The fiscal framework

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by saying that the fiscal framework has served and continues to serve Sweden well.

The popular version of this – for those of you listening who do not have economics as your primary interest – is that it simply means that no government should spend more money over time than we actually have; revenues and expenditures must match. This ensures, to put it loosely, that one has a low national debt. I will use the word national debt even though it is the Maastricht debt I mean, that is, the total indebtedness that the state, municipalities, and regions have.

It is important to say that I am proud to have, together with so many others in this chamber, Madam Speaker, been a part of the legacy that we have managed since the 90s when it comes to simply ensuring good order and discipline in the public finances. If a country builds up debts, it is because one spends more money than one has. Eventually, one loses control, and it always costs the citizens very dearly.

The framework covers four central fiscal policy goals. I do not intend to go into depth on them, as that is not the important part, but together they ensure a good order regarding the preparation and decision-making of the state budget. They ensure that the national debt is kept at a level that the policy wants.

From the very beginning, it was about paying off a state debt that had been built up. At that time, one had a surplus goal. Now that we have completed the final review, we have come down to having one of the lowest state debts in the world. Six of the Riksdag's eight parties then agreed together that we are now moving over to a balance goal. We are making the state debt permanent at a historically low level.

Another major thing we did in this review was to determine when it is reasonable to make concessions, i.e., justified deviations from the framework. Things can, after all, arise. Financial crises, pandemics, or wars in the surrounding area can occur. Strong public finances are intended to handle such things and to ensure that Swedish households can get through such events in a good way.

We review this framework every eight years, i.e., every other parliamentary term. The report we are dealing with today is the final part of that process, when we receive this back from the government. I want to extend a thank you to Sverigedemokraterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, Socialdemokraterna, and Centerpartiet for that we together once again take responsibility. We do not agree on how the policy should be designed or exactly what priorities we should make. Those questions belong to every budget majority, and that is what we continue to agree on.

What we agree on is that we take long-term responsibility and do not build up an uncontrollable national debt and that we do not put future generations in debt for what we need to do today. Therefore, I would like to express a big thank you for the good cooperation on the way towards today's final part.

Madam Speaker! The strength of the fiscal framework is not that it is exceptionally much better than in other countries. It would have been fun if it were the case that we have stable public finances because of the ingenuity in how a good economic framework is developed, which I and others who have been involved in managing this heritage and making adjustments and changes possess. That is not the case, but what makes it so that we have order and a low public debt is that we do not break the framework. Regardless of the color of the government, we make reasonable deviations from the economic framework.

This ensures that we are well-equipped when crises and disruptions occur in the economy. It ensures that Swedish households do not have to bear the entire burden when things happen. It allowed the previous government during the pandemic to balance and ensure that households and companies were protected. There was a broad consensus in this chamber regarding the vast majority of those measures. It also ensures that the government currently in power can ensure a rapid buildup of the defense, ensure support for Ukraine, and ensure that Swedish households can get through even these times relatively well.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that this week's debate has been a bit strange from the opposition's side. This may perhaps be taken up in some of the statements. We are, in fact, in eight out of eight parties in agreement on the defense initiative. We are in agreement on the support for Ukraine and the defense buildup. I have not seen any shadow budgets where they have been more restrained. On the contrary, the opposition wants to spend more money, and in the negotiations we have had, they have wanted to borrow more money.

It does not add up with the rhetoric that has occurred this week, where the opposition says they stand for some form of responsibility beyond what the government does. I cannot reconcile that debate.

During the pandemic, I belonged to the opposition, and we were very careful not to have that type of debate about the framework at that time. Therefore, I find this week's debate has been a bit difficult to understand.

The question of the framework became relevant after the imbalances in the Swedish economy in the 1980s, where debt was built up by the governments that ruled then. This burst in the early 1990s, and the Lindbeck Commission – which I believe many of us refer to with great pleasure – produced a good deal of things. It concerned everything from reform proposals to restore confidence in the Swedish economy to the first parts of what later became an economic-financial framework, where we reached out across party and bloc boundaries and finally could agree on what we today continue to manage.

Madam Speaker! I still think it is worth saying that there is nothing special about this framework, even though we have invested a lot of time in it. The important thing – and it is what I believe is the important thing in carrying the legacy forward – is that one respects the framework. If one makes justified deviations, it needs to be done in very great consensus between the parties that stand behind the framework, because that is how we will be able to ensure over a long series of years that the framework can actually endure.

Despite this week's debates – and we will certainly have some exchanges in a harsher tone here as well – I want to once again express a big thank you to all the parties that are involved and taking responsibility for sound public finances. It is important for Sweden, and it is important for Swedish households. If there is no order and tidiness, it is the ordinary people who pay the price.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I think much of the introduction of Edward Riedl's speech was good. It is a strength for Sweden that there is a strong majority for an updated fiscal framework. The framework has served Sweden well.

However, I was surprised by two things, and the first is that Elisabeth Svantesson is not participating in the debate today. There has been a major discussion not only about the future framework but, above all, about how one has approached the framework that exists today. There, very strong criticism has been voiced.

Edward Riedl goes as far as to say that he has difficulty understanding the criticism directed at the government. One must be aware that the Fiscal Policy Council has issued the harshest criticism it has ever directed at any government, regardless of political color. The Council states that the government has presented a budget expected to lead to the largest deficits in 30 years, apart from the pandemic, with the risk of higher interest rates as a consequence. This should be discussed, because the framework is not stronger than the need for it to be followed. That is what the criticism is about, and Edward Riedl does not quite address it or take it seriously.

As I understood it, the Moderaterna were actually involved in designing the fiscal framework – it was Anders Borg who designed it – so that expertise and research would characterize the political debate to a greater extent. Then we have a debate where one completely dismisses the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council when one runs with large deficits and breaks the rules. It is not a serious handling from the Moderaterna in a government position.

It also creates a certain hesitation. Will the promises and assurances about the future hold? Will the framework be managed moving forward? Or was it only when you yourselves sat in government and wanted to carry out fun reforms that you did as you pleased?

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by taking hold of what Mikael Damberg started with, namely that it is important that we agree on the economic frameworks because otherwise they serve no function. They must hold over changes of government and regardless of which party is in power. Let me, however, explain why I view the framework in the way I do and how I view the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism today.

It was clarified by the chairman of the Fiscal Policy Council that the criticism he delivers applies to all parties. It therefore also applies to all opposition parties, but the council has the task of reviewing the government. Now the opposition in here is shaking its head, but this is TV-recorded and the chairman of the Fiscal Policy Council says very clearly that the criticism applies to all eight parties. He had wished that there was some party that was against what the government is doing.

When it comes to the support for Ukraine, I interpret it as the opposition still being in favor of it. Parts of the opposition want us to invest even more – and borrow even more – money when it comes to Ukraine. Now I see representatives for Centerpartiet nodding. When it came to the defense agreement, the opposition agreed on only one thing, namely that we should borrow more money. There are several of us in here who were involved in those negotiations. The only thing the opposition wanted was that we should borrow more money.

According to the opposition's shadow budgets, Madam Speaker, all parties in the opposition want to spend more money than the government. As recently as today, the Social Democrats have presented an initiative for even larger reforms and even larger expenditures. The criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council covers all parties, and if one looks at the areas that the Fiscal Policy Council points out, one sees that the criticism hits those who want to borrow more, that is to say the opposition, harder.

Therefore, I think this is unserious from the opposition, Madam Speaker. Stand up for what you want to do, Mikael Damberg! Stand up for what we have agreed on together – the defense agreement, the support for Ukraine and so on! We have also changed the framework, which is what we are talking about today, in accordance with those priorities.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is true that we agree on financing the support to Ukraine and quickly building up the Swedish defense. There is a broad agreement on that. We are not discussing that, but the government parties are trying to muddy the waters here. The Fiscal Policy Council does not have views solely on that agreement, Edward Riedl, but they have views on the budget you have presented.

It is argued that the budget does not meet the requirements set by the fiscal framework. You have chosen to once again move forward with tax cuts for those who earn over 66,000 kronor a month, which you do with borrowed money. This drives up the deficit, which drives up the debt in Sweden in a situation where it does not align with the fiscal framework.

It is that debt and that responsibility that the sitting government must shoulder. Otherwise, your speech about future priorities will be worth so much less. If one cannot manage to prioritize what is most important here and now, one will not be able to manage to prioritize what lies ahead of us, which is even greater and even more difficult.

My conclusion is that they have operated with large deficits and once again built up the national debt to drive a policy that de facto has not worked. It has led to us having 500,000 unemployed people, a growth in the EU's bottom line, and 30,000 companies in bankruptcy. It was not worth it. In September, the Swedish people have a choice to make – to change the direction of the policy so that it prioritizes ordinary people, that the Swedish economy shall be stronger, and that unemployment will come down.

However, one must not be careless with the framework and the public finances, because then it is ordinary people who pay the price. I think the government parties should take responsibility for that, because that criticism also comes from the Fiscal Policy Council.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! What is most unfortunate in this debate is that Mikael Damberg is lying. Anyone can check this.

The national debt is therefore lower today than it was when Mikael Damberg and the Social Democrats passed their last state budget. The national debt is lower today than when Mikael Damberg was in charge in the government. To claim that this government has built up the national debt is, therefore, not to speak the truth. The national debt has become lower.

As I said, the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism is about the view that the costs for Ukraine should lie within the framework and be financed there. I can state that we have a handshake with the opposition on that point, so we have no different views in substance there.

Regarding the second part of the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council that Mikael Damberg takes up, that is, that the state budget is too expansive, all opposition parties want to borrow even more money. As recently as today, the Social Democrats presented another unfunded reform; they had a press conference about it just outside here.

The Fiscal Policy Council has criticism regarding Ukraine and regarding defense, and there we have a stalemate. If one puts the shadow budgets in relation to the state budget, one sees that the opposition parties want to borrow more money.

The criticism that Mikael Damberg and others are trying to make is unserious. When it comes to the claim that the national debt would be higher today, it is furthermore not true, and I am somewhat upset by that. I think we should have better order and discipline in the chamber.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the fact that there should be some order and clarity both in the state finances and in the discussion here in the chamber, I first want to say to those listening that no one – neither we parties in the Riksdag nor the Fiscal Policy Council – thinks that the support for Ukraine is not temporary and should not lie outside the usual budget frameworks. There is, therefore, no criticism there.

The criticism is instead that the government does not take to heart that it does not add up to present a budget that is the most expansive in 30 years, apart from the pandemic years, and at the same time – when the Fiscal Policy Council comes with criticism – say that the money is finished. One simply cannot first say "Now we are spending more than ever before on everything, the entire SD shopping list" and then say "Oh, now the money is finished, so no one else can spend anything." It simply does not add up, and that is also what the Fiscal Policy Council says.

From the Center Party, we have been very clear. There has been no doubt. We put 10 billion less in reform space on the table, and we also put a more restrictive budget. We do not belong to any opposition that has spent more.

Above all, we prioritize. The problem is that we have had expansive budgets from the government every year, but we have not seen any effect on unemployment, on the companies, or on growth, which has been half as high under the Tidö government as in the EU. Under the Alliance and the January Agreement, growth was twice as high as in the EU.

What also doesn't add up is that one has this very expansive budget and at the same time a very optimistic forecast. The Fiscal Policy Council also points this out. The Government says that it will go better than ever because it is an election year, and at the same time, one says that we are going to spend more than ever to stimulate a little extra.

It doesn't add up. There is a lack of order at the Ministry of Finance.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I intend to start at a different end than where Martin Ådahl finished and would like to extend a thanks to Martin Ådahl and Centerpartiet for good cooperation regarding both the framework discussions and the maintenance of what we sat and did together. I also want to say a big thank you for what we did together regarding the defense agreement and that we shall borrow for the upcoming investments. I also note that the Fiscal Policy Council today clarified that their criticism is directed at the entire political system – all eight parties in the Riksdag who stand behind these agreements and lay expansive budgets.

I do not share the Fiscal Policy Council's criticism in this matter, Madam Speaker. I think it is reasonable that we do what we do, that is, that we make these loans for defense, and I note again that the opposition during the negotiations wanted to borrow more money for the defense buildup and that the Center Party, for example, wanted to borrow more money for the support for Ukraine. That is inconsistent with the criticism one otherwise provides. If we additionally add all the various committee initiatives and unfunded promises from the opposition parties, the bill becomes frightfully high. That would mean much larger loans than what we have today.

I also note, Madam Speaker, that the national debt today, when our four parties on the Tidösidan side govern Sweden, is lower than when the Social Democrats pushed through their latest state budget when they held government power. The criticism is empty. It does not hold.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! If I myself in that role had received that type of criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council, I would probably have felt very humbled and thought that a great deal needed to be done here.

I just want to repeat, and it is very important, that we see the very large support for Ukraine as temporary. We truly hope that this war will not be permanent. In that case, according to all the rules of art, one should put it outside. It is also a question of all of Europe's freedom. I just want to emphasize that.

I also want to thank you for the cooperation both in the committee for the state finances, the framework discussions that we are talking about today, and in the defense negotiations. I think it was very good that there was a broad consensus there.

The problem is that one is placing a super-expansive budget on top of that, and that we who pulled the emergency brake last autumn were laughed at because we wanted to do it. They just waved it away. Then suddenly they say that the money is finished and that the coffers are empty – we can call the Fiscal Policy Council and talk about it, but the money is finished. This is what they say, at the same time as they have just said that they needed to push through a huge number of short-term measures before the election.

This still does not add up, especially as one does not deliver on the jobs, on the companies, or on the growth, as we always did when we cooperated not only in goal committees and on defense but also on achieving a good and sound economic policy in Sweden.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I still think it feels a bit dishonest from the opposition, because we have all had part of the same underlying material when we made all these settlements. We have been able to look at what happens during the defense buildup. If you stand behind it and do not want to cut back on infrastructure, police and the justice system, the steps are built into the next parliamentary term.

You have all seen all of this. It was part of what we made agreements about.

Now the debate is at the level where the Finance Minister says that the money is finished. For those who are listening, I want to say that the agreements we have made together are what will take up a considerable amount of the reform space in the next mandate period when these investments continue.

The answer to the question is that then one must make priorities or, as the opposition wants, tax increases. One will not escape that discussion; that is the whole point. One must decide.

Parts of the opposition want to borrow even more money. This came up in these agreements. At that point, we held back and said that this must be financed within the framework of ordinary budget policy, and we must quickly return to order and discipline.

Therefore, there is no room for reform for everything that the opposition wants to do. That is just how it is. However, it is no news, and I therefore think it is dishonest when members try to pretend as if the agreements we have made will in no way affect the reform space. The Finance Minister simply reminded the opposition that these agreements will cost money, because we will not borrow all the way. We start by borrowing for the defense buildup, and then we need to finance this.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We are here today to debate the Committee on Finance's report FiU14 on the fiscal framework.

The report is the result of negotiations across the block divide, a framework that a majority of the parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind. The report we are discussing implies an update of the framework, but the framework itself is, as is known, not new.

Let me begin with a brief historical look back. The framework we have today was born out of the 90s crisis. When the Social Democrats took over in the 90s, Sweden's finances were very weak. The economic policy that had been pursued had led to both large deficits and an alarming national debt. In order to clean up the finances and secure a long-term sustainable welfare, the Social Democrats and the Center Party, on our initiative, introduced the fiscal framework and a surplus target. Several of the other bourgeois parties were originally against the target, but over time several parties joined the ambition.

The reallocation yielded results, and the public finances were strengthened. Today, Sweden has one of the strongest public finances in the world. It gives us the strength to handle tough times and the crises that may arise. This is particularly important now in these turbulent times, or as the head of the Riksbank, Erik Thedéen, has expressed it: Sweden's well-managed public finances are a part of our defense capability. I share that view. The fiscal framework has served us well.

In 2024, the regular review of the fiscal framework was conducted. The review contains several important parts. It sets out principles regarding fiscal policy and cyclical stabilization, and it contains rules for future reviews. But this year's review also contains a major change, and that is the transition from a surplus target to a balance target. This is an issue we Social Democrats have pushed for against the background that Sweden's finances have improved, and in the agreement, six of the eight parties finally chose to stand behind the line that we have pushed for many years and move from a surplus target to a balance target. This we Social Democrats welcome, and we thank the parties for the agreement.

The whole point of the framework is to create space and strength to handle the challenges Sweden faces. When the surplus goal was introduced, one of the major issues was demography. As Swedes become more numerous and older, we Social Democrats believe that the welfare system needs to be expanded and that people should receive care in time, support from home care for a good everyday life, and a place in an elderly care home. It is also evident after the discussions of the last weeks and days that more needs to be done so that people can get into work and so that the trains run on time, and for that, the infrastructure must function.

A balance goal releases 200 billion in rounds over the next two parliamentary terms that can be used for investments and making Sweden better. That is good.

Madam Speaker! There are more advantages to strong public finances, and that is that Sweden has also had a high rate of public investment for a long time. It continues as well, not least linked to defense expansion. One reason for this is that the fiscal framework has enabled investments even in bad times when many other countries have been forced to cut back on their investments. The framework has given us the muscles to invest in tough times and tackle the crises when they come. The pandemic was a striking example of this, when Sweden had a great ability to act to protect Swedes' lives and health as well as the Swedish economy. The exceptional and rapid defense expansion that is taking place with the help of debt financing is another example.

The framework works because both sides of politics fundamentally stand behind it. Therefore, it was important for us Social Democrats that the Moderates stood at the same press conference as us at the end of October and spoke about the agreement we are discussing today. It is a strength for Sweden that several parliamentary parties stand behind the framework.

It is, however, important to say that the framework only works if the politicians follow it. To quote from the committee report: ”The committee emphasizes the completely fundamental point that a fiscal framework never becomes more effective than how it is applied.”

Unfortunately, it has been a bit hit and miss with this recently, because during the mandate period, the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna have broken the framework. They have borrowed, and now the Finance Minister himself has admitted that the money is gone.

The government's management of the economy has not gone unnoticed. On the contrary, criticism has been frequent lately. The National Audit Office was the first to come out and criticized the government for not meeting the goals in the fiscal framework. The National Audit Office writes that "the government neither reports its proposed fiscal policy in a transparent manner nor designs the fiscal policy in accordance with the current fiscal framework." It continues to write: "The government's proposed fiscal policy means that the surplus target will be clearly undershot in 2025 and 2026."

The National Audit Office's criticism was only the beginning. On Monday, the Fiscal Policy Council issued the harshest criticism ever given to a government regardless of political color: The government has laid a budget that is expected to lead to the largest deficits in 30 years, apart from the pandemic, with the risk of higher interest rates as a consequence.

The Sweden Democrats and the Moderates have thus indebted Sweden, but what have we gained from it? What has been the result in the economic reality? As Martin Ådahl said, we have lagged behind in growth compared to the rest of Europe. 500,000 people are unemployed, 30,000 companies have gone bankrupt and many households are still under severe economic pressure. This should call for some humility if one has conducted the economic policy in an effective way to handle Sweden's challenges.

My conclusion is political: We cannot afford four more years with this government's economic policy. But that is perhaps another debate.

In this debate, Edward Riedl claims a lot of things about our policy instead of taking responsibility for the government's budget and the criticism it faces. I can state that for several years in a row, we have had more ambitious budgets with better financing and therefore stronger public finances than the government. So is it also in this year's Social Democratic budget. We have more expenditures but also more financing, so the sum is that we have stronger public finances than the government.

The discussion about previous governments is becoming almost parodic. I sat in Stefan Löfven's governments, and we took over in a situation where Sweden had 46 percent in debt. We brought it down to 34 percent. The best argument Edward Riedl has is that in 2021 they voted through an amendment to the state budget so that it was their budget that applied in 2022. But that budget was weaker than the budget we had submitted to the Riksdag. You weakened the balance through your amendment. Is your best argument that you weakened the budget proposal we had submitted to the Riksdag? This perhaps explains why it is even weaker this mandate period since you do not meet the requirements in the fiscal framework. You have not met the framework's requirements for a single year during this mandate period.

One can also reflect on the direction of the policy. I find it provoking that the Moderaterna are not more humble in the face of the criticism they receive and that there is no consideration as to whether it is right to continue lowering taxes with borrowed money. When Sweden faces large expenditures ahead that remove all room for reform, one chooses in its budget to proceed with large deficits and borrow for expenditures that one cannot afford. It does not add up, and that is not how the framework is intended to work.

In times like these, one should have the state finances in order so that one can also afford the expenditures one faces ahead. That is why we Social Democrats finance our budget and have the means to do what we want in economic policy.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude with a comparison from the world of football. I am thinking of Tottenham Hotspur, also called Spurs, one of England's most historic clubs. It is a wealthy association with a huge arena and a loyal and extensive fan base – everything required to be a top team. Yet, Tottenham is currently in crisis. They are struggling at the bottom, just a few points away from the relegation line. It is not because they lack resources and conditions, but because they have squandered their opportunities. Through wrong decisions, inconsistency, and short-sightedness, they have lost direction and stability. The club has even coined its own term for when they have opportunities but get no results: "spursy".

Madam Speaker! That is exactly how the Minister for Finance treats the Swedish economy. Sweden has the strength, the competence, and the resources. We have the companies, the workforce, and the innovative power. The conditions exist for the Swedish economy to perform. But through a misguided economic policy, a lack of long-term perspective, and misprioritizations, the government risks making Sweden "spursy". That is not acceptable. Sweden must not perform like Tottenham.

If we Social Democrats receive the voters' confidence, Sweden shall not be a country that constantly underperforms despite good conditions. Sweden shall be a country that manages its opportunities, makes wise decisions, and delivers results.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! I am going to venture into something as dangerous as using two football metaphors to crush Mikael Damberg and the opposition.

In a football team, you have to count on all the players in the team, and on the opposition side, in principle, all parties want to borrow more money than the government. But for those of you listening, I will be kind and just focus on the Social Democrats. They are presenting a shadow budget that is 5 billion lower than the government's. Mikael Damberg is welcome to tell how large an impact this would have on the national debt in percent. If it is that important, it would be interesting to hear how large an impact it has on the national debt.

But this is not the whole truth, because the Social Democrats have amounts of completely unfunded proposals and reforms. Most recently this morning, you had a press conference where you wanted to get rid of even more money. The truth is, therefore, that with the Social Democrats, the loans would have become even larger.

The second football metaphor will have to wait, as I see that time is passing a bit quickly. But it is funny, so I will save it for another exchange of remarks.

Mikael Damberg continues to claim that Sweden is more indebted now than when the Social Democrats passed their last state budget. I can only note that when the Socialdemokraterna passed their last state budget, the state debt, i.e., the Maastricht debt, was 37.2 percent. Today, the state debt for the current year, when we borrow quite a lot for defense buildup and other things we agree on, is projected to be 35.8 percent. Then I just want to know, with the little football metaphor: Is it more or less? Is the state debt higher or lower than when Mikael Damberg passed his last state budget in government?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Edward Riedl, for acknowledging that we borrow less than you in our budget alternative for 2026 and that we borrowed less than you in 2025! I want to add that we also have a better economic policy for growth, to reduce unemployment and to avoid wasting the taxpayers' money.

Only in the last four years have Sweden's independent schools been overcompensated with 10 billion kronor in the form of profit distributions. It is clear that it is possible to do something else so that our tax money ends up where it should.

I can only say that one can look at the results. When the Social Democrats rule Sweden, we have strong public finances. We have growth, and we have lower unemployment. Now we have once again a situation where the Moderates rule the Ministry of Finance, and they are leaving behind a situation with 100,000 more unemployed and a growth that is weaker than in the rest of Europe. Furthermore, they have chosen to present a budget with large deficits despite that we know the future requires large expenditures. It is not a responsible economic policy.

Something has changed at the Moderaterna. I remember when the Moderaterna was a party one could trust, a party that took responsibility. Now, it seems that all of this is seen as criticism that one waves away instead of taking seriously.

This is for real. The Swedish people face great challenges. Then perhaps one should not proceed with borrowing for tax cuts this year for those who earn over 66,000 kronor a month. It perhaps should not be the highest priority in the state budget.

In conclusion: This comparison with 2021 is becoming completely confused. You changed our budget for 2022, yes, and you made that budget financially weaker. It is becoming completely insane.

It is the policy you have continued with. That is why there has been a deficit, and you have not followed the framework for a single year during this mandate period. You have not reached the goals for a single year during this mandate period, and this year, both the Swedish National Audit Office and the Fiscal Policy Council state that you are violating the framework.

(Applause)

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Madam Speaker! Once again, this debate becomes very strange when Mikael Damberg says that the Social Democrats have the best policy for economic growth and that what we took over was a Sweden that performed practically worst in the entire European Union when it came to economic growth. We were at the bottom. After a few years, we are now back in the top tier, where Sweden should be. It becomes a bit strange to hear Mikael Damberg talk about the Social Democrats having policy for economic growth, when it is precisely the opposite.

I can only note once again that the national debt is lower today, after our years, than it was when the Social Democrats pushed through their last state budget. The rhetoric about it being borrowed and that the money is finished and so on simply does not hold up. It is a false picture of reality.

Madam Speaker! Sweden had 37.2 percent in state debt when the Social Democrats passed their last state budget. Today it is down to 35.8 percent. It is no huge criticism that the state debt was very high during the Social Democrats' time. I am simply noting that it is lower now than it was then, and that is good for Sweden. It means that we have the economic strength to carry out a lot of the reforms we are making. That is good for Sweden. It is good for Swedish households. I wish we had a bit more order and clarity in the debate regarding those parts.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It does not become any more just because you get entangled in 2021 and 2022, Edward Riedl.

We governed Sweden until 2022, and we left behind a state debt that had gone from 44 percent down to 34 percent. In the last year – when you claim that you had influenced our budget on the margin – you made our budget weaker, so we borrowed more with those changes in the 2022 budget that you pushed through in 2021. That cannot be a strong argument.

We Social Democrats take responsibility for the public finances. Why? Yes, because we know that it means a lot for healthcare, for schools, and for elderly care and for the staff who work there. But we also know that we may need these strong public finances in situations with recession, unemployment, war, or pandemics. Then we use those resources, but we do not neglect the public finances.

I think the Moderaterna should show a bit more humility when both the Swedish National Audit Office and the Fiscal Policy Council say that what the government is doing does not add up. Be honest and say that you have laid a campaign budget! It is a budget where you spend a little money and borrow for this and that because you believe you can buy voters this year.

The voters do not seem to think so short-sightedly. They understand that we face some quite difficult decisions ahead. In that case, it would have been better to actually have order and clarity in the state finances this year to manage the large expenditures we face in the future. This short-sightedness, I believe, damages the Moderaternas reputation within economic policy.

(Applause)

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Madam Speaker! The fiscal framework was established following the deep economic crisis that Sweden underwent in the early 1990s. In order to ensure long-term sustainable finances and increase credibility, the fiscal framework was introduced.

In order to review the framework, which is done every other parliamentary term, a parliamentary committee was appointed in November 2023 to review the level of the target for the public sector's savings.

The current surplus target is replaced from and including 2027 with a balance target. It is a change that six of the eight parties in the Riksdag, including Sverigedemokraterna, support.

In the communication we are debating today, the government provides a consolidated account of the fiscal framework. This communication functions as a code of conduct and contributes to increasing transparency and confidence in the cornerstone of economic policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has strong public finances. A Maastricht debt of 33 percent makes Sweden one of the EU countries with the lowest public debt, a good bit below the EU average of 82 percent and the top rankings of Greece, Italy, and France at 120–150 percent of GDP.

When the Sweden Democrats and the government took over in 2022, Sweden had an inflation of 9.7 percent. Today it stands at 2 percent. Clearing away this inflation has taken a few years, and it has only been possible through a responsible economic policy that did not fuel inflation or complicate the Riksbank's mandate.

The lower inflation has enabled a number of interest rate cuts from the Riksbank, which now gives households with loans greater room for consumption and our companies the opportunity to invest and create more jobs.

We saw real wage increases of 3 percent last year. According to the forecast, they land at 3.2 percent this year, which in that case makes 2026 a record year for wage earners' purchasing power. It would then be the year with the highest wage increase rate since 2009.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats and the government have invested to pull Sweden out of the prolonged recession which is a consequence of an exceptional global situation with pandemic, war, energy crisis and furthermore trade wars.

We have set the conditions for strong growth this year. Konjunkturinstitutet and SCB assess that it stands at 2.8 and 3 percent respectively, which means in the absolute top tier of Europe. An economic policy that makes GDP grow also, all other things being equal, makes the debt ratio fall.

This has only been possible through support from politics in the fight against inflation and a responsible economic policy. Low public debt and good margins to the stability and growth pact's limits – all of this together has given the Sweden Democrats and the government room to maneuver to implement absolutely necessary investments, which now will benefit households after a couple of tough years. It is about lower fuel prices, halved food VAT, the largest job tax deduction during the mandate period, reduced electricity tax, and lower preschool fees. All of this together gives an average family with children over 5,000 kronor extra per month.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as we carry out necessary investments and reforms for households, we are also strengthening the Swedish defense. This is an existential necessity that the Sverigedemokraterna have pointed out since day one in Sweden's Riksdag.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed the naivety that characterized the Swedish defense debate until February 2022. It revealed two things: firstly, that the rest of the world had underestimated the Russian threat to the West and its willingness to take very large risks, and secondly, that Swedish defense had been underfunded for far too long.

And with these two crisis insights, which the entire political spectrum is now aware of, we have broad political consensus in Swedish politics regarding Ukraine and Swedish defense. That is good. We have reached a cross-bloc agreement in the Swedish Riksdag on loan-financing new defense expenditures and the support for Ukraine, an existential necessity in order to protect the survival of the Ukrainian nation and, by extension, Europe and Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by addressing some things that have been repeated in the debate. That all opposition parties would have more expansive budgets than the government is quite simply wrong. The Centre Party has an explicitly less expansive budget. Instead, we have, apart from police and defense, prioritized jobs, growth, companies, reduced climate emissions, and more equitable welfare in the Swedish countryside – not billions in deportation money.

I also cannot agree with the Sweden Democrats' description of a country where everyone receives fantastic real wage increases. They have actually decreased during your period in power. I also do not share the image that everything is well when we have a record-high unemployment rate which is also among the highest in the Western world and have had lower growth.

I heard the member from the Sverigedemokraterna say: This has given us room for maneuver. The problem is that the Fiscal Policy Council tells the government that you – in particular the Sverigedemokraterna, who do decide over the government – have taken a room for maneuver that you do not have economically. They say, contrary to what was described here, that precisely your over-expansive budget with the expansive fiscal policy in the driver's seat has caused the Riksbank's interest rate cuts to perhaps have been omitted or slowed down. It has crowded them out so that Swedish households have had to pay higher interest rates than they otherwise would have.

I wonder if the Sweden Democrats – who actually decide on Sweden's budget, otherwise it probably wouldn't look the way it does – are taking the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council to heart.

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl may not agree with the picture I am painting, but the fact is that unemployment is now falling for the sixth consecutive month. Employment is increasing. We saw real wage increases of 3 percent last year, and they are projected to be 3.2 percent this year. It is the highest wage growth rate since 2009. It is projected that this year we will have one of the highest growth rates in all of Europe.

Regarding the member's question about interest rate cuts, Martin Ådahl portrays this as a fact, that this was what the Fiscal Policy Council stated. I was not there, but I listened to the inquiry. It is not that the Fiscal Policy Council says that the policy de facto has led to missing interest rate cuts. It is said that it cannot be ruled out. The Riksbank has nevertheless carried out nine interest rate cuts, and we have implemented necessary economic policy that benefits households. That is how it stands.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! When a former Governor of the Riksbank – whom I had the great honor of working for during my time there – tells the politicians that you have stood in the way of the Riksbank's interest rate cuts, it is serious. Then one should listen and not wave it away.

When it comes to the Sweden Democrats' continued view on the economy, which is heard in so many debates, the people must judge for themselves. A picture is given of a labor market where unemployment is not a major problem. It has not risen by hundreds of thousands of people. It does not affect that many households. It does not cost the state finances 50 billion. Everything is fine in Sweden. We are on our way. Everything is great.

Even with this year's growth, which shows a slight recovery after this super-expansive budget and actually even before it, we have had such poor growth that it has been half as high as the average in the EU during these years – a marked difference compared to previous periods when we had twice as high growth in Sweden as in the rest of the world and the EU.

I do not understand this sugarcoating. But it perhaps explains why the Sverigedemokraterna take this so lightly and want their entire shopping list carried out by the Ministry of Finance.

I wonder if the member is thereby signaling that one will continue this way in the future. There will be a lot of press conferences from the Sweden Democrats about everything a future government, where you will sit together with the Moderates, is going to spend money on. The reform space was exhausted, but not for Jimmie Åkesson. He holds new press conferences with new promises.

Since it is you who decide, it is quite important to know whether it is what Jimmie Åkesson says, that we should continue to spend, or what Elisabeth Svantesson says, that the room for reform is exhausted, that applies.

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

Dennis Dioukarev (SD)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl is distorting what the Fiscal Policy Council says. Their criticism is directed at the entire political system. We are in agreement on the debt financing for the buildup of Swedish defense and Ukraine.

Then it becomes a bit difficult to take Martin Ådahl seriously when the Center Party every other week proposes committee initiatives on committee initiatives in the Committee on Finance. It makes it difficult to have a coherent and tight budget process, so it becomes difficult to take this criticism seriously.

I say as the Minister for Finance: I do not intend to apologize for good economic policy. We have lowered fuel prices. We are halving the food VAT. We are lowering the electricity tax. We are lowering the tax on labor. Our policy has given most to those who have least, more to women than to men. Martin Ådahl has voted no every time.

(Applause)

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

Ida Gabrielsson (V)

Madam Speaker! This is what I wrote in DN Debatt when the negotiations on the economic framework began:

Sweden needs a new investment target of 1 percent to manage the transition and deferred temporary investment needs in infrastructure. An expanded defense, an expanded justice system, and large needs in welfare shall be financed through taxes. But in order to free up money for that, the economic framework must allow for investments temporarily. To prevent unfunded tax cuts, we want to introduce a floor for the state's commitment, so that cuts can no longer occur automatically without political decisions and transparency.

Madam Speaker! I know it is a bit unfair, but I cannot help but say: What was it I said?

Not so long ago, we stood together at a press conference and presented the agreement on the framework that the Socialdemokraterna and the Tidö parties agreed upon. Vänsterpartiet said no and presented its own proposal, but there was no interest in compromising.

A unified Economic Committee agreed that the Swedish economy was in need of new temporary rules that allowed for investments in infrastructure.

LO and Svenskt Näringsliv said it was necessary for growth and employment. Sweden had Europe's second lowest public debt while there were enormous needs. Despite that, the Tidö parties, S and C – I initially forgot C and had included the party in S – argued that what was best for Sweden was a tight framework that prevented investments. They agreed on one, in my opinion, stingy framework.

At the press conference it was said: We who stand behind the agreement take responsibility for the state's finances. Someone added that Vänsterpartiet as usual is irresponsible and wants to indebt Sweden. But one forgot to say that the fringe group at the Ministry of Finance, the own Long-term Investigation, had put forward the same compromise proposal as I did.

The Minister for Finance calls Svenskt Näringsliv, LO, and Vänsterpartiet the new trinity. Now we stand here with an unplanned deficit even though the ink has not had time to dry on the agreement. In the media, it may be perceived as if no one knew that the deficit existed until after the Fiscal Policy Council had submitted its report. Some day before, however, the Minister for Finance announced that the money was gone. The truth is probably that already six months after the new framework was presented, the Prime Minister went out at a press conference and said that he intended to borrow for the defense buildup.

The criticism was clear from the start. A framework that no one follows is no framework. Had the framework been protected, one would have done what we proposed, namely agreed on a goal for the coming period that is anchored in reality and used the freed-up resources for investments and not, as is the case now, for running costs.

If one wanted to prevent unfunded tax cuts, the proposal for a maintained public commitment would have made a difference. All parties did, however, eventually stand behind the defense buildup. We in Vänsterpartiet would rather have seen a partial funding through a readiness tax on high incomes, but the government and Sverigedemokraterna said no to that. I am glad that we got what the experts advocate for anyway, that is to say a temporary investment pot that is not ongoing of 50 billion to strengthen the infrastructure.

Vänsterpartiet has not governed yet, and there I must hurry and take advantage while I still have the opportunity to blame previous governments and the current government. When the framework is not expanded for investments, it is difficult to fit both in the ordinary budget. If taxes are lowered year after year and revenues are disposed of, it is difficult to reprioritize when costs suddenly increase, but I have never had the economic framework as first-May-parliamentarian.

What political leaders actually think deep down, behind social media accounts, must be impossible for people to determine. The ministers are online activists. I myself am a real bore. I don't even have TikTok, and I can't even be bothered to campaign against any Tidö party member who has said something on the Internet. I know; I'm finished in the 2026 election.

How is someone like me supposed to have a chance against, for example, Jimmie Åkesson, who even produces updates that will trend on X while he is lying asleep? In dreams, it becomes a perfect right-wing nationalist narrative, and moreover, he manages to translate a language he doesn't even understand – in his sleep. I, on the other hand, have to even turn on the text intended for the hearing impaired when I watch Swedish-speaking TV programs, especially if someone involved has a dialect originating from Skåne and the surrounding area.

Of course I could have come here today, in the best Tidö-minister spirit, with a feigned surprise, and exclaim that the Left Party is now going to have to clean up the finances because Svantesson has emptied the barn and finished off all the money entirely on his own initiative. I could have put a teddy bear bandage on my forehead and told you that I had a nightmare that we were back in the 90s, that Anne Wibble was staring me in the face, and that the Swedish national debt had grown into a monster that chased me while I gripped the agreement in the framework convulsively.

But, Madam Speaker, it is not my style. I do not put up with nonsense. It is important matters we are discussing here. I know; it is certainly tactless. The minister accounts on Twitter will post mass-produced attacks on Vänsterpartiet until election day regardless of what I do. I was not born yesterday.

But I don't care. At some point, one must also have to discuss politics. To be honest, I am more worried about the welfare and my parents' low pensions than about the national debt itself. Don't get me wrong! It is certainly cynical that the government has allowed the recession to be cemented, lowered taxes for those who have the most and left households and the welfare in the lurch, only to pour out money in an election bribe budget. For decades, capital taxes have been abolished, and the one with the absolute highest income has received the most – especially during this mandate period.

We have now reached the end of the road. The state cannot continue to get rid of revenues if we are to afford the welfare. The person who earns 120,000 a month needs no tax cuts. The one with large capital incomes manages well without getting a share of the reform space.

Madam Speaker! The money is gone. The money is gone from the workers' accounts. Nursing assistants and bus drivers can't take any more. Poor pensioners, the sick, and the unemployed do not want to know that the money is gone. The state is not like an individual citizen, and the state treasury is not a class fund where one puts in a coin. We all have the possibilities to replenish with revenues and have a somewhat expanded space for temporary investments. Our job is to secure the citizens' welfare and create conditions for growth and jobs. We must lower households' costs for food, electricity, and housing. The emergency rooms are full, and the staff is exhausted. Market experiments make welfare more expensive and impoverish it. Ideology has been allowed to take precedence over what actually works. We must take back control.

Sweden still has one of Europe's lowest public debts, and we must have order and clarity in the finances. We achieve that with agreements that are realistic and that are followed. We shall not borrow for running costs, and we shall raise capital taxes. We have more billionaires than ever. High capital concentration does not automatically lead to investments and growth. We need to build up the state's muscles again, so that we can manage the jobs and the welfare. Now it is the citizens' turn. If we are to achieve it, we need to clear out the current government. We shall change the government, and we shall change the policy. We red-greens must unite to implement what we have now promised the voters. The welfare system shall be strengthened, the care system abolished, and the welfare reinforced. And we shall ensure that teenagers who are just about to take their first step into adult life, whether they take their first job or want to continue their studies, get to stay with their family and their friends.

We shall focus on what we want to achieve, cooperate, and then implement it together in a red-green government. Vänsterpartiet is ready to do its part to clean up after the right-wing politics.

It is not possible to grant approval to the communication, and I have no other proposal either.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now discussing a major issue. For those of us who actually remember what it was like when Sweden's national debt spiraled out of control, it is not easy to take the question lightly.

I would still like to thank you for the cooperation in the committee on the state finances. We deepened our knowledge, and I also want to thank you for the discussions we had regarding the financing of the defense.

I also want to thank the Fiscal Policy Council. It is certainly nice when someone dares to say stop, which is exactly what the Fiscal Policy Council is supposed to do. Here was a watchdog for our Swedish public finances that actually barked and was not silent. It is important for us in politics.

I remember concepts such as crown-for-crown and that one should finance everything one has. I also remember moderation and thrift, what we used to call bourgeois virtues. I also remember that the government promised order.

Now there is disorder in almost everything. There is disorder when it comes to the jobs. We have a high unemployment rate. There is disorder when it comes to the growth. The growth rate is half as high as the EU average. It used to be much higher. There is disorder when it comes to the emissions, which are skyrocketing. Now there is also disorder in the public finances.

Rules are there to be followed, which has also been said earlier in this debate. In the word framework, it lies that there should be a framework, so that we do not get a large national debt again and so that the interest on our national debt does not steal money from healthcare, school and care, from reasonable taxes on work and companies.

It is absolutely necessary sometimes to make exceptions to the rules, even before they have been introduced, as in the situation with the rapid need to upgrade the defense. But it is still to go a step further to make exceptions from the exceptions that one has not even introduced and to come up with a budget that has no kind of limit or measure.

Centerpartiet has for decades protected the framework, these rules for the public finances. We sanitized the public finances in the 1990s, actually together with both the non-socialist parties and the Social Democrats. In the 2000s, we held the public finances within the Alliance, together with among others the Moderaterna. And we got through the pandemic without a skyrocketing state debt, together with the parties that stood behind the January Agreement.

Once again: Exceptions may be made, for example during the pandemic and for defense. But it is not possible to break the rules and, as the Fiscal Policy Council has now pointed out, still not prioritize the major structural reforms. You don't do it for defense, for the climate, or for jobs. It is a single giant, super-expansive election pork budget, which just barely manages to get past the election, in order to cover up the high unemployment and the weak job and business policy. You pump out gifts from SD's order list.

The Tidö government has done this four times. First it was 30 billion in unfunded reforms. Then it was 40 billion in unfunded reforms. Then it was 60 billion in unfunded reforms. We still see no effect compared to the rest of the world, not even on consumption but above all not on growth and unemployment. And now they are throwing in 80 billion, the highest in 30 years with the exception of the pandemic.

I repeat that it is very unusual that the Fiscal Policy Council not only issues the most serious warning ever for that which they are tasked to warn about but actually also, based on the experience they have, warns that this crowds out possible interest rate cuts for households. They have, so to speak, taken over from the Riksbank in terms of pushing the economy, so that the Riksbank cannot lower the interest rate as quickly.

Centerpartiet already chose in the autumn, as the only party, very consciously to push for a 10 billion lower reform space. We can take criticism for not being sufficiently restrained, but we do not take criticism for being wrong. We wanted to honor our long struggle for stable public finances. We wanted to choose a different path.

Now Sweden needs a new course. We have pointed out that there is a problem with this new framework, which we have agreed upon. It is logical that we move to a balance target. There were some challenges, but the national debt has gone down. And space was needed to invest in defense and other things ahead. But we want to be careful that it does not become like in this budget, that is, that one spends instead of invests. It needs to be invested in things that make Sweden's growth stronger in the long run, such as infrastructure, with roads and railways, and defense.

Parallel to the fact that we have a low national debt, we also, as the Fiscal Policy Council also points out, have an infrastructure with trains that stand still, roads that have potholes, people who do not get to work and the Malmbanan that stands still. It blocks billions in Swedish exports. It costs very much to have such an under-invested state capital.

That is why we, in connection with the goal being changed, wanted to preserve money in the Swedish economy to invest and not just spend. It did not happen. And unfortunately, we now stand here with continued under-investments while, unfortunately, one overspends.

I want to vote in favor of the proposal in the report. But we must do this with great caution. Parallel to this new framework, there is indeed great disorder in the Swedish public finances. Furthermore, there is great disorder in the state's capital regarding railways and roads, which are also actually important for the defense.

We hope for a new course where one remembers and returns to the old, fine values we once cherished: moderation, thrift, efficiency, and order in our public finances.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing the government's report on the fiscal framework. There are no motions, reservations, or special statements regarding this.

The fiscal framework was implemented for the first time with the 1997 state budget. At that time, after the financial crisis, the state budget was almost 69 percent of GDP. The framework, which consists of overarching fiscal goals and restrictions as well as a strict state budget process, has indisputably served Sweden well. We have moved from being a country with one of the higher state debts in Europe as a share of GDP to now being one of the countries with the lowest state debt.

But the framework is a means, not an end. The purpose of the framework is that we should enable a good socio-economic development, not only for our own present but also for the future.

The framework has been changed and adjusted a number of times since 1997. When we now discussed the design of the framework, we in the Christian Democrats were early in demanding changes to the current framework. We wanted to replace the current surplus target with the possibility of underbalancing the state budget for a period, which would mean that Sweden could borrow to finance investments.

The alternative is that one either has to raise taxes and/or make significant reprioritizations. That is how one can solve costs for investments. But tax increases are not the means that we Christian Democrats believe we should use. If Sweden is to continue to be a competitive and attractive economy, strategic tax cuts are good. Just as Ida Gabrielsson noted, there were also some, among others the Long-term Investigation, which confirmed that this was possible to do.

In this work, we Christian Democrats were clear that we want a broad political consensus regarding the framework, the rules we set up and so on. We also saw that this agreement was important to achieve in the near term. Therefore, we were one of the parties that stood behind that the current surplus target should be replaced with a balance target. It will apply from 2027 onwards. The balance target will, during that period, give us the opportunity to obtain slightly expanded funds; it is usually said to be one-third of a percent of GDP or approximately 25 billion kronor annually.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude the speech by speaking about stewardship. It is one of the ideological values that we Christian Democrats use when we try to navigate our way through various policy positions.

I want to do it based on the fact that Sweden has doubled its defense spending in four years. It is not strange, we think. For a number of years now, a terrible war of aggression has been ongoing on our own continent. Just over 150 miles from Sweden, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty.

When we Christian Democrats talk about stewardship, it is not only the economy we are thinking about, but it is also about, for example, managing our own freedom. We can only do that by acquiring the ability to defend freedom. That we should increase our own defense capability while simultaneously supporting Ukraine's struggle has therefore been a conclusion that is, to say the least, reasonable.

Freedom is also a justification for the major investment that the government has completed and is carrying out to build new prisons. Perpetrators of violence and criminals shall be removed from streets and squares. When they sit behind lock and key, the citizens' perceived freedom and safety increase.

In the communication we are now discussing, reference is made to the parliamentary agreement from June 2025 that new defense expenditures and support for Ukraine may allow for a deviation from the target for the public administration's financial savings during the period 2026–2034 and that the expenditures shall be financed successively, so that the savings are in balance by 2035 at the latest.

I am not in the least concerned that we have chosen this path. There is, in fact, a broad parliamentary anchoring for the central parts of the fiscal framework. If, parallel to this, we have a government that continuously monitors compliance with the fiscal framework and has a well-functioning external monitoring, I mean that the credibility for continued budgetary discipline is very good. I think this is underscored by the fact that the government in the letter confirms the principle of regular recurring reviews of the fiscal framework every other electoral period. The review results in an updated framework letter which is submitted to the Riksdag, and I support that.

(Applause)

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

Nils Seye Larsen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The fiscal framework is one of the cornerstones of Swedish economic policy. It has served Sweden well and given us order in the public finances, stability in crises, and an international confidence that many countries envy.

But a framework is never stronger than its ability to meet reality, and reality changes. We have a different security situation in Europe and a climate crisis that is deepening. The investments required to transition our society are historically large.

It is interesting that we earlier today spoke about the Fiscal Policy Council's report – relevant to this debate. The Council does, as always, a solid job. They remind us of the importance of long-term sustainability in public finances, safeguard the framework's credibility, and highlight the need for transparency and clarity. That is good and important. The government should also do that.

Instead, we see the opposite. One pretends to want a balance goal and beats the big drum for it, but one drives an economic policy for a deficit. Furthermore, one borrows for tax cuts for the rich. The government empties the state's finances and exhausts the reform space because it prioritizes tax cuts for those who already have. The government creates the largest deficit in 30 years, while child poverty increases and the maintenance debt in the railway skyrockets. That is bad. But fiscal policy is not just about holding back, but also about investing correctly.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet stands behind a strong fiscal framework. We safeguard the predictability, the trust, and the transparency it provides, as well as the opportunities to have an open discussion about target levels and investments. Therefore, it is positive that we now have this debate.

We must think bigger for the future. It is not only the necessary upgrading of the defense that requires more from us moving forward. We already see now how the costs of climate change increase every year, when extreme weather knocks out infrastructure and when energy systems must be rebuilt. Then we cannot pretend that every investment is a cost that should be pressed down here and now. Some investments are necessary to avoid much larger costs in the future. This applies in particular to climate investments. This has the Fiscal Policy Council also pointed out previously.

Madam Speaker! The Fiscal Policy Council highlights the importance of clarity in the reporting of fiscal policy, and that is good. They also point out that there is a difference between borrowing for consumption, which this government is now doing, and borrowing to invest in the future society, which we want to do. When we expand fossil-free energy, strengthen the railway, make housing more energy-efficient and climate-proof our infrastructure, we are investing in Sweden's competitiveness. It reduces future costs, creates jobs and provides economic development. It also makes our public finances more sustainable in the long run, not less.

A fiscal framework must be able to distinguish between short-term consumption and long-term investments. Here, we believe that the framework should be developed. We have long pointed out that large investments in the climate transition are needed, and quickly. Therefore, we need to borrow money for a limited period for exactly that: well-defined and socio-economically efficient investments for the climate securing of Sweden. To that, almost all other parties have said no. They say they want to have a balance goal. But now we see how the government undermines the framework instead of taking responsibility for the state finances.

The framework deserves better. The risk of erosion is not about Sweden investing too much in the transition. The greatest risk is political short-sightedness. When the government repeatedly uses creative budget solutions and unclear reporting, transparency is weakened. When, at the same time, one underinvests in that which builds long-term growth – green base power, climate, infrastructure – we risk both the economy and the framework's legitimacy.

The Fiscal Policy Council calls for clarity, and so do we. But clarity is not just about figures, but also about direction. What kind of society are we building? What economy are we preparing for? What costs are we pushing onto the future?

Miljöpartiet wants to see a continued strong fiscal framework, but it must be adapted for today's reality. We want Sweden to continue to have strong public finances. We want to more clearly enable strategic investments in the climate transition, as that strengthens the economy's long-term sustainability. We also want to develop transparency regarding climate-related risks and investments in the budget process.

The climate crisis also constitutes a fiscal risk. We must therefore ensure that the framework is used for stability and not as an excuse for passivity when Sweden needs investments. An updated framework shall combine order and clarity with decisiveness for the future.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is one of the world's richest and most stable countries. It is no coincidence, but rather the result of responsible economic policy. But what we see now is a right-wing government doing what most right-wing governments before this have done: They lower taxes, mostly for the rich, and erode both faith in the future and the finances. This has damaged Sweden's economic confidence, increased child poverty, prolonged the recession, and made more people unemployed.

Instead, an economic policy is needed that strengthens Sweden and the economy forward. It is about investing wisely, preventing risks, and building a society that lasts.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

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