Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the election, the four coalition parties received a mandate to set Sweden on a new course. The task is to systematically, point by point, begin solving our serious societal problems. Change was necessary. Change is now possible.

The government will take that mandate to heart. We will implement a paradigm shift in Swedish politics. But we are also humble before the magnitude of the task. Things that have gone wrong for a very long time are not fixed in a heartbeat.

Party debate

We also have respect for the fact that there is much anxiety all around Sweden and in the world: the war, energy, electricity bills, inflation, interest rates, social exclusion, and all the fatal shootings - most recently last night, a 16-year-old boy in Sandviken. It may very well get worse before it gets better.

The government that I am now leading wants to reverse the development, solve problems, make us safer and more secure and stand guard over the state's core tasks - but also to gather and unite, not split and divide.

The government has hit the ground running. On Monday, Romina Pourmokhtari was in Luxembourg to adopt the EU's common positions ahead of the environmental conference COP 27 in Egypt, where I will also be traveling. Yesterday, Ebba Busch was at her council meeting to continue working on common solutions that can push down electricity prices in Europe. The second day of work I dedicated to Sweden's and Finland's NATO accession and Europe's common support for Ukraine.

Here at home, the coalition partners are putting the finishing touches on their first joint budget, while Gunnar Strömmer received his very first investigation. An investigation may sound quite undramatic, but it was carried out because a majority in the Justice Committee demanded it from the previous government one and a half years ago. Now the result is here: Swedish police shall be given the same tools as the police in other countries.

Mr. Speaker! Four tasks are particularly important in the coming years.

The first is that the fight against serious crime must be won. Safety must be restored throughout Sweden. My government will make a historic investment - new money and new legislation. There will be a complete review of the penal code. The focus is shifted from the perpetrator to the crime victim. The sentences shall reflect the severity of the crime.

The task of giving all children a fair chance is equally important. Prevention must go hand in hand with crime fighting. It will become a national social intervention force that supports the municipal social services. We will also strengthen the social services' and the school's crime prevention responsibility.

The second task is to lead Sweden through economically difficult times and break the exclusion. It requires budget discipline. Inflation is nearing 10 percent. Sweden now has a historically high unemployment rate as we enter a recession. Many people do not know how, or if, they will manage the winter. Electricity bills threaten the survival of many companies.

My message is that the high-cost protection is coming. We are fulfilling our election promise. It does not solve the long-term energy crisis, but it mitigates a cold winter.

Those who are now outside and living on benefits need to replace benefit dependency with self-sufficiency. A major benefit reform will be implemented so that it always pays to go to work. At the same time, we will lower the tax on low and medium incomes.

There is nothing that creates prosperity in a country like work. There is nothing that counters poverty like having a job. Nothing creates social mobility like getting one's very first job.

The government will significantly reduce immigration. We cannot continue as we are now. Sweden shall be an equal and egalitarian country with high trust and good social welfare. Many hundreds of thousands of immigrants make great contributions every day, but if Sweden continues to receive many more asylum seekers than our neighboring countries, segregation will only increase. Therefore, we are now changing the policy.

Mr. Speaker! The third task is about Sweden having to get out of the energy crisis, both to reach our climate goals and to restore confidence in the future for households and companies. The climate transition begins and ends with the energy issue. Stable, affordable, fossil-free electricity is the foundation for meeting the climate goals. The new super-ministry connects our time's great climate issues and increases the ambitions to save the Baltic Sea. Environment and climate will have a stronger role in our government.

The fourth major task is to lead Sweden into Nato, to shoulder the responsibility as the EU's next presiding country, and to help Ukraine win the war in every way we can - and thereafter to win the peace.

The new government is increasing our support for Ukraine politically, economically and militarily - because we want to, because it is our duty, but also because Ukrainian women and men are now fighting for our sake as well. I place great value on the broad consensus on Swedish foreign policy in the most difficult time since the Second World War.

Mr. Speaker! Today I feel confident. I feel joy in the work that lies ahead of us. This is not at all because I underestimate Sweden's great problems, nor because I overestimate our, and even less my own, ability. This is going to be difficult. It will take time. But it will work. For there is nothing that is so bad in Sweden that it cannot be fixed with all that is truly, truly good.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has now received a new government. It is good that it has been put in place. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and everyone else in their new roles.

We live in a restless time, and the security situation is very serious. Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has consequences for all of us. The Ukrainian people are currently paying an incredibly high price in blood and human suffering. Therefore, the support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people must continue - economically, militarily and civilly, with the entire Swedish people's strong and solidary mandate.

Right now, the entire European security order is threatened by Russia's actions. The Social Democrats will continue to contribute to the important work of bringing the NATO application that I submitted earlier this year all the way to completion. I look forward to continuing the good cooperation with Ulf Kristersson in that process.

My message to the Swedish people is clear: We Social Democrats will in all instances act for the best of Sweden and the Swedish people, even now as we step into opposition.

Mr. Speaker! In domestic policy, we Social Democrats will continue to work with full force so that Sweden becomes more like Sweden, the country that we all love. There are great clouds of concern here that we need to manage.

Firstly, many people now feel great anxiety about how the household economy will hold up. Prices for food, gasoline, and electricity hit Swedish households' wallets directly, while at the same time there is a high risk that we are facing a serious economic downturn. This must be met with a responsible economic policy. Otherwise, people risk losing their jobs while high interest rates on mortgages sweep away the last margins.

A heavy responsibility rests on the government. There is no room for mistakes. This is shown by the market anxiety that followed the UK's fateful tax cut policy.

Secondly, the needs in healthcare, school, and elderly care must be met. These activities are currently facing a cost crisis that risks hitting the children in school, the users in elderly care, and the patients in healthcare hard. Welfare must be prioritized in the upcoming budget. The employees should not have to pay the price for the impending cost crisis. The last thing the hard-working nursing assistants, teachers, and care staff need is worsened conditions and increased stress. It risks undermining the welfare that makes Sweden a unique country, where needs and not the wallet determine healthcare, school, and care.

Now it is up to the Sverigedemokraterna and their government to prove it. We must take back the democratic control over the welfare.

Thirdly, the climate transition must continue. The climate threat is the defining issue of our time. It is a purely existential issue for our planet and for humanity's future. We are already seeing the consequences with heatwaves, floods, and extreme weather events. These are things that force people to flee and contribute to large refugee flows. The probability of an aggravated situation is great.

In Sweden, we have embraced the transition as an opportunity. For the past eight years, we have invested powerfully to seize the potential in new technology while simultaneously reducing emissions. It has yielded results. The green industries are growing rapidly. New jobs are emerging by the thousands, not least in the northern parts of Sweden.

This development needs to continue, both so that we can look future generations in the eye and say that we did our part, and to secure jobs and growth here and now. It is also the key to being able to break the far too large gaps between city and country.

For the fourth, we need to turn over every stone to stop the violence and break the segregation. It is a segregation that creates division between people and drives the gang violence and the criminality that plagues our country. The criminal gangs must be met with tougher measures, more police, and harsher sentences. But for every gang criminal who is locked up, new generations are ready to take over the spot. Without breaking the new recruitment, we will never succeed in breaking the gangs. Here, the entire society must be mobilized, all good forces must be utilized.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is at its best when Sweden holds together, from north to south, from suburb to industrial town and to city center. Sweden now needs a policy and politicians who want and are able to unite our country. It is fundamentally about standing up for Sweden and for the values that make our way of living together unique. It is about equality, so that everyone gets a chance, about gender equality, so that men and women are treated equally, and about duty and rights, because everyone is needed. Sweden simply needs a policy that makes Sweden a little more like Sweden.

We Social Democrats will never stop fighting for our country and for Swedish values of respect, cohesion, and trust. We do it in substantive politics, we will do it in the popular movement, and we will do it in everyday life every day when we, during coffee breaks and online, stand up against the hatred and threats and the division that risks destroying everything that Sweden has been so proud of.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has received a new government. I note that it is also present here in the chamber - welcome! It is a new government that agrees with us in the Sweden Democrats that Sweden needs a new start, that a paradigm shift is needed in a number of critical areas of society.

We are a country that for a long time has been plagued by very serious problems. The security situation in our immediate surroundings is more serious than it has been in a very long time. Putin's illegal, cowardly war of aggression against Ukraine has struck fear into all of Europe. It has created a difficult, uncertain situation security-wise, socially and economically, of course not least for those who live with the war in their immediate vicinity but also for us here in Sweden.

The economic situation is uncertain, partly due to this but also due to the irresponsible, directly Sweden-hostile policy that governments from both the right and the left have pursued during the last decades.

We are experiencing an energy crisis with almost surreal electricity and fuel prices. We are experiencing a crime crisis with gang violence and shootings and an increasing insecurity. We are experiencing an immigration crisis with precisely crime but also segregation, polarization and division as a consequence. We are experiencing a welfare crisis where basic social functions are challenged by inflation, labor shortages and demography.

Mr. Speaker! The mismanagement, just as the lack of crisis awareness, consequential thinking, and grounding in reality, has been palpable for decades. Now we stand here with gigantic problems that the new government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has a clear and determined ambition to tackle. We are four parties that are firmly resolved to break and reverse the development.

Criminal policy must shift focus. Crime must be pushed back. Safety must increase. Victims of crime must be given redress. There must be harsher punishments. Sentence reductions shall be abolished. There must be more prison places. There must be more police officers and they must be given better tools to be able to do their jobs.

There will be a paradigm shift in the immigration policy. Sweden is moving from irresponsibility and lack of requirements to order and tidiness, to reasonableness, to common sense. The Asylum Act is adapted to the EU's minimum level for real. Labor migration is tightened and focused on highly qualified labor and on shortage occupations. The integration policy becomes requirement-based so that those who come to Sweden are expected to make an effort to become a part of Swedish society.

We get an energy policy that, in the long term, secures a stable electricity supply. Plannable power production, i.e. nuclear power, becomes the base of our energy system again in the long term. Fuel prices are lowered through both lower taxes and minimized reduction obligation.

Welfare is secured and developed through more state responsibility for both healthcare and school. Dental care becomes cheaper. The economic conditions for the elderly are strengthened. The safety nets otherwise, i.e., both the unemployment insurance and the health insurance, are secured in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have during this government formation been very clear about a consistent, overarching priority, namely that we put Sweden first. As long as we have Swedish citizens who die while they are standing in queue for the care they need, as long as we have elderly people in our country who are forced from their homes because they cannot afford to pay the electricity bill, and as long as we have people in our country – not infrequently completely innocent people – who are shot dead in the streets, it is completely unreasonable, and even morally reprehensible, to continue throwing money at other countries and other countries' citizens.

I am convinced that the new government will, to at least a reasonable extent, prioritize Sweden and Swedish needs during the coming four years.

(Applause)

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

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish welfare state is underfunded. I see it myself when I sit in the emergency room with my three-year-old daughter. We cannot cut more. On the contrary, we must hire more people who can give us security in life.

Sweden is heading towards hard times. We cannot afford systems that allow our tax money to disappear to tax havens and into profit withdrawals. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner provided a preliminary assessment showing that healthcare, school, and elderly care need a supplement of 20 billion kronor during the next year to avoid facing major cuts. In that case, we are only talking about maintaining existing levels.

I can already hear how it will sound in a few weeks when the right presents its budget - how they put a few billion here and a few billion there and claim that these are major investments. But it would, that is, not be enough. Anything other than in the magnitude of 20 billion would mean major cuts, and that is not possible. We are at the breaking point in preschools, in elderly care, and in the hospitals.

It is about priorities, as the right-wing nationalist government in Norrtälje said. It is about priorities, and now welfare must come first. We will hold the government accountable if it cannot clearly declare today that welfare will be protected during this mandate period.

The new right-wing government has now taken office, and we have been informed about who will be given the responsibility to implement the right-nationalist palace agreement. Not a single person from Norrland has been given the keys to the Government Offices - but even more lobbyists from organizations representing the special interests of the economic elite have. The list is relatively long: It is Timbro, it is Svenskt Näringsliv, and it is Kreab.

The lobbyists are now taking over the country's governance. They live on selling the idea that it would be best if we all just gathered tax funds and donated these to exactly them. They are even prepared to pay money for it; in Kalla fakta we could see how the parties had established arrangements to receive donations from their real clients, that is, the economic special interests.

This is visible. The market school shall be allowed to continue as if it were not a world-unique failure - what is proposed in the palace agreement is merely cosmetic changes and a commissioned job from the school corporations. In 2018, the current school minister Lotta Edholm commented on the parliamentary proposal that tax money should stay in the school and not become a dividend payment by stating that a profit ban "is as absurd as forbidding private individuals from opening a savings account." Children's right to school shall suffer because the economic elite wants to replenish their own savings capital. So that is how the new government views the school's operations.

Mr. Speaker! Not many have probably heard of Tellusgruppen. Significantly more have heard of the famine - excuse me, I mean the Health - preschool. It was a limited company that gave the preschool children water and crispbread and said that the youngest children, who had not yet received teeth, were to chew with their palate. So, to borrow another person's words: What the hell do people get for their money? It is about children who have not had their diapers changed all day, staff who sound the alarm, and groups of children that just keep growing. During the same period, the company made a profit of 8 million kronor.

The board member and founder of Hälsans förskola is Bijan Fahimi, a liberal politician. In any other country, one would have initiated a legal process, asked the owners to step down and changed the laws that made this possible – but not in Sweden. Here, the respect for others' money is lacking. Instead, it became a name change that deceives even more parents, and so they could continue. Soon, it also became a ministerial post for the board member Lotta Edholm.

Tellusgruppen is a network of and for liberal politicians with a love for big money at the expense of children. Ask instead the teachers who do not have shareholdings in the independent school corporations! They tell the truth. They are the ones who are in the operations.

A decent government would have started in this crisis situation by putting a stop to the extensive lack of integrity regarding the Swedish people's tax money that is occurring today. What is happening now is simply not acceptable.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is sometimes said that you are what you eat. If that is true, my former alliance colleagues should review their diet, for the last few weeks have been exclusively spent chewing on the Sweden Democrats' policies - policy area after policy area, chew after chew. Just recently, one also sat here and applauded Jimmie Åkesson in the party leader debate.

The joint October agreement that the new government presented the other day is a heavy burden to bear for anyone who has ever called themselves a liberal. Or as Civil Rights Defenders formulated it the other day: "It will undermine human rights, the principles of the rule of law, and liberal democracy for us all. The Tidö agreement shows that the global trend of democratic dismantling has arrived in Sweden."

This is seen primarily in the areas of migration and integration, as well as in the justice area in the view of the rule of law. But it is just as clearly seen in the view of the human being, in how one describes and strikes at the most vulnerable. When people's misconduct is discussed, crime victims are equated with gang criminals.

The government statement that Ulf Kristersson read out in the chamber the other day follows the same pattern. In a time when we truly need an offensive climate policy, the government instead goes on the defensive. They remove the green component in fuels, increase emissions by millions of tons, and abolish the Ministry of the Environment.

After having heard and seen the new government's plans for the coming years, one can only conclude: It did not become liberal, but it became right-conservative. It did not become green, but it became grey. It did not become order, but it became uncertainty. It ended in a liberal crash landing.

In a time when we had needed more consensus and cross-bloc cooperation, we got a confrontational, nationalist, and reactionary policy. In security policy turbulence with war in our absolute immediate vicinity and an aggressive, confrontational Russia, we got a government that sits in the lap of a party whose party leader, just a few weeks before the war broke out, could not choose between Biden and Putin.

Sweden needs a different policy, a policy that takes safety, welfare, security, and the gaps seriously. A climate policy is needed that pushes down emissions faster and increases green electricity production and does not increase emissions and push the problems ahead of itself.

A policy is needed where one sees climate change for what it is, takes it seriously, has the courage to act, and lets science lead rather than being misled by climate populism.

Powerful measures are needed for all of Sweden to get through inflation and recession and to strengthen the competitiveness of companies. A policy is needed that looks at the whole country and protects the countryside not only in election campaign cycles but in every negotiation, every budget, and every decision.

Sweden needs a policy and a leadership that places people's freedom as highly as our security, that stands ready to face trials but does so without yielding an inch from the fundamental values of humanism, tolerance, openness, and care for the most vulnerable in society.

Centerpartiet will be the guarantor for that policy and leadership moving forward. As Sweden's only liberal bourgeois opposition party, we will show how it is with more liberalism and not less that we make our country stronger. It is about how wise liberal reforms can take everything from entrepreneurship and security to equality and climate work moving forward.

We will continue to be a constructive, action-oriented, green force. It is a force that stands ready to take responsibility in broad agreements and settlements that are for the sake of safety, security, the climate, and freedom.

We will continue to do what is required when it is required for Sweden's best, but without compromising our liberal basic values. It is about people's equal rights and value, openness towards each other and towards the outside world, tolerance for diversity and equality before the law.

For us, they are not pieces or commodities in a bargaining game. That is something they will never become. It is part of our DNA as a liberal party. It is something that we, with integrity, will fight for regardless of government and regardless of negotiation for Sweden's best.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has now received a new government. Sweden is now to receive new energy. Our task is now to defend what works and repair what has been destroyed.

I am happy to stand here today as part of a government that has gone to the election to tackle Sweden's most acute problems. Our parties are different from one another, but we see the same problems. In that spirit, the Tidö Agreement was born.

Now, the first comprehensive approach to Sweden's healthcare in generations is being taken. We have all heard the alarms from healthcare workers who feel inadequate despite exerting themselves far beyond the limits of reasonableness. We have all read about patients who have waited for months and even years to receive necessary medical care.

One of all these cases that has stuck in my mind is Torvald Hurula. Torvald was at the hospital in Luleå where he was about to have a cancer tumor removed when a nurse comes in and tells that the operation was cancelled due to lack of space. Modernizing Swedish healthcare will take time. But it can be done, and it shall be done.

The insecurity that has come to characterize Sweden's streets strikes blindly. That was literally what happened to a mother and a small child on a summer evening in the Årby district in Eskilstuna earlier this year. They were at a playground when they were hit by gunfire.

Just as blind were the bullets that ended twelve-year-old Adriana's life one summer night in the Stockholm suburb of Botkyrka. More than two years have passed since then, and now the fatal shootings are even more frequent.

The insecurity, anger, and sorrow that we all feel in the face of these acts of madness are in themselves a damage to our social body. To make the streets safe again and to break the spiral of violence will take time. But it can be done, and it shall be done.

Sweden had perhaps the world's very best system for electricity supply. We had cheap electricity, we had emission-free electricity, and we had predictable electricity. Then, six of twelve nuclear reactors were decommissioned.

Over the past year, there has been talk of rationing. Factories have implemented operational shutdowns, and there has been talk of planned power outages. Electricity prices have now reached levels that few could have dreamed of. In the Swedish heartland, one could quickly sense the consequences and see how dramatic they became.

The farmer Stefan Gård outside Säffle saw his costs for electricity and diesel rise by 1 million. At the other end came the skyrocketing prices on food. It may seem a bit strange, but the falukorv became one of the election campaign's strongest symbols that something has gone very wrong in our country.

Re-establishing the electricity production that was demolished and pushing back the unsustainable fuel prices will take time, but it can and shall be done.

In all these areas, the Christian Democrats were ahead. We were the first to say that healthcare cannot be a 21-piece puzzle and that national leadership is required. It was the same conclusion that the Corona Commission would later draw.

We were early in pointing out how the heavily armed gangs require new powers from the police to be broken. We spent the 2018 election campaign warning about the electricity problems that became a bitter reality in 2022.

In the autumn of 2014, when we Christian Democrats left government power after eight years, we began a process of reflecting on what we could have done better while we were in power. There, a process of reflection began that spanned housing, energy, equality, integration, education, migration, rural areas, and the economy.

I expect harsh criticism from the opposition. That is part of the rules of democracy. But at the same time, I want to appeal to you to be as self-critical as we were. I believe we all benefit from it.

Society is never finished being built. It can always be improved. We need a policy that warms up our houses so that they can become homes. But we also need a policy that warms up our society toward a stronger sense of community for all those who count on and need a functioning Sweden.

As Magdalena Andersson said during the election campaign: Sweden can do better. I agree. My party and I promise that we will do everything we can so that Sweden can do better.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A little over a week ago, the Swedish Parliament elected a Prime Minister by a minimal margin. His government's statement and the agreement that forms the basis for the formation of the government are a death blow to Sweden.

It is a death blow to climate policy. When gas-populism and climate deniers are allowed to steer climate policy, it becomes that. The proposals that have been presented so far by the new government imply a sharp increase in Sweden's emissions. In that case, it doesn't matter that a Prime Minister says they stand behind the Paris Agreement, because climate change cannot be stopped with words but only with action.

This government has shown with all desired clarity that it is prepared to increase emissions. According to the researchers who have reviewed the policy, it could perhaps increase by as much as 50 percent. This means that years of work are being erased and an enormous uphill battle is being created for the years that follow.

It is also a death blow to environmental work. When climate policy is reduced to energy, the government is dismantling the Ministry of the Environment. Issues regarding biodiversity, the protection of sensitive and valuable nature, and the availability of clean water and clean air are subordinated to economic interests when environmental issues become special interests in the Ministry of Enterprise.

At the same time, ideological stumbling blocks are hindering energy policy when the one-sided focus on future nuclear power means that the government risks stopping hundreds of billions in investments in offshore wind power. Consequently, the rapid expansion of cheap electricity for Sweden's companies and consumers is also being halted. Energy populism is being prioritized over reality.

Mr. Speaker! The new government is a death blow to Sweden as a voice for peace and freedom in the world. "Woman, life, freedom!" cry the brave demonstrators fighting for their freedom in Iran, but from the new government, not a sound is heard—other than to flatter Turkey. Turkey bombs the Kurdish civilian population in Syria and imprisons opposition and journalists. But the new government claims that it is a democracy. Sweden's voice against authoritarian regimes has fallen silent when weapons are to be sold and membership in Nato is confirmed.

It is a death blow to Sweden's solidarity with the world's most vulnerable. The one percent goal is betrayed by Christian Democrats and Liberals despite election promises to protect it. Aid is redirected to Europe at the same time as one of the worst famine disasters in modern times ravages Somalia. While children there die of starvation, the aid money shall be used to enable our Somali neighbors and colleagues here in Sweden to return.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement and the government that is to administer it is a death blow to the rule of law. The government wants to crush the gangs, but the policy means that instead, one crushes the rule of law. Punishment shall be able to be issued without one being convicted. Punishment shall be able to be handed out not because one has committed criminal acts, but because one exhibits a lack of conduct – a lack of conduct such as having been subjected to sexual crimes or being stuck in an addiction. In the eyes of the new government, even crime victims are punishable if they are immigrants.

Equality before the law is no longer a given in the Sweden that the team behind the Tidö Agreement wants to create. The police are not urged by the new government to fire live ammunition, but they are urged to racially profile when internal immigration checks are to be carried out. Swedes with the wrong appearance do best to never forget their ID at home when racism sneaks into the Government Offices.

Visitation zones send a clear signal to young guys in the suburbs: It doesn't matter how well you do in school. It doesn't matter how well you behave, how hard you work or how much you strive. For the Sweden Democrats' puppet government, you will always be suspected.

Mr. Speaker! It is truly a paradigm shift we are seeing in Swedish politics. A government that hands over the keys to Rosenbad to a far-right party is a paradigm shift, and it is being carried out by a margin of two mandates. The Liberals may have made themselves enablers for the Sverigedemokraterna, but the Miljöpartiet will never let the government sneak away. We will point out and protest against every part of the Tidöavtalet at every opportunity given and highlight its consequences in the light. And at every given opportunity, we will stand ready to bring down this government and consign the agreement to where it belongs: on the scrap heap of history.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is a difficult situation in the world. In our vicinity, the Russian killing machine is steaming forward, and everything indicates that it will be a tough war winter. Sweden's support for Ukraine's struggle for freedom and democracy in our part of the world must continue with all its might.

In Sweden and Europe, inflation is rushing - yes, actually in the whole world. Decades of stable real wage increases for ordinary people in Sweden are now being rolled back at a rapid pace. Interest rates are rising while the value of the small home and the pension savings falls. We are becoming poorer. Winter is approaching. The strained situation in Sweden is, in other words, not entirely unique. But we can state that the new government is not coming to a set table.

I am thinking, not least, of the 16,000 children who leave primary school without sufficiently good grades to be able to start upper secondary school. I am thinking of the high electricity prices, which short-circuit families' bank accounts. I am thinking that an innovation and industrial country like Sweden has Europe's fourth highest unemployment. I am thinking that headlines about fatal shootings have become as common as morning coffee. I am thinking that children become victims in the gangs' bloody wars and that medieval ideas continue to oppress women and girls, but also boys, in the name of honor.

It is these kinds of problems that emerge when a red-green government has stood all too paralyzed year after year. But now a new, liberal, bourgeois government stands ready to take on the stones that apparently have been too heavy to turn over for the previous government.

Mr. Speaker! I have said it before and I say it again: There is no better justice policy and there is no better social policy or labor market policy than a re-established knowledge school. With the Liberals in government, the school will be given tools to maintain order and create a study environment.

We want to see a new free school reform with clear quality requirements and profit limitations to keep out fortune seekers and at the same time safeguard the freedom for ordinary people to be able to choose a school for their children regardless of their wallet. The eternal penny-pinching on schools shall cease through important steps towards a more state-controlled school voucher that increases equality for all children in the entire country.

A powerful expansion of the energy system is a prerequisite for Sweden to be able to reach the climate goals. With a new strong department for both business and climate issues and biodiversity, we increase the speed of the climate work while simultaneously solving the electricity crisis.

The Swedish growth engine has run out of fuel. It is about the economic development that creates the prosperity that can become welfare - because money does not come from the sky. Sweden perhaps has the lowest growth in the EU. Sweden's unemployment is at a European peak level, as I said earlier, while at the same time we have a labor shortage. There is much the government must do.

We must safeguard the work line. Everyone who can work shall work - including foreign-born women. Everyone who comes to Sweden shall also become a part of Swedish society. Jobs, language, and knowledge of Swedish society are the way in. Requirements shall be set for learning Swedish and having means of support to obtain Swedish citizenship - better late than never.

Those who want to stop the deadly violence must have both an iron fist and a velvet glove. The government will launch the largest offensive in Swedish history to push back the gross organized crime while we strengthen parental responsibility and implement reforms within social services to be able to intervene earlier and more clearly.

Conversion therapy shall be banned. Virginity checks shall be criminalized. More people convicted of honor-related crimes shall be deported. The right to abortion shall be constitutionally protected, and LSS shall be improved.

The Liberals went to the election on a new bourgeois government with a strong liberal element. We kept what we promised, Mr. Speaker, and we are now delivering on our promise. Now we begin the work of making Sweden the land of opportunity for more.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will devote this contribution entirely to an issue that is very important to me and to the new government, namely stopping men's violence against women. For decades, Sweden has failed in precisely that matter.

We remember last year, when five women were murdered in three weeks. During 2021, 23,800 cases of assault were reported where the woman knew the perpetrator - 23,800!

For far too long, there has mostly been talk. Yes, we are moving from words to action. No women shall be forced to adapt their lives to violent or controlling men. We are now in agreement on mandatory detention upon suspicion of aggravated violation of a woman's integrity. We are in agreement on restraining orders to keep men away from the women they have violated and subjected to crimes.

In order to protect vulnerable women who are particularly threatened, the area for restraining orders shall be significantly expanded, for example to entire municipalities. More people will also receive restraining orders with ankle bracelets. The penalties for violent crimes and sexual crimes shall be significantly toughened.

Both the shootings and the deadly violence against women are stains of shame for Sweden. We take both very seriously, and that work begins literally now.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Let me once again congratulate Ulf Kristersson on the role of Prime Minister.

It is noteworthy with the new government's start: first, broken promises regarding the high-cost protection for high electricity prices from November 1, and then ministers who distance themselves from the Tidö Agreement.

Now, the Sweden Democrats have also threatened organizations that scrutinize the Tidö Agreement with having their financial support withdrawn. But that the government's policy is scrutinized is the basis of a democracy.

Now civil society, our authorities and the media are sitting and wondering what the consequences will be if they scrutinize the Tidö Agreement. I therefore thought of giving you, Ulf Kristersson, an opportunity to give them a clear statement. Can you promise that your government will not cut support to organizations, authorities and media that scrutinize the Tidö Agreement?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Two things are probably quite self-evident in a democracy. The first is that all governments in all democracies are scrutinized, questioned, and criticized. That applied to your government, Magdalena Andersson, and it will apply to my government. That is how it should be. It is obvious. The second is that the starting point in a good democracy is that taxpayers' money should not go to organizations that fight democracy. That is also how it should be. Many cases have been noted where this can truly be questioned. My government will stand up for both of these things fully.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I did not think I heard a really clear answer to the question. Of course governments should be scrutinized, and of course we should support civil society. Our authorities naturally need financial resources to carry out their work, and we have an important media support so that politicians all around the country can also be scrutinized by independent journalists.

Of course, we should also not give money to organizations that do not live up to the democratic criterion. On that, we are in complete agreement. But what has happened now and what is new is that a party in your government base is threatening organizations that scrutinize the Tidö Agreement with having their state financial support withdrawn. Therefore, we need a clear statement from you, Ulf Kristersson: Do you promise that your government will not cut the financial support to organizations, authorities, and media that scrutinize the Tidö Agreement and your government base?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I said exactly those two things.

In Sweden, complete freedom of expression applies with the right to criticize governments, including the policies we go to election on. It is obvious. No one has questioned this.

In Sweden, it must also apply that taxpayers' money shall not go to organizations that oppose the fundamental functioning of democracy. There have been several high-profile cases, not infrequently close to a party that is close to Magdalena Andersson, where one can question how well this has been managed.

In Sweden, we are tolerant, but we are not tolerant towards intolerance. Both of these values will guide this government one hundred percent.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson is very careful to signal that it will be tougher times ahead. Sweden's families must prepare for a hard winter. The sickness insurance will be tightened, and the child allowance will be lowered for many children.

It is a bad policy, and it is a heartless policy. But there is a beating heart from this government in the palace agreement, and it is about directing tax subsidies to very well-off individuals. One example is that the government promises a lower tax on employee options, meaning that executives in large companies should not have to pay ordinary payroll tax like everyone else. Is it in these times of crisis, Ulf Kristersson, when we must hold onto the money, reasonable to prioritize, for example, Spotify's product chief, with an income of 168 million, over the country's families with children?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, tougher times are likely ahead, but not at all in the way that Nooshi Dadgostar describes it. Tougher times are ahead because we have war in our immediate vicinity, with dramatic consequences. That is where one will know what a war winter means.

Tougher times await as we have a recession in Sweden and in many other countries which affects everyone's economy, that of states, cities, and private individuals.

We have a crime that, as recently as last night, claimed the life of another teenager. It could get worse before it gets better.

All this is truly tougher times. We take it incredibly seriously. The new government is committed to solving those problems. Then there are long-term issues that Sweden must also work on. Swedish competitiveness is one such issue. It is about growing companies that provide new jobs to people who have an education that fits those companies and ensuring that small, fast-growing companies can retain the right personnel. These are key issues for Swedish competitiveness.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now Ulf Kristersson is not answering the question.

We are in a situation where emergency rooms are overcrowded and preschool groups are getting larger and larger. How can it then be a priority that the product manager at Spotify should get a further tax cut? That does not lead to a single new job. This is a commissioned job from Spotify, as Svenska Dagbladet very accurately described it recently.

How can it be a priority that consultancy firms that are already very profitable today should be able to take out even more money with low tax and pay lower tax than completely ordinary wage earners? How can this happen in a situation where the school system is on its knees? Two schools in Kiruna have had to be closed temporarily because they lack trained teachers. How can it be a priority to carry out these types of changes when there is a lack of money elsewhere? Is it not the case that the stairs should be cleaned from the top, Ulf Kristersson?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In my government, no commissioned jobs are being placed. In my government, we solve serious societal problems. Some are acute. The fatal shootings are an acute problem, and the energy crisis is acute, to take two examples.

Others are long-term survival issues for our country. Education is one such. Research is one such. Competitive companies are one such. Ensuring that the next generation of companies growing up in Sweden can become the next century's great export successes is one such long-term survival issue.

You have never understood that it is work and entrepreneurship that provide tax revenues. You think they can be taxed from the heavens. We know that is not true. That is why we will also address the issue of entrepreneurship and competitiveness. It is about a free market economy - I know it is difficult.

(NOOSHI DADGOSTAR (V): Yes, but zero-taxers, you know.)

All of this is important in my Sweden in order to create long-term conditions for a truly well-functioning society.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Those who have taken part in the government's so-called Tidö Agreement have, among many other things, noted how people's lack of conduct shall now become grounds for deportation. Among the examples stated to be lack of conduct, prostitution is mentioned.

How can a government even land on that? How can one equate crime victims with gang criminals? It is about crime victims when we talk about women who are forced to sell their bodies and who repeatedly are subjected to paid sexual assaults. Lack of integrity, say M, L, KD and SD.

How can the Prime Minister, who himself has worked with social issues throughout his entire political career, allow such a view of humanity to become guiding in Swedish justice policy?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No crime victims are equated with criminals here - of course not. Of course, the big problem in Sweden is that people who engage in trafficking come here, that people who are traffickers come here, who exploit and abuse other people's lives. That is the big problem.

It is just as naturally obvious that one, if one comes to Sweden, shall enter Swedish society. We point out the obvious: that the person who comes to Sweden shall be included in Swedish society, follow Swedish laws and rules, and support themselves in a legal manner.

Until 2005, Sweden had legislation that explicitly dealt with this with integrity. Similar concepts are used to control whether people should be allowed to become Swedish citizens or not. This is nothing strange. I am just trying to say that people who come to our country either get a rejection, and then they must leave the country, or they get approval, and then they shall be included in society, live a legal life and support themselves.

This is nothing strange. Of course, every individual detail must then be investigated, as is the case with all legislation. The intention cannot be misunderstood.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! But this is written in black and white in the Tidö Agreement. Do not evade responsibility!

Selling sex is not illegal in Sweden. Buying, however, is. It is remarkable, I think, that the Prime Minister cannot stand up more clearly for women at risk of crime. It is about human dignity and about how one views and treats society's most vulnerable. It is as a number of representatives for Sweden's women's organizations wrote in Aftonbladet the other day: Women's rights apply to all women.

As the provisions in the Tidö Agreement are now, they conflict with the principle of women's human rights. M, L and KD have bowed to the Sweden Democrats once again.

If the Prime Minister now means business with taking women exposed to crime seriously, I wonder if he can promise here and now that prostitution is removed as a ground for deportation - yes or no.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! All Swedish legislation will, of course, follow the rules that exist in the Swedish constitution and in international conventions - of course. It is as obvious as this with misconduct and that a person must live a life that is at all acceptable in Sweden if one is to have the right to stay in Sweden, if one is not a Swedish citizen. There is, therefore, no automatic right for people who are not Swedish citizens to be in our country - let us start there.

Since then, no one equates crime victims with perpetrators. It is the one who is criminal who is punished. That is how it is in Swedish legislation, and that is how it should be. No one equates them. On the other hand, Sweden should not be a country where it is easy to abuse our legislation. That is just as obvious. Sweden should not be a country that is naive. One should be able to come to Sweden and work, earn money in a legal way, support oneself and become successful for oneself and one's family. That is the entire purpose of that paragraph, and this is what we will implement.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for mentioning women who have been victims of violence in the last speech. A large number of women in Sweden live today deprived of their freedom despite being victims of crime and not criminals. They are women who do not receive trauma treatment because of the post-violence, which never ends. They are women who are put in life-threatening situations when children are forced into contact with a violent father. They are women who are repeatedly forced to flee when authorities neglect their duties and who cannot move freely. And they are women whose finances have been destroyed at the same time as their bodies.

It is high time for a shift in perspective. It is the perpetrators who should be restricted and the women who have been victims of violence who must have their freedom returned.

But while men's violence against men was detailed page after page in the government statement, there was only one proposal to curb men's violence against women. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has now raised this. But my question to Ulf Kristersson is: What will his government do to give victims of violence their lives back?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say without the slightest irony that I appreciate that Miljöpartiet in any case is for tougher measures against the men who assault women. I think that is good. For me, it is not in opposition to also take much, much tougher measures against those who shoot and kill sixteen-year-olds all over our country. Both things are deadly. Both things must be stopped.

We were probably in the same Zoom call last spring after several murders in close relationships in a short period of time. Suddenly, there was support in this chamber for the proposals that we had submitted earlier. This concerned, for example, mandatory detention in cases of aggravated violation of a woman's integrity and harsher sentences. There was suddenly support for that. We had pushed those proposals, not you.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Still, it became so quiet in the government statement regarding these issues. Instead, there are sweeping, legally uncertain grounds for deportation, such as lack of integrity, exposure to prostitution, substance abuse, and association with criminal organizations. Crime victims will be silenced when they risk deportation if they report.

The woman who was deceived into coming here to provide for her children and instead was subjected to commercial sexual exploitation or human trafficking remains silent, and the men who buy the rapes go free. The mother who is abused by her gang-criminal teenage son remains silent so as not to risk deportation for herself and her children, and the son will go free because no one dares to testify. The girl who was raped by the man hiding her cannot seek care, because the healthcare staff will be obligated to report undocumented persons to the police and then the rapist goes free.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement contains amounts of harsh measures and increased penalties signaling evil, but in reality, the Tidö Agreement is a political agenda that protects violent men. How are women to dare to testify in a legal system built on sweeping denunciations and insecure legal grounds?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can assure both the Riksdag and the Green Party that there will be no sweeping legislation that is insecure in terms of the rule of law - absolutely not, of course not. There will also be no continued "låtgå-policy" (laissez-faire policy). We will, therefore, not continue with a legislation that demonstrably does not work. We will reform the migration policy because it is necessary, because almost everyone in Sweden realizes that it is necessary, and because you did not manage to do it during your period. This is important.

Since it is of course clear that some things are criminal legislation. It is about, for example, daring to testify. That is why we have proposals on anonymous witnesses. We have that so that people who today do not dare to testify and do not dare to speak with the police should dare to do so, so that more people who commit crimes are convicted and sometimes end up in prison in Sweden and sometimes are forced to leave the country and thus can no longer pose a danger to those they have terrorized.

All of this is connected, and we will address all of this in our paradigm shift in Swedish politics.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The high prices of electricity, fuel, and food are hitting people's wallets hard. At the same time, the welfare system faces a great need for additional funding, otherwise painful cuts await. Rarely has the need for a responsible economic policy been greater, as a misguided fiscal policy risks making Sweden's pensioners, families with children, and wage earners poorer. The government bears a heavy responsibility on its shoulders.

After eight years of Social Democratic economic policy, there are however good conditions to manage the situation. We have good public finances and a low national debt. The strong public finances rest on a development in the labor market where more Swedes than ever go to work in the morning. Also, the proportion who work has increased. The establishment time for newcomers has been halved, and the proportion of persons living on transfers is the lowest in several decades.

We see a business sector that is investing fully, and another hundreds of billions in new investments are underway. Thanks to large, permanent additions, we see 100,000 more people working in the welfare sector.

Now the government must ensure that this strength in the state finances is not used to drive up inflation and mortgage interest rates and thereby make the Swedish people poorer. It would be devastating as we now head towards an already tough winter.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! For eight years with the Social Democratic government, we have heard in principle in every government statement how the government has said that one should crack down on the gangs, crack down on segregation, and so on. At the same time, after eight years, it is a very bloody result with records in shootings, records in explosions, and so on. We are aware of all that.

Nevertheless, the former Minister for Justice, Morgan Johansson, in an interview not so long ago expressed what he termed as pride. He was proud of what the previous government had achieved during eight years.

My simple question to the former Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson is therefore: Is she also proud of what her government has achieved in this regard over eight years?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The historical expansion of the justice system that was carried out during these eight years, and which I assume a newly appointed government will continue, has been incredibly important. We have started two new police academies, and there are more police officers than ever before now working in Sweden. We Social Democrats also put forward a clear police goal of 50,000 police employees in our election manifesto.

Here I can note, however, that the newly appointed government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, does not have any clear and time-bound police goal. That leads to the question for Jimmie Åkesson: What will happen with the police expansion?

In addition to this, the previous government has tightened a long series of penalties, and we also see how more gang criminals are serving longer sentences. We will cooperate constructively on further sentencing increases that truly bring down crime.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My question was, therefore, whether Magdalena Andersson, just like her former Minister of Justice, is proud of what has been achieved. I received no answer there, but there is a chance to give me one.

It is true that the government has talked very much about this development, talked very much about things that should be done, talked very much about police employees. Note well - police employees, not police officers.

Ulf Kristersson was very clear in his government statement: We are talking about police density. Finally, I would say. The decisive factor is not the number of police employees but how many police we have in relation to how many of us live in this country. It is very clear.

It has been eight lost years when it comes to doing what must be done to break the gangs and regain control. I am extremely glad, Mr. Speaker, that Magdalena Andersson is no longer Prime Minister, because now we can finally do what is so important to get in place.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Starting two new police colleges is not to be talked about. It is to be done. Thanks to these expanded police colleges, thousands of police officers are now graduating who will be able to work.

What Jimmie Åkesson is saying now is that the only thing that counts are police officers, not police employees. Exactly that is what you said, Jimmie Åkesson: Police employees don't matter, instead it is about the number of police officers.

This is contemptuous towards all investigators, lawyers, economists, assistants, and IT technicians who work every day within the Swedish Police Authority and law enforcement agencies. Here we hear Sweden's second-largest party say that it is only the police who count.

Nothing could be more wrong. You should know that we Social Democrats stand behind you. You are doing an important job!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The government statement has been described as a paradigm shift by many, not least within crime policy and migration policy. I truly look forward to intense debates in our new roles, in the political issues where we disagree completely. I am Moderate, Magdalena Andersson is Social Democrat – good.

I also look forward to continued good cooperation in matters where we agree and where we have a national responsibility to cooperate. I am thinking of the Natoprocess, and I am thinking of Sweden's support for Ukraine. We do that best together, in the nation's interest.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, we Social Democrats will continue to take responsibility for Sweden and the well-being of the Swedish people in these tough and restless times with the worst security policy situation since the 80s. We are Social Democrats.

Therefore, I look forward to doing what I can to support Ulf Kristersson's important work in bringing the Swedish NATO application to fruition.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Andersson, I appreciate it.

I mention this also for a slightly broader reason. For me, real politics is to have honest, intense debates on issues where people actually disagree. In a democracy, people often disagree. I think it is good to have respectful debates where differences in choices of path are shown. None of us shy away from that.

Politics is also, for me, about sometimes doing the opposite: to agree, to cooperate, to see the lowest common denominator in issues where one wants to move in the same direction. Then one can do something that is greater than merely pointing out differences and more pointing out similarities and get something done.

My government will be open to both of these things. In Sweden, we need more of unity, less of division, less of polarization, and less of a harsh tone. We need more of genuine disagreement that points to real differences in choices of path where we disagree.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, of course it is important that we can have debates and cooperate on what we agree on. But to talk about less polarization, Ulf Kristersson, when you choose to cooperate with a party that has polarization and division in its DNA, as its very business idea.

We have seen the consequences of cooperating with a party like the Sweden Democrats. Look at your party friends in Sölvesborg, Ulf Kristersson! Is there less polarization that has been the result of that cooperation?

If one does not want to polarize, there is another way to go. My door is open. But what will it mean for the Moderaterna at the national level if one chooses to end the cooperation with the Sverigedemokraterna? Will it be the same path that the Moderaterna in Sölvesborg have had to walk?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The prices of food and electricity have risen dramatically. That is what we have talked about here today.

This week, the Left Party proposed that the compensations that are automatically increased at the turn of the year, such as the guaranteed pension and sickness benefit, should instead be increased now, immediately, because the price increases have continued ever since this summer. Inflation does not start at the turn of the year but is ongoing here and now.

Vänsterpartiet and the Social Democrats have together very successfully negotiated higher sickness benefits and higher guaranteed pensions. That is what will ensure that there will be a substantial increase at the turn of the year. It is precisely those increases that our two parties have implemented.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is whether the Social Democrats can stand behind the committee initiative that Vänsterpartiet placed on the Finance Committee's table yesterday regarding raising these compensations retroactively immediately instead of at the turn of the year.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will, of course, carefully study the proposal that Vänsterpartiet has submitted to the Swedish Parliament.

We think those improvements are completely central, which we together with Vänsterpartiet have implemented for the pensioners who are having it the toughest. It is up to 1,000 kronor a month that they have received in increased pension so that they can manage the price increases that have occurred. We have also implemented important improvements so that people are not thrown out of the health insurance.

In our budget, we will work for a responsible economic policy that protects the most vulnerable households from increased inflation and increased mortgage rates.

With that said: Taking further initiatives in the Riksdag with extra supplementary budgets in this situation, I judge is not something that we will support.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Andersson, for the clear answer! I naturally regret it. The increases that we both implemented regarding sickness compensation, sickness insurance, and guaranteed pension did not, in that situation, only have to do with inflation. And what happens at the turn of the year will not be carried out by this government, but it is an automatic increase that occurs because of the increases that we implemented. It is good to know.

However, our view is that it did not become the price increase and inflation that we thought at the beginning of this year, but it was dramatically changed. The prices for coffee, butter, and electricity are incredibly high, and they have been since last summer.

Is it possible for the Social Democrats to increase sickness benefit and guaranteed pension and the compensation systems based on the price base amount already now? I had hoped that we could share the view on this because people, especially those with small margins, are paying a very high price right now and not just starting at the turn of the year.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, these are tough times for Swedish households with increased prices for electricity, gasoline, diesel, and food, and increased mortgage interest rates. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

That is why it is important that the new government pursues a responsible economic policy in order not to further drive up increased mortgage interest rates and increased inflation. The worst a government can do then is to come with large tax cuts for those who already have the highest incomes. I assume that the new government will take that responsibility and instead ensure that all those who work in healthcare, elderly care, school, and childcare receive the support they need to be able to continue their important work, but naturally also take measures to support the households that have it the toughest.

Now we have a new government. It is their responsibility to ensure that the finances of Swedish households are secured.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats placed the energy issue at the center of the 2018 election campaign. At that time, it felt a bit lonely, I must admit. In this year's election campaign, the change of scenery was total. Everyone talked energy.

Magdalena Andersson's speech in November 2021 regarding no new nuclear power was abandoned in August 2022. Then it suddenly was called that new nuclear power plants could become relevant. To outside observers, this may seem somewhat incomprehensible, even cynical, but I choose to see it positively. I look forward with pleasure to a situation where the new majority in the Riksdag can receive support from the largest party in the Riksdag regarding the need for new nuclear power.

Therefore, my question to Magdalena Andersson is whether we can see those cards already now. Are the Social Democrats on board with the journey towards new, emission-free nuclear power?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Has anything happened from November until now? I can tell Ebba Busch that something has happened since November. There is, after all, a world outside of Sweden.

It is the case that President Putin has invaded Ukraine. As a result of that, we see high electricity prices. We see high gas prices resulting in high electricity prices and high petrol and diesel prices. It is not likely that Europe will want to resume its import of Russian gas. In view of that, the entire nuclear power issue ends up in a completely new position. That is what we Social Democrats will discuss.

The question to Ebba Busch is this. It takes time to build nuclear power plants. Wind power can be built quickly. Why are you withdrawing support for the type of energy that can quickly bring down the electricity prices for Swedish households, namely wind power?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson is welcome to return in the next exchange, where the roles are reversed, with more questions.

A sarcastic tone, used correctly, can clarify differences of opinion. It can be elegant. It can be funny. I have appreciated it when my opponents have sometimes even mocked my policy or my way of acting in political contexts, when it has been done with a bit of finesse. In other contexts, a sarcastic tone can be used to hide uncertainty. To use Putin's war of invasion in this way, I think is ungraceful.

My question was very simple. Can we seek cooperation and broad agreements for Sweden's best, where we can also positively influence the rest of the world, regarding new nuclear power in Sweden? Is the answer yes, or is it no?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! What is one to say when Ebba Busch speaks about the tone in the debate in relation to me?

(Applause)

Now the question was different, namely whether we are to have broad agreements on energy policy. That is a completely different question. The question before was whether we would support the government's policy outright. You are four parties that have a majority, but the question is whether you will now invite energy consultations with all parties in the Riksdag. Then the question is completely different, namely whether there are openings to actually discuss different types of power in such agreements or if the four parties that have a majority in the Riksdag have already decided how it is to be; in that case, it is meaningless. But then the question of offshore wind power and support for it must be on the table, because this government has said no to that which can quickly provide Swedish households with cheap electricity.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is the opposition leader we have now heard, Magdalena Andersson from the Socialdemokraterna. I welcome the tone that Magdalena Andersson has. She does not simply saw off all the measures that the new government proposes, on the contrary. I read in an evening newspaper that you chose to stand quite close to several of our proposals for a new start for Sweden.

Politics is about wanting, being able to, and dreaming. But one cannot get stuck in the last and only dream - one must also want and be able to do. I wonder if the Social Democrats have initiated any reassessment process and can say what they regret most not doing more of during the eight years in power, for example regarding integration, the school system, and energy.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will, of course, from the Social Democratic side review the Tidö Agreement and take a position on the various proposals. We are ready to cooperate on measures that can effectively reduce crime in Sweden, even if some measures appear to be directly counterproductive; those we will, of course, oppose. We Social Democrats implemented the major overhaul of the migration policy but will, of course, be ready to cooperate on measures that can reduce segregation and new recruitment, even though there are many points in the Tidö Agreement that unfortunately will lead in the completely opposite direction.

We are reviewing the Tidö Agreement. Others have also reviewed the Tidö Agreement and have since been threatened by representatives of the Sweden Democrats that they will lose their grants or their financial support if they continue to do so. Ulf Kristersson gave no promise that one will not cut the grants to such organizations and authorities, but I give Johan Pehrson the opportunity: Can you promise that you will not cut grants and financial support to those organizations and authorities that review the Tidö Agreement?

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! My reply was, therefore, about whether there is anything Magdalena Andersson feels she takes with her, which perhaps did not become completely and perfectly, from her eight years in power, because politics is about wanting, being able to, and, to a reasonable extent, also dreaming. But I received no real answer as to whether one had wanted to do more regarding crime fighting.

But when it comes to, for example, school, we have many students who leave primary school without sufficient grades to proceed to upper secondary school if they do not start in an introductory program. Could something more have been done with special teachers, small teaching groups, and social teams to get more young people to pass school? We know that school is the most important factor for counteracting social exclusion and providing a strong position on the labor market, but also for crime prevention. It is very few young guys – or girls, for that matter, but it is mostly about guys – with passing grades who run around and shoot each other dead.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The silence echoes. I am therefore asking the Liberal Party leader if he can stand up against the Sweden Democrats' threats to withdraw financial support aimed at organizations that scrutinize the Tidö Agreement. I am therefore asking the Liberal Party leader if he can promise that no, we will not cut funding to organizations, authorities, or media outlets that criticize the Tidö Agreement. The Liberal Party leader does not promise this. It is so weak.

The question was whether there is anything I regret. Of course, there are many things that could have gone faster and been done faster. Not least, I would have wished that we could have pinpointed every guy who is on the run. That requires major investments in social services and municipalities – I hope that the Liberals deliver this.

(Applause)

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

TALMANNEN

Since we have now had a number of exchanges of remarks, I would like to read out a reminder that we as speakers sometimes use. It goes as follows: I would like to remind that according to Swedish parliamentary custom, the speaker formally addresses their speech to the Speaker and thereby indirectly to the members of the Chamber. This means that direct address between speakers, such as for example saying "you" or "you" to each other, should not occur.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I noted the disappointment of Magdalena Andersson when she did not get the answer she wanted from Johan Pehrson regarding grants to various organizations and so on. I can answer for my part: No organization in Sweden will be deprived of any grants because one criticizes the Tidö Agreement. I believe that the other parties in the majority here in the chamber agree with this. There may, however, be other reasons to review grants to various organizations, but that is a completely different matter and has nothing to do with the Tidö Agreement.

Mr. Speaker! We do not only have a new government but also a new opposition. I find it interesting to see how this opposition forms, expresses itself, and positions itself in the new parliamentary landscape. I note a very high tone from many sides. There are many harsh words, many epithets and labels, many symbols and many posters. Crash landing, death blow, populism, climate deniers, crushed rule of law, racial profiling, racism and right-wing extremism are some examples I caught when I listened somewhat fleetingly to the different speakers.

It is, after all, very little criticism in substance, and one can wonder why. Is it possibly so that even the opposition, somewhere deep down, realizes that what Sweden actually needs is precisely a new start, a paradigm shift? One can hope that they realize that when they previously had the majority here in the chamber and formed the government, they did not do enough against the lax immigration policy and the lax crime policy. They did too little for a stable energy supply and so on. I hope so, and in that case, this mandate period will be much more pleasant than the previous one.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by congratulating Jimmie Åkesson. The Sweden Democrats now have a decisive influence over Swedish politics when Jimmie Åkesson takes a place in the government's inner cabinet, the party gets officials in the Government Offices, and every single decision requires the Sweden Democrats' approval. One can, therefore, push through their policy.

Thus Jimmie Åkesson wrote in Aftonbladet earlier this year: "That is why we are now moving forward with a historic initiative on lowered petrol and diesel prices. We propose three measures, for maximum effect, which would make an immediate difference in people's everyday lives. With the proposals, the diesel price is lowered by 10 kronor and the petrol price by 6.50 kronor."

Now the question is: When will the price of gasoline be lowered by 6.50 kronor? Do not just answer now that you will lower the gasoline tax. The question is: When will the price be lowered by 6.50 kronor? You have the power to push this through now.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson said "you" - I just want to point this out.

I must still disappoint Magdalena Andersson. I will answer first and foremost like this: We will lower the price of fuel at the pump. This will be achieved through tax cuts and by minimizing the reduction obligation.

On the question of when this will happen, the answer is that it happens when we have a majority for it in the Swedish Riksdag. If I could decide, it would happen tomorrow. It will likely not be that simple.

It surprises me a bit that Magdalena Andersson still chooses this path, because Magdalena Andersson has, together with those she has governed with over eight years, caused the situation we have at the pump today, so that people cannot afford to use their car. One could think that a little self-criticism would have been appropriate instead of asking me to rectify what she has caused.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! So it is you, Jimmie Åkesson, who holds the power in Sweden's Riksdag now. Then the question is whether you will also work according to the Johan-Pehrson doctrine. One says something before the election, but after the election, something else applies.

The Sweden Democrats have promised their voters this. Therefore, it is my duty as the opposition to also examine whether you live up to the promises to your voters. But now it seems that the promise of a reduced petrol tax of 6.50 kronor was not sufficiently important for the Sweden Democrats, because if it had been, it would have stood in the Tidö Agreement and you could now say that it will be reduced by 6.50 kronor. But it was obviously not sufficiently important. It is good that this can be entered into the chamber's minutes.

No further questions.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is a huge amount of things that are not in the Tidö Agreement. There are a lot of things that I have campaigned on and that other parties covered by the agreement have campaigned on. Either they are not included there because they are issues where we are already in agreement on the direction, or they are not included there because they are issues that we simply do not cooperate on.

Fuel prices are something that affects the budget. It is to a very high degree a budget issue. The government will shortly present a budget here in the chamber. There it will be revealed how this, which Magdalena Andersson now wants to achieve, namely significantly lowered fuel prices, will be resolved moving forward.

I am fully confident that we are now taking major steps in that direction and that during the mandate period we will achieve exactly what I and my party have promised our voters. I have no other ambition than to do just this.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish families are under severe pressure from price increases on everything from food to housing. In that situation, the Sweden Democrats seem to focus most on taking away the right to safety nets from groups in various ways. We can see that in the Tidö agreement.

You, Jimmie Åkesson, have put forward a government with an agreement where there is a single sentence about the sickness insurance. So important it was for the Sverigedemokraterna. And there, all these four parties seem to be in complete agreement that too many people are entitled to sickness insurance. So it says it straight out.

Why did Åkesson let a government through with an agreement that in no way guarantees people's right to economic security in the event of illness?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sickness insurance is an immensely important issue. It is an important issue socio-economically for various reasons, and it is above all an important issue for those individuals who have a need for compensation in connection with illness.

The Sweden Democrats have campaigned on securing the sickness insurance in the long term, and I said in my speech here earlier that we have now also done that. That is, in fact, my experience.

As I said to Magdalena Andersson here earlier, what is in the Tidö Agreement is what is in the Tidö Agreement. What is not in the Tidö Agreement is not in the Tidö Agreement for a reason.

If Nooshi Dadgostar has ideas on how we can further secure the sickness insurance in the long term, she is cordially welcome to speak with me about it. I experience that I am quite open and quite free to act in the area of sickness insurance here in the Riksdag, as long as it does not involve things that affect the state's budget. And there is very much there that one could do and where I believe that I and Vänsterpartiet have at least one common idea regarding the direction. It is an invitation to Nooshi Dadgostar to discuss this issue with me.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Åkesson says that there is a reason why there is nothing other than the single point that you agree it is too many who are entitled to their own health insurance. The reason is quite obvious: the Sweden Democrats do not prioritize this.

It is in the agreement, page after page, about many detailed proposals in various areas. But this huge area, people's right to their own insurance when they suffer an accident at work or in their spare time, the Sweden Democrats ignore.

There is a proposed investigation that implies that more sick people would be entitled to sickness benefit, which is one of the most important things. You could have included that investigation in the government agreement. Why was this deprioritized? It is a much more important issue than many of the other issues that you have negotiated. How can this be so low prioritized by Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if it has been made sufficiently clear, but the Sweden Democrats are, therefore, not a governing party. The Sweden Democrats cooperate with the new government on what is stated in the Tidö Agreement and on the budget.

When it comes to proposals that are not in the Tidö Agreement, I feel that I and my party are completely free to seek a majority for other proposals in this chamber.

That was why, Mr. Speaker, I told Noshi Dadgostar that if she now has ideas on how we can secure and strengthen the sickness insurance in a way that does not involve budget-impacting measures, she is cordially welcome to contact me regarding that. I also want to go in that direction and am free to do so, despite the fact that we have a new government in place.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson asked for some content on issue politics, so I choose to examine the climate policy.

That we should find ourselves in a climate crisis, I consider lacks scientific support. So said Jimmie Åkesson's party comrade Elsa Widding from the rostrum of the Riksdag last week. And to the question of what the Sverigedemokraterna want to do for the climate, Widding's answer was: "The best we can do is to ensure that we help the poor countries to finance good coal power plants to take them out of poverty."

That the Sweden Democrats are climate deniers is nothing new, but that poor countries should pay the price for the lack of political decisiveness resembles colonial reasoning that does not belong either in the present or in the future.

Does Jimmie Åkesson agree with his party colleague Elsa Widding that the climate crisis is a bluff and about the need for more coal power?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is not a simple issue. Sometimes when one listens to parties, especially the extreme, almost religious parties, not least the Center Party, one gets the impression that this is a very simple matter. It is not. It is very complicated. It requires certain knowledge and competence to understand the connections between different occurrences.

Do we have an impending climate crisis? Yes, probably. We will probably experience major problems with a changed climate if we do nothing about it, and therefore we shall do something about it.

The election campaign was not so much about that, but it was very much about whether there is any greater point in us continuing to torment ourselves here in Sweden, which already has very low emissions, instead of enabling other countries that have very large emissions to reduce them to a greater extent. That is the conflict here, not whether climate change is occurring or not, Mr. Speaker.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now it was a Sweden Democrat, who has also inspired the Tidö Agreement on the climate area and the proposals contained therein, who said exactly this about climate bluff and more coal power. And during the election campaign, I heard Jimmie Åkesson's answer to the question of whether we shouldn't be more afraid of a warmer climate: What I know is that more people die from cold than from heat.

There are, therefore, no limits within the Sweden Democrats when it comes to climate denial. They question globally recognized science and scoff at heat records and extreme weather.

But if it is as Jimmie Åkesson now says that one takes climate change seriously and that one can acknowledge climate science and its results, I must ask: Is it then Jimmie Åkesson's intention that Sweden and the EU should now take the lead and act for change both here at home and globally so that we reach the high expectations that exist within global climate policy?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As far as I know, climate is not only warming but also cooling. I do not quite understand what Annie Lööf is after when she means that it is strange to point out that more people die from cold than from heat, because it is true.

This does not mean that we are not going to do anything to prevent climate change, and that is what we have dedicated the entire election campaign to debating.

But again: The problem has been that Swedish climate policy until now has consisted of reducing emissions in Sweden at enormous costs, in a country that already has very low emissions, instead of focusing on the climate as a global issue, which it actually is. Therefore, it is more important to ensure that technology for reduced emissions reaches other parts of the world where, for example, there are old coal power plants. This makes a significantly bigger difference than Sweden having, for example, the world's highest diesel prices.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This week, there has been very strong criticism of the Tidö Agreement, where questions are raised about how the Swedish rule of law will hold up under the pressure of this agreement. Yesterday, the Sweden Democrats' Member of Parliament Björn Söder also came out and said that he wanted to choke off the state grant to the human rights organization Civil Rights Defenders because of the critical review of the Tidö Agreement.

In a democracy, one of the most important principles is that there are independent actors who can also scrutinize power. Does Jimmie Åkesson share this view on democratic mechanisms?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is quite fundamental for a democracy that different opinions are expressed and that power can be scrutinized. That this should in any way be threatened in Sweden, I find it difficult to see. On the contrary, Sweden is a well-developed democracy with a well-established civil society.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, one must be able to have views on how tax money is used. In my speech, I said that no organization will lose its grants because it criticizes the government or the Tidö Agreement. There is, however, an agreement to review grants to organizations that spread extremism, Islamist propaganda, and other such things. This is obvious and does not threaten the rule of law, on the contrary. This type of organization does, however.

It is a strange view of democracy that the only way to achieve this is to send state grants to various left-liberal organizations. I do not understand this notion at all.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! From this answer, one might ask whether Jimmie Åkesson considers Civil Rights Defenders, which has existed since 1982 and scrutinized precisely the power and the maintenance of democracy, to be a left-liberal organization or to uphold Islamist, extremist views.

The Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the government base. The Sweden Democrats sit in an inner cabinet in the Government Offices' innermost room and dictate the terms for the policy being pursued. The Sweden Democrats have enormous power but will not be able to be scrutinized by the Riksdag. Jimmie Åkesson has been let into a position in Rosenbad where his party governs the government in all essential respects without being able to be held accountable for the government's actions.

Mr. Speaker! Is it possible that Jimmie Åkesson has understood what Ulf Kristersson does not seem to have understood: that even armies of troll accounts crack in the light when they are scrutinized. Or how does Jimmie Åkesson propose that one should be able to scrutinize power when it hides in the shadows behind its puppet government?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is an absolutely excellent example of how one scrutinizes power and one another within the framework of the parliamentary system: debate. Debate occurs in this chamber all the time, almost every day, and it is a way to scrutinize one another.

The Sweden Democrats are not a governing party. We have an agreement with the government on a number of areas. We have an agreement with the government on the budget, where we have the same influence as the government.

Of course, this will be scrutinized here. What else are we doing here? Why else do we have an opposition if one is not here to specifically scrutinize the majority's decisions? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, so I do not understand this starting point at all.

The Sweden Democrats is a party that truly wants to make a difference. Now we have received this opportunity because the voters have given us this opportunity, and we will, of course, do what we can to manage this trust and take advantage of this opportunity.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has become a country where swindlers and lobbyists hold the positions of power. It is difficult to see it in any other way when one reads the ministers' CVs. We have a Prime Minister who has received an apartment that should have gone to women in greater need, a housing minister who has registered as a dependent of his parents to receive extra compensation, a business minister who has been convicted of defamation, and a justice minister who, as recently as during the election campaign, was prepared to accept money for the Moderaterna through a so-called front-man arrangement.

Perhaps it is as they say: As one feels oneself, so one feels others. The perception of reality can probably become skewed if one moves in such a company.

But I do not believe that the average person is as corrupt as the government seems to think. The vast majority want to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister warns of hard times. However, it seems to primarily affect ordinary people; the economic upper class has it easy. It is simply a matter of choosing between the summer holiday and the ski trip, says the one who has much but understands nothing.

The steel bath in the welfare is waiting around the corner if the government does not provide large funds. The preliminary calculation of what is missing in the welfare is 20 billion. The Swedish people should not have to foot the bill when the lobbyist government secures the assets for the capital owners. I promise that Sweden's 542 billionaires will manage even without generous support. However, healthcare, school, and care will not, and neither will families who find it difficult to pay the electricity bill this winter.

To do nothing when 20 billion is missing, I call that questionable misconduct.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Putin's illegal war of aggression continues in Ukraine. But Ukraine has the initiative, and Russian troops are being pushed back - mostly thanks to courage and cunning from the Ukrainian people but also thanks to economic and military support from the rest of the world.

The newly appointed government has been clear that it wants to continue and even increase the support to Ukraine, and I welcome that. But the Left Party has unfortunately wavered considerably earlier regarding this important support.

Therefore, my question to Nooshi Dadgostar today is: Will Vänsterpartiet clearly and distinctly stand behind increased Swedish military support to Ukraine when the government eventually puts such proposals on the Riksdag's table?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Of course! We would have wished that the government had come forward with more such proposals, but that has not been done. We also respect that the Armed Forces must conduct an investigation into how much we have the possibility to send to Ukraine.

We will always stand behind the Ukrainian people and the principles of international law that no country may be invaded or taken captive for other motives. It can go fast in certain situations. It is important for us to ensure that the Swedish people know that they are safe and secure and that there are no threats against Sweden. Sometimes a collective assessment of this is made.

For us, it is completely self-evident that we and the entire Western world stand behind the Ukrainian people, and that is something I am very pleased about.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is a welcome answer from Nooshi Dadgostar but also somewhat surprising, for other signals are coming from Nooshi Dadgostar's party colleague in the European Parliament. There is wavering regarding the common EU support, most recently at the beginning of October when this party colleague cast her vote regarding increased military support. And as the only Swedish member, she cast her vote regarding the condemnation of the Russian invasion. This is not impressive.

I think it is remarkable with the Left Party's very ambivalent balancing act when it comes to this, here in the Riksdag earlier this spring but also between the Riksdag and the European Parliament. Therefore, I ask again: Will the Left Party continue to waver in the European Parliament and here in the Riksdag when it comes to extended and increased military support to Ukraine, or has it just been accidents on the job?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am a bit surprised that Annie Lööf is unaware that we were completely in agreement here. We have sent weapons to Ukraine on a number of occasions, and Vänsterpartiet has requested more such occasions. But the government has not always responded, and we also have respect for what the Armed Forces say.

Our MEP has abstained on issues concerning the Nato application and Nato membership. There, we have different views, even though the Center Party as recently as just a few years ago was also against Nato membership. Nothing else has happened in that matter.

In other respects, we have at all times when the EU Parliament has coordinated on arms deliveries to Ukraine stood behind this. We would have wished for even greater support and that the debts of the Ukrainian state are removed, work for reconstruction, secure medical deliveries, and ensure that even more weapons are sent so that the Russians can be thrown out of Ukraine.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Since Russia launched its unlawful war of aggression against Ukraine, it has been somewhat difficult to get a grip on the Left Party's potentially new security policy line.

Vänsterpartiet is against NATO membership, now as before, but has at the same time stated that they are not ready to fight over that issue in a potential red-green government. At the same time, Vänsterpartiet voted in the EU Parliament, as Annie Lööf just pointed out, against military aid to Ukraine, to scrap the budget for the European Defence Fund, and against research, cooperation, and development in the defense area. And one of the Members of Parliament who waved PKK flags in Almedalen will now become Vänstern's only committee chair.

So what is the situation? Will Vänsterpartiet argue about Nato?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now, these are slightly different issues. What our MEP voted against was a NATO application. We have different views on NATO membership, and our view is that the threats to Sweden become greater if we participate in the world's conflicts in different ways, as is done within the framework of NATO.

We will always stand behind the Ukrainian people. We would have wanted more weapons deliveries there, and we have always stood behind this in the European Parliament. Ebba Busch and, obviously, Annie Lööf are misinformed. We have always stood behind it. On the other hand, it is our view that we should have a Swedish defense, and that it is not certain that we will have a European defense.

The Armed Forces and defense matters are a Swedish affair. It is clear that one can discuss this, but for the time being, that is how it looks. We have not changed our minds on that. One must, of course, cooperate internationally, and we shall have international solidarity. But the Armed Forces are still the government's and the Swedish people's defense force.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The question was not actually about the basic position on Nato. There, I respect that people have different opinions. There are also many issues where we have acted in unison in support of Ukraine, and that is good. But in the European Parliament, on October 19, one voted no to research, cooperation, and development within the defense area. It was not about Nato. On the same day, one voted yes to a scrapped budget for the European Defence Fund. And then, one did not support military aid to Ukraine. After that, one has tried to correct one's vote with a very questionable justification, but that can happen sometimes.

My primary question concerns above all the statement that Nooshi Dadgostar herself made during the election campaign that there was no intention to cause trouble with a red-green government in the NATO membership process. "Complicate" is perhaps a more accurate expression. My question is: What applies now? Does the Left Party intend to complicate the NATO membership process, or does what Nooshi Dadgostar said about a red-green government also apply to the new government?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch says many things that are not true, but let me set that aside. We have always stood behind increasing the deliveries, and we would have wished that more deliveries were sent. On the other hand, we stand for that it is not the time to have a European military, but we shall have a Swedish defense. I am proud of the Swedish Försvarsmakten.

We never fight. We stand up for people's rights. We protect Sweden. We ensure that the Swedish people are protected from despots and war. There is no notion that we are fighting back and forth. It is the government that, in conversation with an Islamist despot like Erdogan, has prolonged the process. It is the government that spreads their narrative and that hesitates regarding whether SVT, for example, should be allowed to broadcast what they broadcast. One is not clear, but rather weak in the negotiations.

A message to the government is: Stand strong! Do not show weakness, as you have done so far!

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The situation is new, but much is similar, for example, that several members here seem to think that the debate does not have the vigor it should have, so they have found something else to do and left the chamber. But the leader of the Left Party, I and a few others remain - thanks for that!

A great deal is similar in the force and the attacks that Vänsterpartiet presents against Swedish entrepreneurship. Hate is a strong word, but the aggressiveness is obvious. I turn now, to begin with, to the idea that there is something wrong with employee stock options. It is about broadening ownership and ensuring that small companies that have poor or small cash flows in the beginning can take Sweden into the future – new Spotifys or new Ericssons. One must be able to have broadened ownership. You have no money coming in, but you have a good idea. Employee stock options are a fantastic way to give ownership power to the citizens. Why does Vänsterpartiet not like this?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! That is not it, it is just a way to evade wage tax, which everyone else pays, and withdraw their money as capital income and thereby pay less tax. And it is only directed at high-income earners. They will hardly notice it. That is why Spotify, which by the way no longer has its headquarters in Sweden, is on this.

Vänsterpartiet is the Riksdag's business party. We drive the issues of Swedish companies. Ask the West Swedish Chamber of Commerce how happy they were that you do not want to build new main lines, Johan Pehrson!

You are destroying the business sector for Sweden - new technology, new innovation and new trains, Johan Pehrson. How does it feel for the entrepreneurs in southern Sweden when you continue and continue to export electricity and do not fix the Swedish electricity market and free it from the European prices, so that they can continue their operations? They have to shut down now, Johan Pehrson.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I await the thunderous applause for the Left Party.

(NOOSHI DADGOSTAR (V): They are still more than yours.)

That is what one can say.

Mr. Speaker! It is still the case that innovations have built this country. Entrepreneurship has built this country. Swedish research has built this country. That is how the foundation for continued prosperity is created. That is how we get resources for the welfare.

I have, just as Nooshi Dadgostar surely has, traveled around with a hard hat at various locations. I was, among other places, at Northvolt's facility. There, the message was very clear that one needs to have a way to achieve more ownership distribution and get the employees to become co-owners in the company, and that we must do more to facilitate so that the staff can become co-owners and receive employee options. Why? Yes, because in modern society, success lies in competence and knowledge. It is incredibly important for companies to ensure that Sweden continues to be an international force for technical development and new modern technology and that the companies retain the employees. One way is broadened ownership. It is not about wage-earner funds, but it is about giving the employees power and not just the capital owners. Why do you dislike that?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Pehrson is in favor of wage funds. Those were new proposals.

I am aware that Northvolt wants employee options. They will not be targeted at employees but will always be targeted at high-income earners. There is nothing modern, Johan Pehrson, with large economic gaps. That type of country is not innovative. There, not all people are pushed into research and education. There, they do not believe in all people. There, this type of entrepreneurship is not spread.

What does Northvolt say when the castle agreement now advocates that we should have one and the same electricity price area? The Scania prices shall go up to Northvolt's industrial premises. They will have to shut down, Mr. Speaker. Johan Pehrson's announcement is that Scania prices shall now apply in northern Sweden. If this announcement to Swedish business is true, we will go under.

(Applause)

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Johan Pehrson announces that he wishes to have it recorded in the minutes that he does not have the right to a further reply.)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! When one goes to an election, one says one thing before the election. Then the election is carried out, and then one says one thing also after the election.

What Johan Pehrson said should be hung like a cross-stitch embroidery in every cabinet room. It summarizes the new government's actions so well.

Before the election, there were big and fine words about the importance of the countryside – heartland tributes and Instagram campaigns. After the election, it is a different story. The countryside was hardly even mentioned in either the October agreement or the government statement. Our new cabinet ministers all live south of Uppsala. And among the first things being done now is to scrap the new travel deduction which was supposed to have benefited just the rural areas over the big cities.

It is the same thing with the climate. Green promises before the election became a gray reality afterwards. They make our fuels less green, increase emissions by millions of tons. They begin by abolishing the Ministry of the Environment.

The red-liberal lines that were supposed to be the guarantee against the Sweden Democrats' influence before the election were exchanged for a blank check to a government where Jimmie Åkesson holds a veto in every decision.

Sweden had needed a different path. In times of anxiety and uncertainty, both in our global environment and on our home front, consensus and broad agreement would have been preferable to a conservative confrontation. Now we would have needed liberal reforms to curb climate change, get the whole country moving forward and strengthen the welfare, increase both security, equality and freedom as well as do everything that would make Sweden much better without compromising on tolerance, respect and humanity.

The Center Party, as Sweden's only bourgeois liberal opposition party, will continue to try to steer the politics in that direction. For what we said before the election, we also stand up for after the election.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One of the reasons for the election result in September was probably that our side had a common problem formulation - if not exactly the same solutions, at least a common direction.

On the other side, there was nothing of the sort. The Social Democrats were, as usual, open to proposals. The Left Party seemed able to tolerate the Center Party as a coalition partner as long as it did not mean Center Party politics. The Center Party, on its part, could live with elements of the Left Party's politics as long as they avoided the Left Party itself. And all three seemed to prefer to avoid the Green Party, even if none of them really knew how that would work. Each could see that this would not come together.

After listening to the first rounds of debate following the change of government and to the statements following the election, I note that it still does not add up. The Social Democrats seem to be moving in our direction regarding crime fighting and migration. The other three do not. Vänsterpartiet holds fast to its, in my opinion, wise change of course regarding the reduction obligation. Both green parties think the opposite. The Center Party holds fast to its, in my opinion, quite wise welfare policy. The other three think completely differently.

One can think what one wants, but the government base that now leads the country is the one that is possible and that can give new strength to Sweden. The other side is as critical internally as it is towards us. The opposition's compass spins in all possible different directions in this debate, and I suspect that it will also be noticeable in the eventual replies now.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want it recorded in the minutes that the Moderates, the Liberals and the Christian Democrats decreased on election day and that they are in government thanks to both the Sweden Democrats' election result and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

Not satisfied - that was Ebba Busch's response to how the October Agreement's aid policy landed. Her party promised during the election campaign, heart and soul, to stand up for the one percent goal but backed down when it was serious.

It is problematic to reduce aid at a time when global challenges are greater than ever, was said by the Swedish Church's aid activities when the announcement came.

Save the Children called it a betrayal of the world's poor, not least the very poorest children.

What in the October Agreement is it that the Christian Democrats feel they have pushed through and that made it worth abandoning the promise on the one percent goal and betraying the world's poorest children?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have fought for the world's poorest children. Good aid makes a difference, and it is a moral duty to help those in desperate need. Providing aid is also good for our country. We win when other parts of the world also become better. Their success is also our success, in addition to the moral duty.

But Swedish aid must be good, and it must be effective. And what we have achieved, compared to when the Center Party supported the previous red government, is that we have established a cap on how much deductions can be made. This means that one can no longer use the Swedish aid budget to cover migration costs that have not been financed through other items just because one does not want to signal that it costs money. We have said that a maximum of 8 percent may be deducted. In this way, there are also better long-term conditions for more of the aid money to reach those who truly need Sweden's support the most.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! What a castle in the air of a victory, Ebba Busch! In the Tidö Agreement, it states that one shall work for a repatriation policy and set the migration policy at the EU's absolute minimum level. Why should there then be caps on deductions, if the Tidö Agreement's policy is now to be implemented?

Ebba Busch says that it is a moral duty to help people in need. Yes, but the question one then asks is: Where did Ebba Busch's and the Kristdemokraternas moral duty disappear to?

We now see how Sweden's reputation in the world is being chipped away in this area and how the world's poorest children are being betrayed. It is not I who is saying it, but the aid organizations that every day struggle and toil to increase solidarity.

With the knowledge of this, I ask again: What in the October Agreement is it that compensates for that betrayal? It is not about that castle in the air with the offsets; it will not have an impact, given that you are placing migration at the bottom level. What in the October Agreement is it that KD has pushed through that made it worth sacrificing the aid in order to sit in Jimmie Åkesson's government?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Some think it is more important how it looks. Others think it is more important how it actually becomes. We Christian Democrats belong to the latter.

It has looked good in the world with a one percent goal, even though it has fluctuated a bit. But it has not always been so good. We have put too much money into the UN machinery, where it has been difficult to know where the money ended up. We did not do what we should have done from the position we - somewhat as a result of that - received in the UN Security Council. We also used far too much of the aid for disguised migration costs instead of addressing that we had an unsustainable migration situation in Sweden.

What we are going to do now is to secure a stable level for the coming years. It will be at 56 billion for the next three years. We will ensure that more can go to civil society, with all those organizations that we know have been completely crucial in contributing to lifting countries out of poverty, and to the people who need our support most. I will be proud of that. I foresee that many afterwards will see that it turned out well in the end. That is what is important.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch says that she has fought for the world's poorest children and that the money had previously been concealed migration costs. Now we see how the money instead becomes very open tools in migration policy when they are to be used for return and in Europe. But that was not what I intended to ask Ebba Busch about, Mr. Speaker.

This government says that Sweden shall reach the climate goals that we have committed to in the Paris Agreement. But the only thing that has been presented in the Tidö Agreement and the government's statement are proposals that will significantly increase Sweden's emissions. It is not to fight for the world's poorest children, who are also those who will bear the greatest consequences of the climate changes in the climate crisis we find ourselves in.

Mr. Speaker! Just the reduction of the reduction obligation is estimated to increase emissions by 10 percent this year. I would like to know how Ebba Busch, as the responsible department head, intends for Sweden to reach the interim targets for emissions by 2030 in Sweden with this policy.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has pursued a policy that has caused more and more companies to move from Sweden and relocate their production elsewhere. This contributes to significantly increased emissions and risks continuing to do so if "Made in Sweden" becomes something one has to look for at various auction houses and in antique shops. "Made in Sweden" and safeguarding production in Sweden are, in fact, among the most important carbon-reducing measures that exist.

That is why it has been so harmful with the reduction obligation level that we have had. It has made it far too expensive both to be Swedish and to be a Swedish company. An important part of the climate measures is therefore to maintain production in Sweden instead of increasing imports from other countries, where emissions are much higher.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would be happy to debate consumption-based emissions with Ebba Busch at another time, who is now responsible for these issues after having abolished the Ministry of the Environment and moved them under her own responsibility at the Ministry of Enterprise.

It is difficult to determine whether the government's inability to act on the climate crisis is due to ignorance or if they are deliberately misleading the Swedes. It is difficult to know if it is because they actually do not understand the connections between the nature crisis and the climate crisis or if it is simply a matter of having allowed themselves to be influenced too much by the Sverigedemokraternas climate-denying members of parliament.

What I would still like to know from Ebba Busch as the responsible head of the department that is now to take over when the Ministry of the Environment has been abolished is: What are the vast number of proposals for small measures that the government intends to present to lower Sweden's emissions when, at the same time, it increases Sweden's emissions by 50 percent in a burning climate crisis?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying: Stop that talk! It is unserious and populist. To say that we are closing the Ministry of the Environment spreads a completely unfounded fear among organizations and employees who are absolutely crucial for Sweden to stand strong as a country and reach the climate goals. Not a single ministry is being closed. But this fits into the rhetoric and the narrative. Why then does Miljöpartiet not claim that we are closing the energy unit at the Ministry of Infrastructure? Because it is not true. It is false. It is a lie to claim that it is a matter of closure. Instead, it is the case that competencies are being combined, so that Sweden can better reach our high climate goals.

I wish I had more speaking time, because I would like to answer the question. But this is important. If we are to reach our high-set climate goals, we need to bring competencies together. Business, environmental, and climate issues need to go hand in hand moving forward. Then we can reach the goals.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One way to make the speaking time last when answering a question is precisely to use the time to answer the question.

One of the very first decisions that this government made was to abolish the Ministry of the Environment as a separate ministry. This is not about a resource increase or about strengthening climate and environmental work. It is about a total ignorance of how the nature crisis and the climate crisis are interconnected. Political leadership on environmental and climate issues has never been more important than now. Unfortunately, this government, in just over a week with all the desired clarity, has shown that they have never prioritized and will never prioritize the climate issue.

It has been a tough week since the government took office. But we already see now how much they are going to dismantle of Sweden's environmental and climate policy. They are making a reduction of the climate tax on gasoline, even though researchers agree that it is the absolutely most effective steering measure to reduce emissions, and they decide to lower the reduction obligation, the reform that could by far most quickly help us reach the emission targets.

Mr. Speaker! This is obviously only the beginning. The largest party in Kristersson's puppet government has climate deniers in the party leadership, and it is obvious that it is also their policy that will dictate the terms for this government and its climate policy. It is a great sorrow that this also seems to be the beginning of the end for Sweden as an international role model regarding the climate transition. An extra great sorrow is that those who will be hit absolutely hardest when Sweden backs down, retreats, and lets go of the international climate work are the children that Ebba Busch claims she wants to fight for.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The world is interconnected, whether one likes it or not. Peace, freedom, climate and prosperity - everything depends on an interconnected world. For a not so small but export-dependent country like Sweden, cooperation for peace and security, climate and international trade is completely crucial for our future generations' future.

The challenges are great, but we must also remind ourselves of all the progress that has been made over the last 50 years. People's standard of living has increased, as has life expectancy. Enormous progress has been made regarding children's schooling throughout the world. But we still have much to do.

International trade, aid and cooperation make a difference when they are correctly designed. The climate is shared, as are our oceans. The planet's biodiversity is entirely linked to our ability to push for more cooperation and more actions. Here, the EU is needed as the world's most important environmental organization.

The Russian aggression is bloody, ruthless, and senseless. People's lives and futures are being torn apart, and in the shadow of the war, this overshadows our entire immediate vicinity right now. Cooperation between Nato and the EU is crucial to securing not only Ukraine's future but also our own future and security.

Overall, the Liberals want us to cooperate more. The upcoming Swedish presidency of the EU gives us opportunities to drive development forward, and a Swedish NATO membership is needed for Sweden's and Europe's freedom and security.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden, Europe and the world need more cooperation - not less. This will be guiding for the Liberals' work in the government and the Riksdag during this mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by congratulating Johan Pehrson on the ministerial role.

The Liberals received their ministerial posts by giving the Sweden Democrats real power in Swedish politics. Harsh criticism has been directed at that choice of path, not least from Johan Pehrson's own party friends in the EU. It is reported that the Liberals are even being threatened with exclusion.

In response, Johan Pehrson has written a letter describing that Jimmie Åkesson's party is the Liberals' main opponent. At the same time, the Tidö agreement stipulates that one must "speak respectfully about each other's central representatives".

Are you right, Johan Pehrson? Can you, here in the speaker's chair, repeat that Jimmie Åkesson's party is your main opponent? Can you say that in the chamber so that it is recorded in the minutes, or are you bound by your loyalty to Jimmie Åkesson?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret for those who have followed the Liberals in this chamber for a hundred years, or for those who have followed the Sweden Democrats, who were elected to Sweden's Riksdag a number of years ago, that we have completely different ideological starting points. Sometimes we stand against each other. Sometimes, however, we arrive at positions that concern pragmatically solving problems that hinder freedom in Sweden.

We can therefore stand behind this agreement. We can therefore participate with pride in the liberal and bourgeois government, where we have respectful conversations with Jimmie Åkesson on substantive issues.

I also promise that this is mutual. It is not the case that Jimmie Åkesson usually writes tribute articles about the Liberals being his best friend. That is not the case – we have different starting points. But in substance, we can reach common positions for Sweden's best, and that is what we have done. We have given and taken.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now I did not hear Johan Pehrson repeat that Jimmie Åkesson's party is his main opponent. Johan Pehrson is now, therefore, adapting to the writings in the Tidö Agreement. Is Jimmie Åkesson no longer his main opponent?

It looks like Johan Pehrson might still want to say that Jimmie Åkesson is his main opponent. In that case, a follow-up question arises: Why does Johan Pehrson cooperate with his main opponent and not with me?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to see that Magdalena Andersson is also a mind reader; it is a talent that I myself would like to have. Sometimes it is not needed, however, because it is obvious what someone is after.

Nationalism, in its original form, is liberalism's main opponent. The Sweden Democrats have many views that the Liberals absolutely do not share. Despite the ideological difference, we can nevertheless agree on important issues to change in Sweden. This could, for example, be about a more reasonable crime policy, a better school policy, or a better energy policy. We can agree that public service needs to be guarded or that protecting women's right to their bodies in the constitution.

All this we can arrive at pragmatically. It does not mean that we do not continue to have very spirited, let me say, debates. This will be noticeable in the chamber during this mandate period, Mr. Speaker.

This cooperation is for Sweden and for moving Sweden forward and solving people's problems.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We have ten million inhabitants in our country. Many of them are teachers, educators, or pedagogical leaders. Is it really a welfare lobbyist for a number of welfare companies, who has sat on the board of the most notorious free school company, who is the best suited in the country to lead the Swedish school?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now I think that the Minister for Education, Edholm, can answer this himself, but that people have had assignments in companies outside of this chamber is something we should appreciate. That people have done other things than sat here and just enacted laws is something we should appreciate. The government's Minister for Education has broad experience in running schools in Stockholm.

We know what we need to do to ensure that the school gets on the right track so that there is order and clarity, that more people meet the knowledge requirements and that we have more social support, more special education teachers and more smaller teaching groups. We are going to reform the independent school system. That the Left Party is not satisfied surprises no one.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is Sweden's teachers and Sweden's students who are not satisfied. It is about being in an organization and then personally providing contributions and tax funds to that organization and to the network that one belongs to.

Cold facts were shown a while ago that a number of parties were prepared to accept illegal donations - the Liberals were one of them. Everyone in this chamber tightened the legislation in 2018 regarding giving illegal donations because it can lead to economic special interests influencing politics, which can lead to corruption.

Can Johan Pehrson guarantee in this chamber today that the Liberals have never, directly or via puppet arrangements, received money from the Tellus Group or from any other private school group?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals welcomed the review that was conducted during the election campaign. We thought it was good. We did not do anything good when we received these calls at an official level.

We have now gone through all our transactions, all the resources we have received and all donations - they are unfortunately not so many. We have looked at them and waited for them, and we have done it again with our auditing firm. It must not happen again. We shall be clear: If one wants to give money to support liberal politics, one should do so.

We have different sizes of bank accounts in our parties here; not everyone has the same huge assets as the Left Party that were built up during Stalin's time.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals chose a path. They chose to join forces with an explicitly anti-liberal party, a nationalist populist party. They sold their choice of path to the voters by claiming they were the guarantor of a liberal change of power. Today we have the results. It was not liberal. It became nationalist. It was not green. It became grey. It became the Sweden Democrats' policy all the way through, proposals that strike against the rule of law, against the protection of the very weakest, against a humane migration policy, against the climate, and against security. This is what the Liberals are now set on pushing through.

My simple, straightforward question to Johan Pehrson as a Liberal is: Was it worth it?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I initially heard that Annie Lööf gave some dietary advice. I gratefully accept them. Many have had views on what I eat. I can, however, state that one should also not dwell too much. Repeating words and brutalizing the debate helps no one, regardless of whether it happens from the left or from the right. A factual and sensible debate is needed.

The Liberals went to the election on being able to talk with all parties. I would have wished that the Center Party had been involved and contributed to a new liberal bourgeois government. It could even have become even better. But that is not how it happened, because the Center Party cannot talk with all parties.

We mean that the progress we have achieved regarding equality, substantial investments to reduce violence, protection for women - not least the constitutional protection of abortion rights -, protection for public service and a multitude of measures that have been debated for a long time, make this agreement bear a character that we can stand behind.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! And all of that could have been implemented broadly across the block divide.

Let me quote a recognized, heavyweight human rights organization, both in Sweden and globally, which monitors states' handling of human civil and political rights: Civil Rights Defenders. They have evaluated the Tidö Agreement and write as follows:

"It will undermine human rights, the principles of the rule of law, and liberal democracy for all of us. The Tidö Agreement shows that the global trend of democratic dismantling has arrived in Sweden."

I think this is outrageous. It cannot pass unnoticed. If another country received this very serious criticism, seven out of eight parliamentary parties would criticize in unison. Now it is the Swedish government that is receiving criticism.

Sweden does not become a more liberal country because Johan Pehrson sits in Jimmie Åkesson's government. Instead, one legitimizes the Sverigedemokraterna's anything-but-liberal policy.

Now that he knows, now that he has seen the result and heard his party comrades' disappointment, I ask again: Was it worth it, Johan Pehrson?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! About the future, we still know nothing. But if we had not addressed the serious social problems for which people voted for a change in the election, I believe it would have been very serious for Swedish democracy.

When Annie Lööf says that we would have found another constellation, I do not know which one she means it would have been. Then she would have to speak with completely different parties. It is not the case that Annie Lööf and I could have formed a new government of our own. It might have been nice, but it would have been completely impossible.

Furthermore, the Liberals went to the election on a platform of talking to everyone. We can engage in dialogue with the Sweden Democrats on substantive issues. We received the voters' trust. Now we are carrying this out to solve the problems that we consider to be high on the agenda and which today destroy people's freedom.

It is surprising that the Center Party does not take the development of violence we have, the women who are threatened, and the girls and boys who live under honor oppression, more seriously. One only says that what is being done now is wrong.

I will speak with Civil Rights Defenders. I welcome all criticism.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the election campaign, the right-wing parties often spoke about Danish punishments for Swedish crimes in order to combat crime. One was, however, not as careful about taking part of the follow-up research that has been conducted in Denmark, for example regarding the effect of increasing poverty. There, it became very clear that when one significantly lowered the benefits, while groups that would have gotten jobs anyway entered work a bit faster, at the same time the vulnerability for children and young people to be recruited into crime increased significantly.

The Sweden Democrats' agenda to whip refugees in Sweden, which the Liberals and Johan Pehrson are now to implement, is in many respects directly counterproductive for integration and establishment, not to mention inclusion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Johan Pehrson can answer how a subsidy ceiling will enable more children of unemployed parents to get through school.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to turn somewhat against the Green Party's rhetoric. "Whip refugees" - isn't that quite crude anyway?

This agreement contains parts that entail a significantly reduced migration to Sweden. It means protected asylum rights. There are no volume targets. There are clearer requirements for integration. The last thing is something that liberals have pushed for 20 years – that one must behave, that one must be able to support oneself, and that one must be able to speak Swedish in Sweden. Märta Stene's party has called that racism for years. Now it is being implemented, and I am proud of that. I am glad that more people support that policy.

Then children who grow up in vulnerable environments will always fare best if they manage to pass school and can see their parents go to a job and earn their own livelihood. There is no future where one can help these children in any other way than by ensuring that their parents get into work, that they learn Swedish, and that it becomes clear that there is also a police officer in vulnerable areas who ensures that people who do not behave end up in prison.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Then we have once again received confirmation that the Tidö Agreement contains no answers regarding establishment or inclusion.

In our Swedish school classes, we now risk having some children who get dinner every evening and other children who only get it on certain days because their parents do not have enough money to last until the end of the week. We can have some children who move freely to practice and other children who will be searched every day, not because they have done anything wrong but because of how they look. We can have some children who expectantly wait for the admission notice to upper secondary school while others do not know if they will be allowed to stay in the country, even though they are born here, when the possibility of a permanent residence permit is taken away.

Mr. Speaker! Freedom, equality, and equality before the law are fundamental liberal values. But the Liberals were not the guarantor of liberal politics that they promised to be. Instead, they go down in history as the party that handed over power and the agenda to the Sweden Democrats.

Mr. Speaker! This government may be blue, but the brown shadow is long and dark.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We have cooperated. It must be crystal clear for every citizen in the country who goes to the polls that if four parties are to cooperate, it will be four parties that have to give and take.

Now this was mentioned again regarding the children. Is there anything that can better strengthen children's rights and the possibility of integration than seeing the parents go to work, that the children themselves go to preschool and get help to manage school, and have role models at home who go and work? It is an integration debt, a failure over eight years, which has caused us to have such terrible vulnerability in these areas. Besides crazy gangs, there are also separatists who drive a completely different agenda. We have a party that has entered parliamentary assemblies and which wants to introduce, for the most part, Sharia laws in this country. That should also worry people in Miljöpartiet.

When it comes to search zones, they have such in Denmark, which was just highlighted as a model.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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