connection with this budget bill with the measures we have implemented earlier during the mandate period, we see, Mr. Speaker, that the disposable income for an average family with two working parents and two children has increased by as much as 5,050 kronor per month net. If one wants to delve into these figures, I refer to page 7 and table 1.2 in the budget bill's financial plan.

So, it is about just over 5,000 SEK a month net for a completely ordinary family with children. The question one should and perhaps even must ask is what the corresponding figure would have been if the other group were in power. The answer is obviously zero. We would not have had any cuts in income tax. Reduced electricity tax – not a chance. Reduced food VAT – hardly. Reduced fuel taxes – rather the opposite.

It matters how you vote! The tip from me, Mr. Speaker, is to vote in the way that is most pleasant for one's own wallet.

(Applause)

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Nima Gholam Ali Pour and Erik Hellsborn (all SD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats speak about the economy for ordinary people, and that is good. But there is one question that we have tried to get answers to from the Sweden Democrats recently: Why do they not want to remove the unfair "karens" [waiting period/gap], which affects Sweden's workers? It hits hardest those who make Sweden function – the bus drivers who drive us to work, the healthcare assistant who takes care of our elderly, the warehouse worker who keeps trade going, and the childcare worker who ensures that we others can go to work.

Ordinary people who cannot work from home are faced with an unreasonable choice: to risk their personal finances or their own and others' health. It could be about 2,000 kronor a month for a childcare provider who must be home twice a month.

For us Social Democrats, the answer is simple. No one in Sweden should have to face this choice. The cuts must go. What does Oscar Sjöstedt say to the childcare worker, the construction worker, and the shop assistant about the cuts? What does the member say to those who are forced to choose between their health and their finances?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if Mikael Damberg has asked that question to me before, but I do not think so. I think it is a good question. It is a concrete question. It is relevant in every way.

I do not think this is simple. There are absolutely arguments for taking the path that Mikael Damberg is on. I am willing to concede that. But there is perhaps another side to the coin. There is a lot of empirical evidence regarding doing this. The empirical evidence says that the sickness rates increase very sharply.

With that, I do not mean to say that I do not think it is worth delving into this issue a bit more. It is, as the Sweden Democrats have previously pointed out, precisely this type of employee – within childcare and similar fields where quite a lot of bacilli fly around – who have a need to be able to stay at home.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Damberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! That was perhaps not the world's most straightforward answer.

The Sweden Democrats have, during this mandate period, stopped the child benefit increase for ordinary people. They have made it more expensive for the elderly to collect their medicine. And now they are talking around a bit about the care deduction, which we know means a great deal for ordinary workers in our country. It can mean thousands of kronor a month for people in occupations where one de facto cannot work from home but must be on-site.

This means that the Sweden Democrats stand behind a system that today forces people to go to work while sick and which punishes workers and ordinary people financially if they become ill. It is quite good information ahead of the election that the Sweden Democrats cannot give a clear statement that the "karens" (recovery period) should be abolished, which would benefit Sweden's workers. Once again, the Sweden Democrats end up on the wrong side of the discussion.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I admit that it was not a completely straightforward answer. The question is complex. But I do not intend, two hours after the Minister for Finance has presented a budget bill on the floor of the Riksdag, to say that it does not apply and that we think something completely different, when I have been involved in the negotiations for it. We have a budget cooperation, and now we take responsibility for this budget.

I agree, in and of itself, with the criticism that it was not a completely clear answer. I was previously involved in the point that the Sweden Democrats' starting point has been that public employees within, for example, childcare, where billions of "bacillusker" occur, perhaps should have a separate set of rules. It could also apply to certain employees within healthcare. I do not intend to bury that question, but it is not included in this budget. It will be budget-impacting, so it must be included in the budget.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! Oscar Sjöstedt boasted a little in his contribution about how the Sverigedemokraterna are to have contributed a lot during the mandate period. But the truth is that the Swedish households in general have been left completely in the lurch. It has become 12,000 kronor more expensive per month for an average family with children. The government has invested as much per month on those who have an income of over 100,000 as it spends on tax cuts over an entire year for an average wage earner. Is that something to be proud of, Oscar Sjöstedt?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The targeted income tax cuts have focused on low- and middle-income earners. The third job tax credit, which we are moving forward with in this budget bill, begins to apply at incomes as low as 16,000 kronor per month and is phased out completely at incomes of 39,900 kronor per month. Yes, I am proud of that, and I think it is sensible policy.

I have also pointed out that the combined effects of reduced fuel tax, food VAT, electricity tax, preschool fees, and income tax have strengthened a common two-child family where both parents work by as much as 5,050 kronor net per month. I am immensely proud of that. I do not know if there is any government or any government basis – the Sweden Democrats are included here – that has achieved as much.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Mr. Speaker! The tax cut is too low for the long-term unemployed. The sick are being disqualified from insurance again at a high rate. Banks and food giants make large profits while households are brought to their knees. Medicine is becoming more expensive. A reduced food VAT without a price guarantee risks becoming an expensive gift card to Ica's CEO for the taxpayers. Experts criticize electricity tax cuts and the high-cost protection on electricity and call it a bluff. Gasoline prices are usually determined primarily on the international oil market.

What is left to be proud of regarding what the Sweden Democrats have achieved? Is it those crowns that households have received through cheaper plastic bags in the store? These are plastic bags that one cannot afford to fill with any food because one does not have enough money in the wallet after your politics.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to say that we have strengthened the [akassan]* at two occasions during the parliamentary term. *** *Note: "Akassan" appears to be a specific term or a typo in the source text. As per your instructions to translate faithfully, I have kept the term as is.*

Let me also say something about the food giants. They don't actually have such high margins. That is not quite how it works. Certainly, there are grocery retailers who earn a lot of money, but the margins in percent are not extremely high. I just wanted to have that said so that one does not live in the belief that they have margins of 25–30 percent and that they would still earn a lot of money even if they lowered food prices. So that is not quite the case.

Vänsterpartiet has indeed proposed to ban certain retailers. How does that increase competition in the food industry?

Apparently, there is some expert who has commented – I mean, seriously! I actually don't care about that. When we move forward with proposals for lowered electricity taxes in the budget negotiations and succeed to a good extent with that, I don't care if some expert says it is not good. I am thinking of the person who pays their electricity bill. Ordinary people who perhaps live in a villa, a small house, or a terraced house are what I care about. I don't care about the experts in that case.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag seem to be very satisfied with the state of affairs right now. They might be the only ones who are. I therefore have a question.

Now that Sweden has abandoned its climate goals so that we do not reach them, which the Sweden Democrats have campaigned for for a long time both in the EU and in Sweden, are you satisfied now? Is it good that we do not reach our climate goals? You have for a long time strived for the Finance Minister to say that we do not meet our climate goals.

Furthermore, I wonder if, in this regard, you are happy about all the penalties that we have promised to impose on everyone else but which we will now receive from the EU because we are not meeting the set goals.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Penalties from the EU have been threatened with a bit of back and forth. The last time it was done, it turned out not to be true.

I think the question is wrongly posed. Are we satisfied with having missed a goal? That would be a bit strange to be. But am I satisfied with why it looks the way it does, that is to say, that which makes Martin Ådahl very upset? Yes, I am.

Am I satisfied that it does not look the way it did before we had an escalating reduction obligation? We had the highest diesel prices in the entire world. Am I satisfied that we do not have it that way but now are slightly below the average in our part of the world – low in the Nordics and below the average in the EU – which is the background to Martin Ådahl's question? Yes, I am. I am super satisfied with that, and there are quite a few people out in the cottages in this country who are also very satisfied with that.

Does Martin Ådahl want to return to the old reduction obligation and the policy regarding fuel taxes?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a bit of déjà vu. We have moved on from the reduction obligation and said that it was not the best. We want instead a commitment to electric cars and hybrids so that Sweden does not fall behind the rest of the world and continues to be dependent on fossil fuels.

The question here, however, was not that. There are options on the table to bring down the emissions, which you insist on and which you are so satisfied with, so that they do not become so high. The question was: Are you satisfied now when the Finance Minister says that we are abandoning all our climate goals because the emissions are surging by 5.8 million tons?

I have another question. Is it true that you stopped the energy talks before they had even barely begun, as it was recently reported in the media? It was said that it was you who vetoed the continuation of talks between the government and the opposition. Is this correct? Or is it just something someone said?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The point is that not everyone can afford to buy an electric car. I have nothing against the vehicle fleet and the transport sector moving towards electrification. I may not have the same grounds for movement as, for example, Martin Ådahl, but for me, it is about the fact that many of those who export oil, with the exception of Norway, are rogue states. There is also an international security perspective regarding making us less dependent on the rest of the world. We can build electricity ourselves, and if we are allowed to continue to decide, we will build a lot of nuclear power.

The point is that everyone today and right now cannot afford to buy an electric car or an electric truck; the technology for that is also not fully developed for that matter. One is sketching out a kind of solution to a somewhat exaggerated problem, and the solution is very fictitious.

I have not participated in the conversations that Martin Ådahl refers to. I can, however, agree with what Tobias Andersson has said about wind power not providing the same systemic benefit as nuclear power.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! The economic policy one has received from the government and the Sweden Democrats over these three years has become very clear: If you are rich, you get more; if you are a worker, you get less. This has been proven time and again, and it is being proven now as well. The job tax credit gives those with high incomes a significantly larger tax reduction than those with low incomes. The increase in the housing allowance that they are so eager to boast about is, in practice, a reduction, and furthermore, the allowance is being worsened.

If one looks at what the Sweden Democrats campaigned on, it looks very different. They promised investments in welfare across the entire country, and they promised that those who lose their jobs would not have to end up in financial crisis and that the social security systems would be strengthened. For me, it is obvious that the Sweden Democrats said one thing before the election but did something completely different afterwards, for how does the government's policy actually square with Oscar Sjöstedt's own election promises?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! That workers would receive less money in their wallets today is absolutely not true; it is just nonsense. They are getting tax cuts, for the third time now. The job tax credit we are presenting is phased out completely at a salary level of 39,900 kronor per month, which is just above the median. I do not know what kind of world Janine Alm Ericson lives in where ordinary workers hardly earn anything at all – very strange.

We have strengthened the safety net on two occasions during the parliamentary term. Even if the opposite is claimed, one cannot escape the fact that we have done so, and my impression is that in the election campaign before the election we said quite clearly that we would strengthen the safety net. That we have also done, and I am very satisfied.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I said is that if you are wealthy, you get more through the government's tax cut; if you are a worker, you get less. This can be seen in the tables. This may be phased out in this budget, but at the turn of the year, those who earned 65,000 kronor received tax cuts while those who earned less than that received nothing.

The world I live in is the world where this budget has been presented and where it is felt in every person's wallet how difficult it has become economically. Now the government is sprinkling out various proposals, but for a better economy and for a better situation for families with children, one should have done this a long time ago.

Oscar Sjöstedt did not answer my question. He claims that the unemployment insurance has improved, but all evaluators say that it has not. If one is long-term unemployed, it becomes much worse. Furthermore, it was promised to strengthen the social security systems.

So again: How does this rhyme with Oscar Sjöstedt's own election promises?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! We can absolutely talk about the marginal tax rate because Janine Alm Ericson raised it. At the turn of the year, it fell from 55 percent to 52 percent. I and my party stand behind the principle of half remaining, so 52 percent is therefore a bit too high. But from 55 percent to 52 percent is a step in the right direction. I believe many respect this principle; I do, at least.

Let me ask a counter-question: What would the marginal tax have been if Miljöpartiet had had its own majority? Would it have been 100 percent?

We are moving forward with all these matters precisely because ordinary wage earners and ordinary families with children have had a difficult time due to the period of very high inflation that Sweden has struggled through. We are moving forward with lower electricity tax so that it hurts a little less to pay the electricity bill, and we are moving forward with halved food VAT so that food will become a little cheaper.

The figure I mentioned in my speech was 5,050 kronor more per month for an average family with two children. What would the corresponding figure have been if Miljöpartiet had been the ones to decide?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! I will confess one thing: I am a bit of a nerd. Let me take an example. I was probably the only one in the world who thought it was about the Swedish Malmbanan when I received a text message from my party leader where she complained that everything was just about the banana. This was in connection with the previous Minister for Equality's banana phobia being uncovered. Do you mean the Malmbanan? I replied, naive as I am.

I do not have the most followers on Twitter, but I like to work. I would rather see broad agreements that guarantee cheap electricity for industry and households than culture warriors in an election campaign. I want to negotiate, compromise, and stand my ground so that pensions are raised and the transition is carried out.

Madam Speaker! Was not the political debate better before politicians started filming each other and the citizens in an attempt at negative campaigning and when it was more about the issue than about the person? The fact is that if we could stick to discussing Swedish healthcare, jobs, growth and which households should be prioritized, I could even imagine refraining from commenting that the turns surrounding the government's security advisor resemble an episode of Pang i bygget.

It is the substantive policy that we do not agree on. Believe it or not, I have many good things to say about the Finance Minister as a person – but not about her policy. The election should be about substantive policy. Should it be invested in welfare or in lowered taxes for those who have the most? We politicians should speak plainly and talk about jobs, transition, and growth. That is what we owe the citizens. I will contribute to this in the debate and the election campaign and lead by example; that is what one should always do. I will present the Left Party's proposals on what we believe is needed for Sweden to be able to change course.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I note that the government side is no longer the slightest bit eager to debate regarding its budget and its economic failure, so I shall keep it very brief.

Entrepreneurship must go up, and growth must go up. Taxes must go down, in particular for hiring, because unemployment must go down. Emissions must go down, and the green industry must go up. Investments in the countryside must go up, not least in welfare, and investments in education across the whole country must go up. This must happen in the next mandate period. None of this happens in an 80 billion large budget, of which the main part is loans.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl stood at the rostrum and claimed that this school budget could be the tenth largest. I wonder where the member has gotten this from? It is about 4.3 billion for 2026. When we do this, we do as we always do and look at the school's expenditure area, calculate and compare. This is how the opposition has always calculated previously in their shadow budgets, even the Center Party.

Where does the Center Party get the figures from? They are incorrect and misleading. The bars from the Center Party's press conference show differences between different years, but one must look at the whole. Furthermore, the budget amendment has been included, which we obviously do not yet have for 2026. What is the purpose of deceiving the Swedish people? Why is the Center Party behaving this way? I thought that Center Party members were wise, had a good policy, and wanted what was best for Sweden. Why does Martin Ådahl no longer want a substantive debate?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, it is perhaps not Cecilia Rönn that I want to have the toughest debate with. I actually want to welcome her into a middle ground that, together with the Center Party, achieves good politics. This applies both to the member Cecilia Rönn as a person and to her party.

What is extraordinary is that the Liberal Party's party leader, as well as the Minister for Education, at a press conference called the maximum fee in preschool a school investment and cobbled together a figure that does not match anything, according to the independent assessors out there. It is not us who have made this up. We are happy to swap, member Cecilia Rönn, and make it a serial in the media where we scrutinize the figures.

With all due respect: A maximum fee in preschool will never become an investment in the students' and teachers' competence in school. If it does, you have misled yourselves very much.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I would gladly have a coffee with Martin Ådahl on any day and discuss sensible politics in the middle.

If the maximum tax, which is actually included in the expenditure area, is not to be included now, why did the Center Party include it in its own graph for 2017 during the presentation at its press conference? Why is the Center Party so desperate now that they have kept incomprehensible graphs that are not comparable or applicable based on budget rules and our fiscal framework?

I am actually disappointed. I thought that Martin Ådahl was a man of honor who took pride in being objective and honest. I expected more issue-based politics.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is desperation that speaks here when one throws oneself in headfirst. Now Cecilia Rönn has just admitted that it is absolutely not a historical investment at all when the maximum fee is removed. She has just said that what her party leader did at the press conference was to pull the wool over people's eyes.

The most important thing of all, and what we actually agree on, is that far too little is invested in schools and that the dropout rate among students is far too high, especially in rural areas and in vulnerable areas. I believe that we actually agree that a historic investment in schools would have been needed, even if it didn't become that, and investments in schools across the whole country.

We can gladly talk about this over a coffee sometime here in the Riksdag and continue to discuss the figures, which I believe people will be very confused by.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats' legendary party leader Alf Svensson, who is still going strong, used to remind us of one thing: Children are not born murderers. There are opportunities to teach a young person to choose to walk a different path than the one with the gangs – a life without crime and drugs, a path that leads to true freedom.

Madam Speaker! There can hardly be a single person in Sweden who is not aware of the prioritization of safety that the government has made and is making, and which a parliamentary majority stands behind. All tools that exist to stop the gangs' gross violence and strangle the criminal economy shall be used.

I want to highlight the third part of the government's work for increased safety, namely the preventive measures, which shall better protect children and young people from criminals' new recruitment. In the budget, almost 1 billion kronor is invested in just this.

Social services are given expanded opportunities to intervene early, before the situation has become so serious that the young person is taken into care. The State Institution Board, Sis, is being reinforced because we want to increase the capacity for places but also rejuvenate and adapt the premises, strengthen the quality of care, raise the level of competence, and secure the working environment. The investment in school social teams is both extended and reinforced. Cooperation between school and social services contributes to safety and study environments in school, increased school attendance, and support for students at an early stage.

Those were some examples of initiatives that are now to be made, because we believe that it is possible to create a path that leads to true freedom.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the government presented its new poverty reform last week, or the benefit ceiling, as it is called, the proposal received strong criticism, not only from us in Miljöpartiet but also from many others.

Save the Children condemned the reduced maintenance support and pointed out that children can hardly be punished for how many siblings they have. Stadsmissionen clearly pointed out that it will not solve any problems, and Matmissionen expects even higher demand for its food parcels.

Even the government's own expert agencies and the Fiscal Policy Council have previously criticized the reform and, among other things, stated that it is matching problems and a lack of competence rather than the unemployed themselves that are the explanation for why people have difficulty finding jobs. Furthermore, poorer children play straight into the hands of the gangs' recruiters.

My question to the Christian Democrats, who claim to protect families and children, is therefore: What measures will you put in place so that the contribution ceiling does not lead to increased child poverty in Sweden?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! I was involved in presenting the subsidy reform last week. After the press conference, the absolute most common question I received was: But it can't be true that one can get out 46,500 kronor if one has four children?

We are lowering it from 46,500 to 38,000 kronor. My answer regarding the subsidy reform as a whole is that it is not only a cap that is being introduced, but also an activity requirement. I believe that this is very important.

If one has 100 percent work capacity, there should also be an activity requirement of 100 percent, that is: A person who today is receiving benefits shall do everything he or she can to become employed and start working. It is a moral responsibility that we now place on the individual through an activity requirement. At the same time, we set requirements for the municipalities to provide the tools that make it possible for a person to become employable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! As Hans Eklind said, the figures say nothing about the families' situation at all. We can rattle this on here for eternity and measure here and there. There are surely some families who receive very much, but in that case, it is because they need it. That is how the system is rigged, but one cannot draw out however much all the time.

I want to return to what Hans Eklind said in his speech about how important preventive measures are, how important investments in children are, and how important the new leisure card is, for example. We can agree on this. The preventive work and that which gives children a safer upbringing is incredibly important for Sweden's development. That is why the proposal is completely baroque.

It is said that there should be a contribution ceiling, but in normal cases, everything one receives in income is deducted from the social assistance. This should also apply to the leisure card, but what applies there? Will it be counted in so that the families who receive this grant become even poorer?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The leisure card is for the children.

Those who listen to this debate must have one basic fact clear in their minds: the economic assistance was never intended as a way for anyone to support themselves year after year, but the economic assistance is meant to step in and help a person who has completely or partially lost their capacity to work so that the person can get back on their feet and into work again.

That is how we build a strong Sweden. We shall ensure that those who can work, have the capacity to work and are of working age become employable and can start working. I believe that this will make an enormous difference for the children. It is not about crowns and öre but about the feeling – the dignity and self-esteem – of being able to go to work. Very many end up in long-term exclusion.

The only problem I see with the reform is that it should have been implemented much earlier. That is the big mistake, and I take responsibility for that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! We live in the time of the climate crisis. What scientists have warned about for decades are no longer future scenarios. It is here, and it is now – and we must act.

In Västernorrland, people have been affected by heavy rainfall that has damaged both homes and socially important infrastructure. The trains simply are not running. In Europe, forest fires have raged throughout the entire summer.

The climate crisis is accelerating, and this government is fueling it. They are putting up obstacles to the expansion of wind power. They are making it more expensive for ordinary people to switch to electric cars. They are forcing cuts in public transport all over the country, and they are reducing the protection of forests. The green transition is being torn apart, and emissions are increasing. It is obvious to everyone that this government has completely lost control over climate policy. At the same time, it is becoming obvious to more and more people that climate policy and security policy go together. While the government makes us more dependent on fossil fuels, our dependence on rogue states increases. It is madness.

Sweden needs a new government and a new economic direction – a government that manages to lower emissions while society is climate-adapted so that we can manage the consequences we see already here and now, that is capable of driving the green transition forward for Swedish companies, jobs, and households, that sees short-term cuts in the environmental budget as the bad policy it is, with many long-term consequences. Sweden needs a government that makes a fair climate transition and lowers emissions, a government for families with children, that builds Sweden strong for the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! School is the best policy against all our societal problems. It secures competence for companies so that they can grow and generate tax revenues for our welfare so that we can fund school, care, and healthcare. School is the best vaccine against exclusion and the best for integration and for meaningfulness and faith in the future.

Madam Speaker! Growth needs to increase in Sweden so that we will also be able to afford welfare in the future, for the climate transition, and for our competitiveness. I have many years behind me both in the business sector and as a self-employed entrepreneur. When I now, in this role, meet entrepreneurs, it is primarily three things they say they want politics to do: improve the skills supply, reduce red tape, and lower the costs of hiring.

This budget contains many of these important reforms to strengthen companies' ability to hire and grow. We continue to expand adult education for relevant courses that companies need. We have previously expanded the growth support so that it becomes cheaper for the smallest companies to hire. Now we are lowering the employer contribution for young people in the current economic downturn. Additionally, we are simplifying and improving the 3:12 rules to facilitate business ownership and entrepreneurship.

In the Liberals' Sweden, it must always pay to educate oneself, behave well, and care. Therefore, this budget contains large investments in welfare. It eases the great cost pressure that exists on many households, and it strengthens companies' opportunities to hire and grow. Together with previous budgets – that must not be forgotten – this is a budget to accelerate growth, continue driving the climate transition, take the school back to its foundations, and give every child, adult, and elderly person faith in the future. In a restless world, we in Sweden can show that it is possible to see serious societal problems here and now and take action on them. At the same time, we have our sights set on the goal of a brighter future.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! For those of you following this via television, I regret that all school students are leaving the gallery just as we are about to talk about school.

First, I want to ask a question, straight out, regarding young people: Why is the increase in employer contributions for young people the only thing you are rolling back of what you have failed at, and why is the reduction temporary? The member has himself been a small business owner, and business owners say all the time that they want long-term perspective. That was the first question.

So to the second question. I received this diagram from Cecilia Rönn herself. Thank you very much for that! It shows the school budget in nominal terms and in constant terms. What it shows is that this "historical" school budget in constant terms only returns to exactly where it was when you began to govern. It is your own diagram. And if you remove the maximum fee from this – it says "School budget" here above, Madam Speaker – it becomes much smaller in real terms.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the employer contribution for young people, it is a good and accurate measure now, in this economic downturn. I think it is very good. We need to ensure that young people can get a foot in the door and enter the labor market, gain work experience and become more competitive and employable while the companies grow.

Whether it should be cyclical or long-term is a question that I am definitely prepared to discuss. We also make investments in small businesses with the growth support. I would personally like to see that we continue to develop that. In the next mandate period, I would also like to lower, for example, the corporate tax. It is important for companies.

When it comes to the school budget, 4.3 billion is the largest school budget in a long time, both in nominal and real terms. I do not understand why we should suddenly start breaking things out from expenditure area 16, which we have never done before. It needs to be comparable with previous years. That is how both the government and the opposition present their budgets.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I think one good thing would have been if you had not raised, shock-raised, the employer contribution for young people as the first thing you did as a new government. It is good that you are temporarily taking it back now. But it is very strange that one is to discuss the long-term when one has just taken back, temporarily for a short period, something that one shock-raised at the beginning of the period.

So back to the figures exercise we have had here regarding the school budget. It actually says "School budget" here on the diagram, not generally about preschool and all other school forms. What you presented were school investments. And in nominal terms, when one removes the maximum fee, the investment is smaller this year than last year.

If there is anything being manipulated with figures here, it is that one has only made up for the cuts already made in the school and actually not even that. That is why it looks the way it does in the Swedish school with the dropouts, with the large gaps, and with the problems that not enough teachers can become qualified.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I intend to make a comparison that I hope most will understand, including Martin Ådahl.

The opposition pretends that every krona will remain forever, but that is not how it works. If a household saves up to buy a new car, they stop paying for it once the car is bought. That does not mean the household has become stingier, it means that they are reprioritizing. So we present the budget. There are temporary investments, and there are long-term investments.

Regarding the school budget's expenditure area 16, we are making investments in the knowledge grant, 1.8 billion, and on quality-enhancing measures in preschool. We are lowering the fee in preschool through the maximum fee. That is also in that expenditure area. We are putting money into safety and study rooms, into security in school and into student health so that we can hire more. We are adding money to be able to make the school mobile-free. We are putting money into new curricula, a new grading system, reading promotion via public libraries, and so on. Everything is in black and white. That is exactly how we have always done it when we have presented budgets.

(Applause)

The debate on the occasion of the submission of the budget bill is hereby concluded.

The budget bill was tabled.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)