Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Before we begin today's party group debate, I would like us to collectively take a moment to remember the former Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. On this day 21 years ago, Anna was murdered, in the middle of her life, in central Stockholm. A family lost their mother. A man lost his wife.

I got to know Anna when she was chairperson of SSU and I was in MUF. We naturally thought differently about almost everything, but we found it easy to talk to each other. We stood on the same side in the referendum campaign that became her very last major political contribution. I appreciated her very much. Our entire country lost something that day. It was an attack against our open, democratic society.

We say on good grounds that we shall meet the threats with the strength that lies in democracy itself, but we also meet the threats with protection and security.

At the core, the threats and hatred remain and are encountered by political representatives even today, from right to left. Recently, Nazi chats were revealed with threatening comments about leading politicians such as Gunnar Strömmer, Magdalena Andersson, and Alice Bah Kuhnke. Many here have personally seen the dark side of standing in the public eye. Close scrutiny truly belongs to the role in our assignments. Threats and hatred do not.

Let us, with heads held high, continue to stand up for the Sweden that just we – each of us in here – believe in. Let us honor Anna Lindh's memory in action, vigorously discuss politics when we disagree, and stand together where we can reach an agreement.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Two years ago, we who now lead Sweden were given the mandate to get Sweden in order - a country that had long been becoming poorer and more dangerous. Let me just remind you a bit of how it looked. Inflation was double-digit. Diesel cost 27-28 kronor per liter. Sweden set an annual record in fatal shootings.

Since this government took office, our four coalition parties have worked hard to begin solving Sweden's problems. As we now enter the second half of the mandate period, an infinite amount of work remains, but we also see results. Step by step, we are beginning to build a wealthier and safer Sweden.

We have given the police groundbreaking tools in the fight against the gangs. The police assess that 200 acts of violence have been averted so far during 2023 and 2024.

We have changed the migration policy. Forecasts point towards the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997.

We have passed two restrained budgets and fought inflation.

After more than 40 years of energy policy paralysis in our country, we have taken several steps on the way towards the next Swedish nuclear power program.

We have taken Sweden into Nato, made Sweden safer and made Nato stronger.

After more than a decade of weak governments and overturned budgets, we have also created order and clarity in politics itself. Sweden now has a government that gets things done.

Mr. Speaker! As Prime Minister, I am proud of the paradigm shift that the government has initiated. When immigration has decreased, we can focus more on integration and move from a lack of requirements to requirements for personal responsibility, knowledge of the Swedish language, jobs and self-sufficiency, that people move to the jobs that exist and that they take parental responsibility. One might think these are self-evident things for the vast majority. But exclusion and crime prove that it does not apply to everyone.

When inflation is defeated, economic policy enters a partially new phase with a focus on making Sweden richer and safer and on future investments and growth reforms. It shall pay to work and to study. The state also takes its share of the responsibility. There will be a historic investment in infrastructure and research.

Mr. Speaker! In two years, there will be an election again. On my side of politics, we know what we want. The voters know what they get. That cannot be said about the divided opposition. If the left-wing alternative takes over again – will there be more or less nuclear power? Will there be raised taxes or lowered taxes? Will there continue to be NATO membership or will Sweden leave again? No one knows. The only thing we know is that all four parties to the left agree that immigration shall increase again.

Now we enter the second half and fulfill what we were mandated for. In two years, there will be two alternatives: to go back to the politics that created the problems or to continue getting Sweden in order and step by step build Sweden richer and safer.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johanna Rantsi and Oliver Rosengren (both M) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Ulf Kristersson for acknowledging the memory of Anna Lindh - my SSU chairperson, my role model.

But yesterday, when I listened to Ulf Kristersson, I noted that he is not only immensely proud but also palpably satisfied with the situation in our country. Many probably do not recognize themselves in that description.

The recent years have been tough. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Western world's economies have been held in an iron grip by inflation. It is a relief that inflation is now falling back in country after country. But we must speak plainly about what has happened in Sweden and the fact that the crisis in our country has become deeper than it needed to be and will continue to press the Swedish people harder than what would have been necessary.

Mr. Speaker! Now half of the parliamentary term has passed. Unemployment is at its highest in ten years. Bankruptcies in the construction sector are at record levels. Sweden has a growth rate that is at the absolute bottom of the EU. Ten years of real wage increases are swept away for Swedish families, more end up with the enforcement authority, and more families with children are evicted. Sweden and the Swedish people have become poorer than they would have needed to be because of the government's misguided policy. Let me take some examples.

Just as the cost-of-living crisis hits hardest against ordinary households across our entire country - across the entire Western world - Sweden's government is pursuing an economic policy completely at odds with recommendations from international experts and common sense. Instead of supporting the households that have the smallest margins, they are protecting the already wealthy through large tax cuts and luxury-rot.

Just as housing construction begins to dip, the government removes the investment support for building new apartments in our country.

Just as unemployment begins to increase, cuts are made to the labor market policy, and now they are planning a reduced allowance and a reintroduced "stupstock" (stoppage).

It is not without reason that one can state that Jimmie Åkesson's and the government's strange priorities have made unemployment higher and made the hit worse for ordinary families with children, while at the same time our growth has plummeted to the bottom of Europe.

Or take the healthcare crisis! In the same way that inflation has hit households, it has also hit the costs for Swedish healthcare. But despite all the warnings, despite that Jimmie Åkesson promised before the election to be a guarantor for welfare and despite that Ulf Kristersson has promised that no one shall be laid off in Swedish healthcare, one has chosen not to prioritize healthcare.

I am the first to say that Swedish healthcare was not perfect in the autumn of 2022, but one can observe that it will not improve by there being thousands fewer employees at the end of this year.

The result is the Sverigedemokraternas and the government parties' home-cooked healthcare crisis. The price for this is paid by the Swedish people, who have to wait for hours at healthcare clinics and health centers and who have planned operations canceled due to staff shortages. That is what happens when you prioritize high-income earners over our sick.

Or take gang crime! The government parties promised during the election campaign that we would get a head start against the gangs, but after two years we can state that the shootings continue. Not enough of that: We see an escalating development where ever younger children are drawn into serious crime. During the last year, the number of children under 15 years old who are involved in murder plots has increased by 200 percent, while at the same time the HVB homes where they are cared for are sold on Blocket or run by criminals.

It is good that the government continues with our policy of toughening the penalties and recruiting more police officers. But what is being done to stop all younger boys from being recruited into the gangs? Well, one started this parliamentary term by cutting back on precisely those funds in the state budget that were earmarked to break the new recruitment, while simultaneously putting schools and social services on a starvation diet. And one says no to even investigating a Swedish RICO legislation that could seriously reach the tops of the gangs.

This is not sustainable. It is obvious that the government does not see the big picture and therefore lacks a plan that could seriously break the development.

Or look at the climate policy, Mr. Speaker! The government promised that it would meet the climate goals through a more efficient climate policy. It was supposed to be both cheap and fast to expand electricity production. Now we have the results in hand. Emissions are increasing. The energy policy is a failure, where energy production that could provide cheaper electricity here and now is being stopped, while the government's solution for more nuclear power does not live up to the election promises.

This will be paid for by the Swedish people through more expensive electricity bills, an extra electricity tax, or billion-euro fines from the EU when emissions increase. Now, they are trying to sweep the tracks away from this through number-tricks. It is simply not serious.

Let us calmly state that the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals who hoped that the government power would force the Sweden Democrats to become more normal were unfortunately wrong. Sweden has been forced to endure attacks on free media, attacks on independent agencies, calls for Quran burnings and attempts to intimidate civil society into silence - not to mention the hatred and the threats that daily pour out on social media from troll factories that jump on young people who take a political stand. The hopes were put to shame.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden can do much better than this. The Swedish people deserve better than this. Our country has a strength - an ability to work hard and take Sweden through tough times - but we need a government that stands on the side of the Swedish people, on the side of ordinary people, which sees that the task for politics is to unite, not to divide, and which focuses on giving ordinary people opportunities to live a better life. We need a new direction for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is halfway through the parliamentary term, and Sweden is finally on the right track. It is fantastic. Quite regardless of the description that the Social Democratic party leader gives, it is probably still very many who feel that the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, has delivered or is on its way to delivering on the promises we gave and which made us win the election. That is something I am very proud of, even though I am naturally not satisfied. Even more must be done, and it must be done even faster.

From a social climate that has seen mass immigration, which has seen a lack of requirements and which has seen low punishments as something to strive for, as something that would enrich our country, we have finally begun to move in a more reasonable direction. Sweden now has net emigration for the first time since 1973, even though we simultaneously see a massive asylum pressure in large parts of Europe. We have put requirements, not a lack of requirements, in focus. Sweden shall not be the whole world's social office where it is only possible to grab everything that the welfare offers without any form of counter-performance.

We are now in a situation where the penalties are being tightened. A series of tough measures directly aimed at, above all, serious crime are being implemented. The number of shootings is now down to the lowest level since 2017.

At the same time, we have ensured to facilitate everyday life for ordinary honest people with completely ordinary lives. As promised, we have pushed forward political decisions that have significantly lowered fuel prices. We are removing harmful taxes that hinder companies' competitiveness in order to benefit Swedish households and Swedish growth. We are working so that our children will get back the school that at one time was considered a model for large parts of the world.

The Sweden Democrats are a guarantee that the work for a safer, more cohesive and just Sweden does not stall.

I know that there are many here in the chamber who do not share my and the Sweden Democrats' view of what is fair and solidary, what is morally right and just, and that is actually exactly how it should be. One of the points of us having a democracy and a democratic system is that different opinions should be able to be voiced and clash and collide.

My plea, Mr. Speaker, is that we now, with two years left until the next election, despite our differences of opinion and despite old grievances, can debate in a substantive and respectful manner what is best for our country now and in the future. A political conversation that revolves around derogatory epithets, general bickering, misinterpretations of what the opponent actually thinks, and so on, is not what Sweden needs in this situation, but we—I and everyone else in this assembly—must rise above this. We must put the Swedish people before insults, affronts, and a constant urge to quarrel.

Mr. Speaker! On October 7 last year – it is almost a year ago – Hamas staged one of our time's worst terrorist attacks. It was terrorists who raped and indiscriminately murdered all Israelis who came in their way. Israel, the country that was attacked, has now become a target for various attacks, even from a political standpoint here in Sweden.

When political representatives cross the line by spreading obviously hateful messages and taking a stand for terror and terrorists against a democracy and spreading foul antisemitism, we all here have a responsibility to react and act. I have very strong views on the fact that, for example, the Social Democratic Youth League turns a blind eye when it comes to antisemitic attacks. The same naturally applies to the Left Party, whose representatives repeatedly cross the line I just spoke of and - albeit in different words - gape about the Jews being expelled from their country.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not my job to clean up in other parties, but I am content to state that we all here have a responsibility to stand up for democratic values. This should be so self-evident that every party itself knows what it specifically needs to do. I know, of course, what some here are thinking, and I do not disagree – my party has absolutely not been exempt from this type of problem, not in any way. But we have acted powerfully and resolutely against those who have crossed the line. I assume that all parties in this assembly act in the same way.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a fantastic country, a rich country that has the potential to make people grow, so that they can have children regardless of background, feel good in school and become the best version of themselves. We have a country that can get small business owners with big dreams to reach their goals and where a green folkhem can be created and a strong base and manufacturing industry that can grow all over the world, so that we do not let China and the USA run over us in the competition for the green industry. We could have modern, developed workplaces.

Instead, we have a right-wing nationalist government that is drowning in its own culture wars, in its gaping and its screaming, and which polarizes and constantly pits human against human in fierce, hateful attacks against drag queens, children who have a different skin color, and women who have an opinion. At the same time, they are trying to dismantle and cut back on healthcare, infrastructure, and school – that which previous generations have built up over decades. We have a government that wants to take Sweden away from us, that wants to take our pride away from us. I long for a more normal Sweden, where workers and civil servants have good and decent lives, where we can talk to each other as normal people, and where it is not right-wing extreme Russian accounts that steer the political debate, but meetings between people.

The government has said that it has defeated inflation. Still, food prices are 25 percent higher today than when they promised that the prices of falukorv would go down. People stand every day and wait in cancer queues that only grow and grow and do not get time at the health center, because the government has cut back. We have a Sweden where young people wait for the chance to move out of home but cannot, and where commuters stand and wait for trains that do not come and are affected by commuting lines being shut down. What is the government doing at work? Are they at work? Someone must at least do the job. But this government does not do it.

Sweden could be a much better and safer country to live in. We have one of the world's richest countries, but we have a government that is decommissioning railway lines on a rolling basis and which has caused the construction industry to grind to a halt, despite the fact that the need for housing is crying. And despite the good conditions to transition for the climate, this government has succeeded in increasing emissions during its mandate period.

We could have a safe and resource-rich healthcare system for the sickest patients. We could have the world's best school. But we have a government that succeeds in driving through mass resignations of healthcare staff and teachers. Where are the money going then, Mr. Speaker? Healthcare is important, but it's not all about money, said the Finance Minister. Why doesn't she say this to the venture capitalists who are now to receive a tax cut from the government? Giving more money to those who already have seems to be very easy for the government, but it seems to be very difficult to secure resources to upgrade our common country and create common growth that makes Sweden a better country to live in.

We in the Left Party promise the voters that we will do everything we can to replace this government with a left-wing government. We will build Sweden together with shared growth and shared welfare and with upgrading instead of downsizing, so that Sweden holds together and is not destroyed by enormous economic gaps.

To the government, I want to say: Someone must do the work, and we in the Left Party are ready to do the work. We will roll up our sleeves and tackle the societal problems instead of deepening them, as the government does.

To every child watching this debate, to every nursing assistant, carpenter and childcare worker watching this, to all of you in the stands, I want to say: We see you. You are important. We stand on your side. We will fight day and night for you and your family. You deserve something much better than this – a better life to live.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! As all parents know, it can sometimes be nerve-wracking to head off to school when you are going to have development talks with your children's teachers – or report card meetings, as they were called in my time. There are many questions spinning through your head on the day the report card meeting approaches. How is it actually going during the days? Does my child learn from their mistakes? Does it treat its fellow human beings decently? And not least: Is it the case that the child reaches the goals that have been set and achieves the results we strive for?

Now this government and the Sweden Democrats have governed Sweden for two years. It is high time for them to have a development conversation, but not with me, but with the citizens. I take the liberty of helping the Tidö parties a bit to prepare for this development conversation. I imagine that the Swedish people will ask roughly the same questions as I do: Do they learn from their mistakes? Do they treat their fellow citizens decently? And most importantly: Does the government achieve the results that the Swedish people expect? In other words: Do they solve the societal problems?

And you know—if I were one of them, I would be properly worried and nervous about such a quarterly conversation. As a citizen, I would be thoroughly disappointed. Point by point, the Tidö parties have namely failed to solve just the societal problems. But since I only have five minutes of speaking time, I cannot list all the failures. I choose to focus on three societal problems where the Tidö parties are not managing the solutions.

The first point concerns the jobs. A central driving force for me as a liberal is that those who strive should be able to succeed in life, regardless of where in Sweden they live and how much money their parents have. But with low growth, historically high unemployment, insufficient integration, and a widespread dependency on benefits, it is far too difficult to make life journeys in the Tidö parties' Sweden. Companies, especially small businesses, are absolutely crucial for us to turn this development around. Despite this, no warm liberal job-creating reforms will come that could make a real difference for all those who create work.

This leads me to the government's second great betrayal: the school. A good school is absolutely crucial. It is the most important key for all children to be able to begin their life's journey. But instead of investing in the school, the Tidö parties have allowed closures and layoffs to become commonplace in our Sweden.

Furthermore, one refrains from addressing the injustices that are currently built into the Swedish grading system. Every fifth student today leaves primary school without eligibility for upper secondary school. They are given a one-way ticket straight into exclusion. Every year we fail thousands of young people who, with the same level of knowledge in other European countries, would have been given the chance to move forward, graduate, and step into completely different circumstances in adult life. It is now time to put a stop to the economic crisis in the school, and it is time to change the unjust grading system where every fifth student is shut out from upper secondary school.

The third thing I want to highlight is the climate. The government seems to believe that one needs to set emissions against growth, but that is wrong. Nothing could be more wrong than that. Furthermore, they are failing to deliver on any of the goals.

The truth is that the only way for Sweden to reduce emissions is to both increase growth and make the economy greener. It is precisely within the climate-smart sectors that the jobs, innovation, and companies of the future are located. That is where we can reduce emissions most effectively.

Now it is up to the voters to evaluate the results of the government and the Sweden Democrats. Even though I am very critical of the grade F, I also know how I would grade the government's performance so far.

But unlike Sweden's students, one can get more chances in Rosenbad. Even if one has failed for a year or two, it is not too late to get one's government constellation in order.

I want to conclude with an appeal to the Tidö parties before the quarterly meetings they are to have with the voters: Solve the societal problems, solve the societal problems and solve the societal problems!

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker, dear members of Parliament and viewers! Welcome, all listeners, to the Swedish Parliament!

Sweden is our home, Sweden is our fortress and our common responsibility. Together we build Sweden strong again and prepare it for the future. With more police and through the justice system, we take back safety to our streets. Our membership in Nato strengthens our security.

Now, parental support programs and double days are being introduced for the country's families. Taxes are being lowered for companies and households. Prices at the pump have already dropped significantly, so that all of Sweden can live. We have only just begun. Step by step, it will become both easier and cheaper to be Swedish. We Christian Democrats keep what we promise, and now we are delivering bit by bit.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time lagged behind in the prosperity league. It is obvious that politics has lived quite well on previous generations' investments. The maintenance debt has been allowed to grow ever larger during decades of not least Social Democratic rule.

We cannot let Sweden rot away. It is time to start investing again. It is time for our generation to enter a new construction era, a societal construction that strengthens Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Government is now presenting the largest investment in infrastructure in modern times with an increased framework of 200 million. Congratulations Hallsberg, Vårgårda, Boden, Helsingborg and Ockelbo! Now the entire maintenance debt for roads is being built away.

Now Sweden is being strengthened with the right investments that both provide growth, secure welfare, and create growing companies and more job opportunities for more Swedes. That is how we make Sweden richer, safer, and greener. Sweden is our home and our common responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a country of nation-builders. Over the last hundred years, we have moved from being a relatively poor country, one of Europe's poorest countries, to becoming one of the most prosperous. It is primarily thanks to two things. It is Swedes who work hard and Swedes who are curious and want to overcome difficult problems.

Swedes built 14 nuclear reactors in 15 years and the entire Western Main Line in seven years. Together, we got the economy on its feet and developed the welfare so that people can live and reside in all of Sweden.

Sweden is driven by people who get up every day, go to work, support their families and participate actively in community life. But for it to work, the trains must run on time. We cannot have roads that are full of potholes. Politics must take responsibility for necessary investments that an individual household cannot make.

Mr. Speaker! My party unfortunately was not in the Riksdag in the 70s. It is very sad, but that is how it is. Sometimes we are a bit too bad at thanking the Social Democrats for doing very much good for the industry and nuclear power in the 70s, to mention a few things. But since then, it has slowed down a bit. What the Christian Democrats are now doing for Sverige AB is what the Social Democrats should have done during the eight years they sat in government.

We Christian Democrats have been the first to question that Sweden has an extremely low public debt while the investment needs within both welfare and infrastructure have become ever greater. We have worked hard so that Sweden dares to invest and not just patch and repair. We have held firm when others have held back. Sweden, now we have a result. We have a substantial growth budget that ensures more can feel confidence in the future in this country.

Mr. Speaker! A social construction requires not only the right investments. It also requires the right values. Now we see how parallel societies are spreading. Far too many live under honor oppression in our country.

For a home to function, it is required that there are clear common rules so that everyone can feel at ease at the kitchen table. They do not differ all that much from the rules of the game that must exist in an entire country.

We can call them Swedish values. It is the value of human life, the individual's freedom, equality between men and women and solidarity between people. It is the guarantee for your and my freedom.

We must fight that battle of values every day. It is a battle of values about what kind of country Sweden shall be. We will not back down from it. Sweden is our home. Let us take care of it with both investments and values!

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This autumn will be characterized by both seriousness and anxiety, over climate change, shootings and war, over a restless world and a Sweden that is being torn apart. Our task must then be to meet our time with hope and with faith in the future.

It is a matter of showing, in both words and deeds, that the transition is not only necessary but can also give us the strength to build a stronger and more just society. Unfortunately, the sitting government is totally uninterested in that.

Instead of investing in the green transition, one allows emissions to increase. One opposes the industry's transition. One feeds aviation with money while the railway is crying out for a real upgrade.

One manipulates the figures in order to be able to show emission reductions when one is actually dismantling the climate policy, and one fails to protect both animals and nature.

In the shadow of the government's nuclear power dreams, the expansion of renewable energy is stalling. Most recently, it was the offshore wind farm Kriegers Flak.

One betrays the welfare state. One increases the inequalities. Those who are affected are boys with special needs, a grandmother who cannot get a place in the hospital because there are no beds, and the nurse who cannot take leave. It is a betrayal that will have major consequences for a long time to come, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker! Children are being murdered, and children are murdering. It is a sentence that should never have to be uttered, but it is the reality that we live in today. All around Sweden, children and young people are losing both their present and their future when ruthless adults welcome them into a world of drugs, violence, and black money.

Children as young as eleven are recruited to commit murder. Young people are sentenced to longer terms, but despite that, they are drawn deeper into the criminal gangs. It is a fear that is now growing among children, parents, and entire communities.

It is clear that we need to do significantly more to stop the gangs' rampage and break the new recruitment. Contract killings carried out by child soldiers must never be seen as the new normal.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Now massive efforts are required in the preventive work within all parts of the social services and the justice system. We want to see, among other things, large investments in exit programs and an intensified targeting of young people who are in the risk zone. Those efforts must be both long-term and far-reaching, and when required, also mandatory.

If we are to build a society where no one is left behind, we also need to invest in what is our common - in schools, healthcare and elderly care throughout Sweden, and in a welfare that can be relied upon. Healthcare needs to be given the right conditions so that no one has to get stuck in healthcare queues and so that those who work in healthcare get more colleagues, better working conditions, and more pay.

But this is also not something the government can deliver. Instead of real investments, the government delivers empty words, while the gaps grow in our society. While we, with good wages and good conditions, get yet another job tax deduction, the housing allowances are worsened, and those who already have a lot get more. Yes, some become richer. But Sweden as a country becomes poorer.

Mr. Speaker! Since Hamas's despicable act of terror, Israel has engaged in an unbridled killing, and now the distress in Gaza is as incomprehensible as it is acute. The Swedish government's flabbiness towards Israel is an incomprehensible betrayal. It is possible to work towards stopping all trade with Israel until the day the occupation is lifted, a long-term peace is reached, and the settlements in the West Bank cease. But the government does not do that. At the same time, the rest of the world must, of course, continue to demand that both Hamas and Israel release the hostages and others illegally deprived of their liberty.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden must be an active and clear voice for peace and freedom in the world. This applies both in Palestine and in Europe. Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine continues, and here we must continue to stand strong. Sweden and the EU shall continue to provide Ukraine with the support that is needed, civilly, militarily and economically, for Ukraine's freedom but also for yours and mine.

We need to build a Sweden and an EU where we meet the challenges together, where fear is met with faith in the future and where every human being has both a place and a task. That is how we build a society where freedom is for more people, where climate change and the threat to biodiversity are met with an active and just policy and where we see that the transition is possible. We want a country that is built on security and community, not on mistrust and division - a Sweden to be proud of.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Emma Berginger, Mats Berglund, Linus Lakso, Jan Riise, Elin Söderberg and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) agreed.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Autumn is here, and with schoolbags over their shoulders, hundreds of thousands of students go to their schools, classrooms and hardworking teachers. They are on a personal journey toward knowledge, education and the chance for empowerment over their future.

They have somewhat different circumstances. Instead of a reasonably secure ticket to the broad middle class for all students, the school has all too often become a budget regulator for municipal priorities. Not infrequently, the school has become an ATM for private school charlatans or an experimental workshop for deregulation and various digital TikTok pedagogy. Municipalization, the private school reform, and the NPM dream have eroded what was once the world's best knowledge school.

The Pisa results are unfortunately a confirmation of this. One in four 15-year-olds cannot read or calculate properly. We have ended up here because there are too few rules for the school, and it affects the students, the teachers, and the principals. It affects the future.

The Liberals believe that the school needs to be re-regulated with clear requirements on maximum class sizes, requirements for school books, requirements for school libraries, and so on. Parents and students should be able to expect equal conditions in all Swedish schools. We want a rule-based school again and an end to the experimental workshop.

This is necessary, because in the long run, there is no other and better social policy, fiscal policy, labor market policy, climate policy, or whatever policy you want than a world-class knowledge school. Everything begins in the classroom. That is my starting point in my mission as the new Minister for Education.

A student who does not speak or read Swedish well enough does not keep up with any teaching. The lack of reading comprehension is twice as great among students who do not have Swedish as their mother tongue. At the same time, there are preschools in Sweden where a large part of the staff does not speak sufficiently good Swedish, and it is not uncommon for preschools where children do not naturally get the Swedish language from home. Language poverty is perhaps one of the biggest traps of exclusion.

That is why the Liberals and the government are presenting new language and education initiatives in the autumn budget. It concerns intensive training in Swedish for students who need it and a special language initiative in free school. The same applies to the staff and employees in preschool and in the welfare sector. A mapping of the language skills of those born abroad shall also be carried out.

Sweden has a large integration and education debt that must be paid off. School should be a ticket to the future for all children regardless of background.

As a former football coach, I understand the importance of a good game plan. Ahead of the 2022 election, the Liberals presented ambitious and concrete promises for the knowledge nation Sweden, from primary school to research. It is only with a world-class knowledge school that the country Sweden can become stronger, safer, and wealthier for everyone.

We promised major investments in research, because today's research is the future's prosperity, climate, and security. Therefore, last week, in the new research bill, we could also proudly present a historic investment in research and innovation in the engineering nation Sweden with 6.5 billion kronor more at the end of the period.

We presented new measures to attract experts to the industry's climate work and the rest of the Swedish technological miracle. We promised major investments in real textbooks. Now there are 3 million Lotta Edholm books in Sweden's schools, and more books are on the way.

We promised a complete renovation of the school system. Now, profit caps, a new school funding norm, and sharp school fines are being investigated. We promised study rooms and discipline in the classroom, school social teams, special teachers, and emergency schools. That is how the school can become a calm and safe workplace again.

One should not reveal one's tactics at halftime, but I will do it anyway: the Liberals will continue to put school and education first also in the second half of this parliamentary term. Knowledge and education are the answer to the question of prosperity, freedom, and Sweden's future. It was so yesterday, it is so today, and it is so tomorrow.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On election day two years ago, inflation was in the double digits. That made Sweden poorer. Fiscal policy needed to be restrained so as not to fuel the inflation fire even further.

Now we have defeated inflation, and we are entering a new phase in economic policy. With a focus on future investments and growth reforms, we can build Sweden richer and more secure. Inflation has cost wage earners ten years of real wage increases. Now we strengthen their purchasing power and lighten the tax burden for ordinary Swedes who go to work in the mornings and for everyone who has worked.

Let me give an example. With our policy, a family with a police officer and a nurse will now keep a total of 23,000 kronor more of their salaries this year and next year. It is needed when food and housing have become so much more expensive.

At the same time, we want to encourage those households that invest for the future. Nearly 4 million Swedes save with ISK accounts and contribute to our growing companies. Now we are lowering the tax on savings that the Social Democrats raised several times, because we believe in work, saving, and investments. The first 300,000 kronor will become completely tax-free so that ordinary Swedes can save for a buffer, for their future pension, or for a down payment. That makes Swedes both freer and more secure, and it makes Sweden richer and more successful.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am sure that Ulf Kristersson and I can agree that Swedish healthcare was not perfect during the autumn of 2022, but I wonder if we can also agree that it will not get better by having thousands fewer employees planned in healthcare at the end of the year. It is a result of Ulf Kristersson choosing to lower the tax for himself and other high-income earners rather than investing in healthcare.

In the spring, Ulf Kristersson promised to present a budget that meant no one would be laid off, but the cuts, layoffs, and closures continue. As recently as this summer, Ulf Kristersson looked the Swedish people in the eye and said that there is no healthcare crisis in the country, which well explains that he has now announced that the healthcare crisis is to be worsened next year, despite a reform room of 60 billion kronor.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is: Does Ulf Kristersson still consider that there is no healthcare crisis in Sweden - yes or no?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in yesterday's government statement, Sweden has world-class healthcare, but far too many must wait for too long to receive it. The Social Democrats know this better than most, because the queues almost always grow during their time in power. We have a clear focus on reducing those queues and catching up on what happened during the pandemic when the queues increased for completely different reasons. We have a focus on shorter healthcare guarantees, a focus on the serious cancer diseases, and a focus on a stronger state responsibility for the overall healthcare so that one can have an overview of where in the country there is available capacity and where there is not. We are doing all of this, as is known.

Then I know that there are those who believe that the only thing needed is more money. My answer is now, just as it was in the spring: Money is needed, and money will come. But money is not the only thing. There are other problems as well.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Was it a yes, or was it a no? I think it would be good if Kristersson could clarify.

Money is not everything. However, I have been around health centers, emergency rooms, and hospitals across our country and spoken with very many nursing assistants, nurses, and doctors who say that they face impossible choices every day. Which patient should they prioritize? How are they to succeed working with the conditions they have been given? The inflationary increases that we notice in our wallets are also felt in healthcare.

Money is not everything, but more money is needed. There is also money, Ulf Kristersson, but you use it to lower the taxes for yourselves rather than investing in healthcare. Why is that the right priority? Ulf Kristersson himself says that more money is needed, but why does it then become less money next year? And is it a healthcare crisis – yes or no?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We added great resources during the very hardest time when Swedish healthcare was most plagued by inflation. First, we allocated 16 billion of our total 40 billion to welfare. Then we added an additional 6 billion to healthcare. Then we added another 6 billion to healthcare in a supplementary budget. Now we are adding an additional 3 billion to healthcare.

Healthcare still has a regional ownership. They take their responsibility; the state takes its responsibility. We do exactly what is needed. That the Social Democrats then always want to raise taxes for working people and always believe that politics has greater use for that money than individual people is another matter. There we simply disagree.

I think one should be a bit careful with words. We had a healthcare crisis during the pandemic when every single intensive care bed was occupied. It was a crisis situation. Now we have a good healthcare system with substantial deficiencies, and we are working to remedy precisely those deficiencies.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Ministry of Finance has now submitted a memorandum regarding the expansion of nuclear power and the financing of this. During yesterday's government declaration, it also appeared that Ulf Kristersson intended to proceed with the memorandum. In the memorandum, the Ministry of Finance states that they do not want to judge whether this is public or private activity, but everything indicates that it will be classified as public activity. It is therefore somewhat strange that they do not want to take a stand in the memorandum.

It is noted in the memorandum that if the nuclear power proposal were to be classified as public activity, which everything indicates, it will result in a hole of 90 billion in the state finances. What is the Prime Minister's view on this issue? What does this mean for the state finances? And is it public or private, according to the Prime Minister's view?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must be a bit formal, for good reasons. There is a memorandum. It is referred in the same way as all serious issues in Sweden are prepared. In the memorandum, it is described, on the government's mandate, how a risk-sharing model could look, if we want large, private investments to come into something as incredibly long-term as the next Swedish nuclear power program. Exactly there we are.

We view this generally positively. Almost everyone who understands nuclear power and who has looked at the memorandum also views this positively. But it is being referred because we want to receive serious views on deficiencies, changes, and additions. That is exactly where we stand.

To this, another thing is added. There is a misunderstanding that states and governments can abdicate from energy policy. It simply cannot be done. When we expanded hydropower in Sweden, it was a core state task. No serious industrial country has successfully managed to abdicate from energy policy. Just look at Germany!

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Ulf Kristersson has no opinion on this issue.

Today, right now as we stand here, a framework investigation is being conducted to determine what surplus or deficit the state's finances will have. Is it reasonable for it to make its decision without knowing whether there will be a hole in the state's finances of 90 billion kronor? If the Moderates and the government get what they want with the surplus to the state's finances and proceed with the proposal, it practically means a cut in welfare - in healthcare, school, and elderly care - of 90 billion kronor. I would say that is completely unreasonable, even for a Moderate-led government - and one should know what that means.

So, there will be a deficit of 1 ½ percent in the state's finances if one proceeds with this.

How does the Prime Minister view the fact that there is now an inquiry that is to make decisions on how we are to get the state's finances in order, but which does not know what the nuclear power inquiry's proposals will look like? Is it reasonable that one does not know this when sitting in this inquiry, if it involves 90 billion in cuts?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an investigation of a large, difficult and serious issue being conducted by serious people in the serious manner we normally do in Sweden. That is what it is about – a substantial basis for decision-making in order to be able to share risk in large future investments to secure Swedish energy supply, no more and no less.

Behind this, however, lies something else entirely. You in Vänsterpartiet have for 45 years been involved in causing uncertainty regarding Swedish energy supply. If one intends to phase out Swedish nuclear power, to the extent that one prohibits research into new nuclear power—that alone is a bizarre idea—and does this long enough, it creates uncertainty in the market: Do we dare make long-term investments in energy, or do we not? Now we are repairing this damage that you have caused to the Swedish energy supply.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the 2022 election campaign, the Moderaterna used a poster with the following words: Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make the government unemployed.

Two years have now passed. Sweden still has the fourth highest unemployment in the EU. But that is not enough; unemployment has also increased by one percentage point, while it has remained steady in the rest of the EU. The government blames inflation. But it has fallen just as quickly in the rest of the EU as in Sweden.

I therefore have a simple question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his party's election slogan, that Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make the government unemployed?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, if one does nothing about it.

Why does the leader of the Center Party believe that we are dealing so incredibly much with the work line, with integration policy, and with the fact that people in Sweden should be able to speak the Swedish language, educate themselves for and move into the jobs that exist? We also remove labor immigration where it is not needed because there are people in Sweden who can take those jobs. It is those kinds of reforms we are dealing with to ensure that people who could work today but do not come into the labor market.

Everyone in Sweden knows that this is to an extremely high degree an integration problem based on unreasonably large immigration over an unreasonably long period. Add to this the unemployment that always increases during a recession in all countries. We will be able to solve that when the economy turns. The integration debt is not solved automatically unless one dares to implement really large reforms.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! We look out over the world, and we look out over Europe. We see that the inflation rate is falling in both Europe and the USA. Unemployment figures in the EU have, even during a difficult economic period, remained steady. But in Sweden, they have risen. This has occurred after the 2022 election, under the Tidö government's responsibility.

I want to continue talking about what this means. Thousands of children will therefore not see their parents go to work in the morning. It is parents who are forced to pause football practices because they cannot afford it, and who go to bed with a lump in their stomach at night because they do not know how they can fill the refrigerator for the rest of the month.

The liberal warm reforms are conspicuous by their absence in the government's policy. I am therefore entirely inclined to agree with the Prime Minister. Europe's fourth highest unemployment should make a government unemployed.

Now we stand here halfway through the parliamentary term. Will there be any powerful, warm liberal reforms for job creation?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one does not understand where the problem comes from, one can never become part of the solution. I understand that the Center Party refuses to discuss the completely decisive role of immigration and integration in the high Swedish unemployment among people who have come to Sweden. You are, in fact, part of the problem, Muharrem Demirok. If one does not understand that, one cannot solve it.

What we are doing now is taking exactly the reforms that are needed. We are reducing immigration to the lowest level since 1997. We are overhauling our entire integration system, from a lack of requirements to imposing requirements. We expect people who are in Sweden to learn Swedish and to take the jobs that exist and move to where the jobs are.

The counter-question is the opposite. Do you intend to contribute to reducing immigration to Sweden, or do you want to return to increasing immigration to Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy is not for the sake of the climate. It is ultimately about protecting people, nature, and our societies from the consequences of climate change.

The Prime Minister speaks of the government having made a realignment of the climate policy. But halfway through the mandate period, we now see the result. It is a policy that is being criticized by the Climate Policy Council, the Fiscal Policy Council, heavy industry representatives, and researchers. Authorities state that Sweden is missing all national climate goals, and the EU Commission assesses that Sweden is missing the climate goals even at the EU level.

So yes, it is a reorganization. It is a reorganization towards higher emissions and towards increased fossil dependency.

The Prime Minister speaks a lot about electrification as a solution to the climate transition. But the Prime Minister's policy de facto slows down electrification. The Government has abolished the electric car bonus. And they are spending 17 billion on making fossil fuels cheaper.

My question is: Does the Prime Minister believe that one increases the pace of electrification by making electric cars more expensive and fossil cars cheaper?

(Applause)

In this speech, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (both MP) concurred.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to welcome Amanda Lind to the party group debates and to the party group circle. We will have many rewarding debates with each other and sometimes perhaps even conversations.

I do not agree at all with the description of what has happened. However, it is true that we have restructured the climate policy in two ways. One is that we are now pursuing a European climate policy. It is the European, common policy – negotiated not least during the Swedish presidency – that is the basis for all European countries transitioning. If one does not understand that, individual countries can do almost anything without it becoming a common benefit. The European climate policy now forms the basis for the Swedish climate policy. That is very good.

The second major shift is that we have pivoted regarding the idea that reduction obligations and violently high gasoline and diesel prices should be the major solution to international climate problems. It was misguided from the start, misguided for Swedish households, and misguided for the climate. Yes, we have pivoted that policy.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson's government has systematically misled on the climate issue. The Climate Policy Council has stated that the government's climate claims lack objectivity and are misleading.

The government is simply not managing to reach the goal of reducing emissions. You have used a shameful numerical exercise and made unrealistic assumptions, and through loopholes in the framework, you achieve a kind of chimera, as if you are meeting the ESR goal, i.e., the goal for the transport sector. In one fell swoop, you will burn up the entire buffer for emissions that we created with our policy.

Again: If electrification is the Moderates' solution, why is electric car sales decreasing? Why is our largest car group, Volvo, scrapping its electrification goal? The truth is that the Prime Minister is pouring tax money into fossil fuels and locking households into a very vulnerable fossil dependency.

You are removing support for electric cars, you are slowing down new cheap electricity production, and you speak of a hypothetical electric car bonus that you are allocating 10 million to next year. Where are your reforms, Prime Minister?

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That expensive electrified vehicles sell a bit more slowly in a recession is no new economic insight. It happens in Sweden, and it happens in all countries. Most car manufacturers have been forced to revise their plans on that point.

One reason why growth is so good, that more people should work and that more people should have good household finances, is that it would stimulate more people to buy expensive electric cars. That is one thing.

I have great respect for the Climate Policy Council. But - with all due respect - all governments have received criticism from the Climate Policy Council. Different assessments can be made of things and circumstances. We stand by our policy.

The third is that with the EU's new climate policy in place and the right to also use public charging infrastructure, with electricity produced fossil-free, in the reduction obligation, we can adjust the reduction obligation upwards and lower the price of gasoline and diesel, so that the price at the pump remains the same and we can meet the Swedish ESR commitments. That is good policy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a fantastic country, and our society is created by us together.

It also means that the social problems we face, yes, we can solve them if we prioritize correctly – such as by supporting families with children so that ordinary Swedes who work hard can live a good life instead of prioritizing tax cuts for high-income earners, and by giving the healthcare system the resources required for the queues to become shorter and the working environment better. We might finance it with a bank tax.

Of course we shall continue to tighten the penalties and hire more police officers, but we must also ensure that we invest the resources required so that we can stop the new recruitment of young boys into the gangs and investigate a Swedish RICO legislation so that we can reach the top leaders.

We must address market failures in schools so that children's knowledge takes center stage and invest in what makes Sweden wealthy so that we can push back unemployment and increase growth.

And it is time to make the Swedish voice clearer towards the rest of the world. For a small country like Sweden, international [relations/policy] is absolutely crucial, for our security and for the safety of the Swedish people.

A Swedish government must therefore always stand up for international law, every day and regardless of where in the world - so also in the Middle East. And according to international law, one has an obligation to protect civilians. This applies to both hostages and civilian Gazans. Sweden must also stand up for a two-state solution, not as an idea in theory but in practice, for it is the only way for both Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live in peace and freedom.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech and as several others have pointed out here, we in Sweden today again have very large problems with antisemitism. This problem also exists within Swedish politics. Within several of the Riksdag's parties, this problem exists. Not least within Magdalena Andersson's presumed intended government base does this sort of problem exist, which has manifested in various forms not least since October 7 last year.

This is something that concerns me greatly, Mr. Speaker, for several reasons. I am genuinely interested in how Magdalena Andersson views this and, above all, whether Magdalena Andersson is prepared to form governments with parties that are unable to hold the line against antisemitism.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is no room for antisemitism anywhere in Swedish society or in any party - not in my own party, not in the Left Party, not in the Moderates, and of course not among the Sweden Democrats either.

I welcome Jimmie Åkesson's ambition to clean out antisemitism from Swedish politics. Jimmie Åkesson could perhaps start by not having a person who believes that Jews cannot be Swedish as the chairman of the Swedish OSCE delegation, which, among other things, works on securing minorities' rights. Or Jimmie Åkesson could perhaps, when we leave this debate, go up to his troll factory, funded with taxpayers' money, and ask them to take Christmas leave already so that we can avoid seeing them spread white supremacy propaganda.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When I went to daycare very many years ago, there were some children there, and it sounded roughly like this: "Well, what about you! The one who said it could be it" and so on.

This is actually a genuine interest, as I said. I am actually genuinely interested in how Magdalena Andersson views the occurrence of antisemitism within her own party, not least the problems that one has in its own youth wing, but also and above all how she views forming governments with a party that, primarily over the last year but also during the summer on several occasions, has exhibited major problems with just antisemitism in the party and at least until now has not acted against it.

I said in my speech here that I too have had problems in my party. The difference is that we have addressed those problems and kicked people out, because there is no place for such things. But please, Magdalena Andersson can surely answer the question I asked, because I believe the Swedish people deserve that answer.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am very clear: There is no room for antisemitism in any party - not in my own party, not in the Left Party, but also not among the Sweden Democrats.

The truth is not that you are throwing people out. The truth is that you are giving them fine services here in the Riksdag, which, moreover, the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals are also helping to vote through. We have talked about the chair of the Swedish OSCE delegation, but we can also talk about the chair of the Justice Committee who spreads far-right conspiracy theories also spread by Nazis.

If Jimmie Åkesson wants to seriously clean out his own party, welcome! But before Jimmie Åkesson does that, this exercise will be a bit like the pyromaniac asking me to improve the fire protection.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! "Tax on savings in Investeringssparkonto (ISK)" and "ISK shall be significantly restricted" – these are quotes from the Social Democrats' own working group, led by Finance Minister Magdalena Andersson. These were not just empty threats. During her eight years, Magdalena Andersson raised the tax on ISK several times. It matters who is in government.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are lowering the tax on ISK. More people will be able to save for a buffer, for their own pension, or for their first down payment.

I believe nearly 4 million ISK savers are curious about the answer. Do the Social Democrats now, as the government, want to lower the tax on ISK savings? Or do you still want ISK to be heavily restricted?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The proposal on ceilings came from a working group within the Social Democrats. It is not a proposal that we have moved forward, so there Ulf Kristersson has an answer to that question.

On the other hand, we think that ISK savings is a good form of saving. It makes it easier for ordinary wage earners to set aside for their pension or save for the future and unforeseen expenses that may arise. Therefore, we have also preserved ISK savings during our years in government.

Then one can always discuss exactly what the tax rate should be. It is a tax-advantaged saving, i.e., lower tax on this than if one works. The question is how much lower the tax should be on saving compared to if one works as, for example, a nursing assistant.

Above all, perhaps the question regarding the government's proposal is how much of the billions one spends on this de facto goes to those who have very large savings and often are very wealthy individuals. The question is how much we should tax-favor the wealthy in relation to the nursing assistant who is a single parent and cannot afford to set aside money in an ISK.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the 4 million ISK savers should draw the safer conclusion that with the Social Democrats, there is a significant risk that taxes will be raised again. This working group, which was only a working group, was, as is known, led by the then Finance Minister himself, so it was perhaps not a direct hit.

As we have also heard in the debate here today, there is in principle not a single tax that should not be raised rather than lowered, this so that the Social Democrats can get more money to spend in politics while people themselves get less money to save or consume.

We believe, on the contrary, in actively promoting thrift, work, and perseverance. People should be able to take greater responsibility themselves and have greater rights to dispose of their own finances, not least when it comes to long-term savings that lead to investments. This is what builds a better Sweden.

I trust that the Social Democrats will always want to raise taxes.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We think that ISK is a good way to save, and that is why we have maintained it with generous conditions.

Yes, one can trust that we Social Democrats believe that the very richest can contribute a bit more to our society. In a situation where ten years of real wage increases have been erased, when we were given figures this week on how families with children are being evicted, when more and more people end up with the Enforcement Authority and long queues have formed outside help centers, then we think that the very richest can contribute a bit more.

We think that one can raise the tax for those who earn the most, and we think that one can raise the tax on banks that are currently making excess profits on our mortgage loans so that we can strengthen those who have it toughest, so that we can ensure that there is good cancer care for everyone and so that we can ensure that children learn what they need in school.

That is where the conflict lies in Swedish politics; it is entirely correct. We want to benefit ordinary people, while the Moderaterna favor high-income earners.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is an enormous injustice that is currently dividing our country. In Sweden's sparsely populated areas and rural regions, the tax burden is the highest, but there, healthcare, school, and care function the worst.

We have seen how the Tidö parties in that situation turn their backs on the countryside, and they want to centralize more and more of schools and healthcare. But let us be honest: Even the Social Democrats have had a history of centralizing, unfortunately all too often at the countryside's expense.

I therefore have a simple question for Magdalena Andersson: When the Tidö parties now present rural-hostile proposals to replace the regions with a state healthcare colossus and nationalize the school, will the Social Democrats then say no to this? Will Magdalena Andersson say no to moving more power from the countryside to Stockholm?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by thanking Muharrem Demirok, who raises an extremely important issue. The government's rural-hostile policy hits hard all over Sweden. The economic crisis has been spent on protecting high-income earners from inflation, while elderly care, schools, and healthcare all around our country are being brought to their knees. They have also specifically removed initiatives to protect the municipalities that have the toughest conditions, often with a high municipal tax and a far from sufficiently good service. The system that is built around this actually disadvantages rural municipalities in a way that we must do something about.

I want to do more so that we have an equal healthcare and school system all around the country. Decentralization is not the answer to that, however. Instead, we need state governance, but it requires a solidary and equal funding.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Magdalena Andersson for that answer and believe she is sincere when she says that she does not want to see these types of centralizations. But with the history that exists and that it has often come at the expense of the countryside, we still need to raise this once more.

There is currently a centralization craze sweeping the country that withdraws local conditions and creates an unequal welfare across the country. There are no simple universal solutions, and no matter how many times we hear the government's representatives say that the regions must be abolished, there must be other answers.

In that context, I would like to hear Magdalena Andersson's answer regarding precisely this centralization craze, and it does not only concern the nationalization of the school. Is Magdalena Andersson prepared to join forces with those who say no, stop - the power shall not be moved from the country to Stockholm?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate Muharrem Demirok's and the Center Party's genuine commitment to rural and countryside issues and to ensuring that one can not only live but also see a growing society regardless of where in Sweden one is.

We worked hard during our years in the Government Offices to move just government jobs out from our large cities to Sweden's less populated regions. I think it is a correct policy and a policy that also needs to continue.

This government is very Stockholm-focused. We saw it most recently yesterday when two more cabinet ministers from Stockholm were appointed. There is a clear lack of rural focus in the government's policy.

Here there is something where we can join forces and continue to develop a policy to ensure that all of Sweden can not only live but also grow and flourish.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have on several occasions encountered Magdalena Andersson in debates where, instead of an answer on the merits, I have received a witty retort - such as when I, admittedly quite upset, asked Magdalena Andersson what her answer was regarding the justice policy and to all those who are forced to bury their murdered children as a result of gang conflicts. Then I received a witty answer regarding low-affective response.

Now we get yet another witty answer regarding pyromaniacs and improved fire protection, but we get no answer to the question of what Magdalena Andersson intends to do about the antisemitism in her own government base. Witty remarks are no longer sufficient. They are not sufficient as an answer to mothers who are forced to bury their murdered children, and they are not sufficient as an answer regarding antisemitism.

Extinguish the anti-Semitic fire in the government base, Magdalena Andersson! How can the party leader allow this from the Socialdemokraterna?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The answer regarding low-affective response was what Ebba Busch received after she shouted at me in a party leadership debate before the 2022 election. As long as Ebba Busch does not shout, she naturally receives answers to her questions. I appreciate that the tone is different this time.

(Applause)

In my response to Jimmie Åkesson, I was clear that I do not accept antisemitism, regardless of where it appears. It has no place anywhere in Sweden. I can, however, state that Ebba Busch seems to have higher expectations of my leadership and what I should do than she has of Ulf Kristersson's leadership and what he is able to do when these problems arise in the Sverigedemokraterna. I take it as a compliment.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a Prime Minister who cleans out and keeps things clean. I have a party board colleague, Jimmie Åkesson, who is an excellent advisor and can certainly be of good help to Magdalena Andersson when it comes to cleaning out and marking when people actually need to leave a party.

I have no problem with emotions in politics. I stand by the fact that I was upset and even raised my voice when it came to the fact that nothing was being done to reverse the crime that forces far too many mothers to bury their children in this country. It requires more than clever retorts. It requires answers on the merits.

In the same way, I have no problem with tears in this speaker's chair, but not in defense of someone who has hugged a Hamas financier. In that case, it took half a year before Magdalena Andersson cleaned house in her own party. Is it now going to require another half year for Magdalena Andersson to clean house and demand that Vänsterpartiet clears out the antisemitism? Antisemitism is burning in Magdalena Andersson's government base. Put out that fire!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding children who are murdered and murder, I can mention that we have just received figures showing a 200 percent increase in the number of children under 15 who are involved in murder cases, so with Ebba Busch's logic, I should be standing and shouting at her right now. I do not, however, intend to do that.

But if Ebba Busch is even serious about what she says, it becomes strange when one considers that the Christian Democrats have sat here in the chamber and voted in a person who believes that Jews can never become Swedes as chairperson of Sweden's OSCE delegation. One has voted in a person who spreads old Nazi conspiracy theories about population exchange as chairperson of Sweden's Justice Committee. The world is, so to speak, a bit upside down.

But I am clear: There is no room for antisemitism anywhere in Sweden or in any party.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I would speak about whether there is room for logic and physics in energy policy. The Social Democrats were once a driving force in planning for 24 nuclear reactors. This happened at the same time as they invested in hydropower. It became twelve reactors, and then some of them were dismantled and six remained.

Now we are working so that with a Swedish nuclear power program there will be more new reactors, because it is necessary. Alongside hydropower, wind power and solar power, this crucial base power was needed. But it is said that from the Social Democrats' side, there has been an intention to stop the risk-sharing model that has been crucial for the emergence of all important types of power in Sweden. Why is it intended to stop this investment, this risk-sharing model that is now under investigation and on referral?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The problem for the government right now is that their energy policy has, in practice, collapsed. The promises made in the election to quickly expand more cheap electricity have come to nothing. The large offshore wind farms that were supposed to quickly provide, among other places, Skåne with cheap electricity are now coming to nothing, while the election promise that nuclear power would become cheap has failed to meet the light of reality.

We Social Democrats are prepared to contribute constructively to securing Sweden's future energy supply. That is why we have said that we need a new broad energy agreement in Sweden where we start from how we can long-term secure the Swedish electricity supply in the cheapest way possible. For unfortunately, this has not been the government's starting point. From the beginning, they have locked themselves into the position that ten new nuclear reactors shall be built, despite the assessment that this could cost the taxpayers 100 billion per year for 35 years.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! That is a bit of false mathematics. We are making a multitude of investments in infrastructure and in education, but we also need to make investments in this important baseload so that it can serve Sweden well in the future. Electrification requires that we get more of this baseload, because wind dependency is not of the same value and the same weight for us to manage to electrify all of Sweden as quickly as we need. And this does not only concern Skåne but all of Sweden.

In order for us to be able to meet the needs ahead of us and phase out the old and phase in the new, new nuclear power must be built. That was a promise from the Liberals.

The Social Democrats are now saying that they are prepared to look at this. But why do you want to stop investments in new nuclear power? Your government alternative is as tangled as a packet of spaghetti that has been dropped from the Kaknästornet.

The latter was a metaphor.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder mostly whether the spaghetti was cooked or uncooked.

But the problem with the government's policy is that it has started in the wrong direction. It has started by saying that we are to have ten new nuclear reactors, whatever it costs the taxpayers. Then it is pushed through.

Furthermore, one is in a very poor negotiating position because this is about political prestige. It risks becoming incredibly expensive for Swedish taxpayers - 100 billion a year for 35 years - and one also risks that the tax funds are exported to Germany. Our tax money will thus end up in Germany. I think that is bad.

I want us to start at the other end and see how we can ensure a long-term, secure electricity supply with sun, wind, and water, and of course, nuclear power will also be a part of the Swedish energy supply. But how do we create a system as cheaply as possible for the Swedish people? You have currently locked yourselves into a solution that risks becoming very expensive. Therefore, I say that we perhaps need to think about the Swedish people's tax money as well.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot quite let go of the exchanges we had just a moment ago. I must nevertheless regret that the opposition leader and potential Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson does not take this with antisemitism in the own government basis and in the own ranks seriously. One can handle issues in different ways. It is clear that one can joke this away, throw it back and so on, but it is not particularly constructive.

Do we want a government where those types of values exist? It is reasonable that the person who is to be Prime Minister in such a government also accounts for her view on this and whether she thinks it should be that way.

Magdalena Andersson says that there is no room for antisemitism in either Sweden or the political parties. That is very good. It is very welcome. But there is a difference between words and actions. One must also show in action that one means business. This is what I, and Ebba Busch for that part, asked Magdalena Andersson to do here. But Magdalena Andersson refuses to do it. She just continues to talk without any substance behind it.

In Magdalena Andersson's description of reality in her speeches and in the exchanges of remarks, it sounds as if everything is a complete catastrophe in our country. Everything is a total catastrophe. It is a rather bizarre description of reality, I would like to say. Sure, very much is bad and we continue to have major problems in the country, but Sweden is on the right track now. We are on the right track when it comes to the gigantic problems that previous governments have created.

I am, Mr. Speaker, very happy and very proud to belong to the side of politics that continues to want to take Sweden in just the right direction.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Many who voted for Jimmie Åkesson probably believed that he would stand up for ordinary wage earners. But food prices have increased faster in Sweden than in other countries. The debts at the Enforcement Authority are growing, and just the other day we received information that the number of evictions of families with children is increasing.

Now Åkesson has placed three budgets on the Riksdag's table. He has refused to introduce a bank tax despite the banks making record profits. He has introduced an expensive luxury-root and plans an elite bonus for Moderate donors. But he refuses to raise the child allowance despite it having been eroded by more than 200 kronor in recent years. He lowers the tax for himself and other high-income earners by 25,000 kronor while simultaneously saving on the housing supplement for families who have the smallest margins.

I wonder, Jimmie Åkesson: In what way is it a well-balanced priority to lower the tax for yourself by 25,000 kronor but save on the most vulnerable families with children?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind who it was that abolished the defense tax – I just want to have it said.

Ordinary earners, says Magdalena Andersson. Ordinary earners in Sweden - it is about ordinary households with completely ordinary people with completely ordinary incomes - have been incredibly burdened for a very long time, for various reasons. They have been, not least during and because of the pandemic and thereafter because of different types of problems, not least inflation.

Magdalena Andersson, who is an economist, should understand what inflation means for the public economy and what must be done, what can be done, what absolutely must not be done, and so on.

What we have done so far - it has been two years with this government basis - is that we have facilitated things for ordinary wage earners through tax reliefs. We have seen to fighting inflation and making it easier for ordinary wage earners through significantly lowered fuel prices. It is precisely such things that we promised in the election. I am very proud that we have done this. Then, of course, much remains to be done. We are not finished yet.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson can take the defense spending discussion with Johan Pehrson. This was a prerequisite for the Liberals to support Stefan Löfven. We would get a government after very tough negotiations.

But the question is: Why does it continue, if Jimmie Åkesson questions the wealth tax specifically? Why should there also be a luxury-tax for high-income earners, and why should this elite bonus be given to those who donate large sums of money to the Moderaterna?

Above all, I would very much like to have an answer to a question. Now that you have 60 billion in reform space and are lowering the tax for yourselves and other high-income earners by 25,000 kronor, I wonder: Why do you choose to simultaneously save on the housing supplement for the most vulnerable families with children? Why is that a correct prioritization?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! This is going to be a strange thing. It is a former Minister for Finance and Prime Minister who does not want to take responsibility for the policy that she herself pushed through - as Minister for Finance and later as Prime Minister. She refers to a completely different party. It becomes very strange. Furthermore, it is a party that did not sit in government.

One must, after all, take responsibility for the policy that one pushes through, just as I am forced to take responsibility for a policy that we are now pushing through together with the government, even though I might – if I were allowed to decide everything myself – make partially different priorities. It is not strange, because we have the parliamentary situation that we have.

We now, finally, have a government basis that actually wants to go in the same direction when it comes to the important and decisive issues that the 2022 election was about and which gave us the shift in power in Sweden. We fight crime. We make it easier for ordinary people to manage their everyday lives, and we ensure that we supply Sweden with energy also in the long term, despite that previous governments have decommissioned large and vital parts of our energy system. That and much more is what we focus on, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! What a fantastic exchange! It means that the Sweden Democrats will now push for a defense tax. Otherwise, the Social Democrats will introduce it. That is good news.

The Sweden Democrats ensured that the investigation into removing the quarantine day for Sweden's wage earners was abolished and removed. The Left Party has pushed for us to actually remove the quarantine day, but this has been stopped by the Sweden Democrats.

They also changed the investigators in the second health insurance investigation. It was supposed to be about improving the health insurance. But this spring, proposals were submitted for substantial cuts in the health insurance. They have received a lot of strong criticism after the Sverigedemokraterna replaced the investigators. In practice, this means a return to the old health insurance, where those severely ill with cancer are disqualified without receiving rehabilitation and are forced to seek sham jobs. Will Jimmie Åkesson stop this proposal or push it through?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We will not contribute to any deteriorations regarding health insurance. It was a very important election promise for us, and we stand by it.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! That was good news – thank you! So, an investigation into the abolition of the karens day will be appointed. That is a message that comes here from Jimmie Åkesson. All of Sweden's workers have heard it. We now look forward to it, so that we can sleep well at night and so that Swedish workers do not have to pay for becoming ill.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now, that was not what I said, but I said that I will not contribute to any deteriorations regarding the health insurance. That does not necessarily mean that we will carry out a lot of other changes to the health insurance.

I believe very strongly in the common welfare. I believe very strongly in our common systems. I think this is one of the most fantastic things about our country.

This is how I see my role and the Sverigedemokraternas role: In a constellation where parties with a traditional right-wing profile in economic policy possibly want to implement deteriorations, I see it as my task to ensure that those deteriorations are at least not implemented. If I can push it that far, I am still very proud, because we can at the same time do many other good things together in this government basis.

I cannot promise Nooshi Dadgostar that we will remove the care day. I will not promise that.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! This summer, Jimmie Åkesson proudly stated that the Sweden Democrats would become Sweden's new school party. I genuinely welcome that. More people engaging for Sweden's students is exactly what is needed. But I am afraid that this was forgotten after the summer, because nothing has happened.

One cannot overstate Jimmie Åkesson's influence on this government and the power he possesses over the decisions that are made. The government does what Jimmie Åkesson tells it to do. But regarding one of the countryside's greatest challenges, the school crisis that is currently prevailing, he is silent. And when Åkesson does not care, the government does not care either.

My question is: Why has Sweden's new school and rural party not prioritized school issues in the budget that is now being laid, or over all at all during this mandate period? Will Jimmie Åkesson use his power in the government to act?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am the first to sign on to the fact that the school issue, or educational issues in general, has been neglected in Swedish debate. We have for decades, I would like to assert, focused one hundred percent on who owns and runs schools rather than on the content we fill the schools with. Much of this has resulted in that we today have insecure schools, knowledge gaps, and a number of other problems that we need to address.

I think that Muharrem Demirok and, for that matter, also others who are passionate about school issues should welcome the fact that more parties are now raising these issues higher on the agenda. That is precisely what I have done during the summer. My ambition, naturally, is not to fail to fulfill that.

Nothing has happened – no, the Riksdag opened yesterday, so it hasn't had time to happen that much in this area, except that we have actually received a new Minister for Education. This could be interpreted as the government wanting to take up the fight with the fourth party in the government base over who should own the school issue, what do I know. They have to answer that themselves, but it could be interpreted that way.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' tactic is certainly interesting: to say "we are the new rural party" or "we are the new school party" and then do nothing, forget about it, and move on. That is exactly what has happened.

The Riksdag may have opened yesterday - we were at the Opera and all enjoyed it - but very much has still happened since the summer. A budget has been negotiated, and we have seen amounts of things. We heard a government statement read out where the school issue was given enormously little space. That is where we stand, Jimmie Åkesson.

It is time for Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna to now start living up to the fine labels you wear and actually exercise the power you have over the government when it comes to raising this issue. My appeal to Jimmie Åkesson is therefore: Do not forget the students and teachers in the countryside!

The government is doing what the Sweden Democrats tell them to do, and now it is up to them to prove it. If you are the new school party, highlight the greatest school crisis for the Swedish countryside, which it is currently experiencing! The school closures are sweeping across Sweden like a tidal wave. Will Jimmie Åkesson stop them or not?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! These are quite scattered gusts here: rural policy and school policy. Then they are connected in different ways, and they are. The school is fundamentally a municipal issue; it is in the municipalities that the priorities for the school and so on are driven. It is absolutely correct that they are connected.

When it comes to the countryside, we do not conduct Center Party rural policy, thank goodness. That policy has been driven by previous governments, and we saw how it turned out, with for example sharply increased fuel prices for people who live in the countryside, where the car is perhaps the single most important tool of freedom that ordinary, honest people have. In that regard, the Center Party has contributed to making things difficult for ordinary people. Now we are rectifying this; we are lowering fuel prices significantly.

I can promise Muharrem Demirok that I will continue to nag about the school, both on a concrete and a principled level, all the way until the next election and also thereafter during the coming mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The other day, the government and the Sweden Democrats announced that they choose to first scale back and then terminate the temporary supplement to the housing allowance. At first, one could almost misunderstand the government's news as being about an investment, but it is in fact about a reduction and a hard blow against many families with children who live on the economic margin. These are families where every hundred kronor matters and can be decisive for whether they can manage food, rent, and activities for the children every month.

My question is therefore whether this is a policy that Jimmie Åkesson stands behind. Do the Sweden Democrats think it is a good political priority to phase out and remove the temporary housing allowance? This is an allowance that you in the Sweden Democrats have pushed for, and in the previous budget, you thought it was important that it remained.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is exactly as it is described here: Very many in Sweden have fared worse and have had it tough for various reasons, not least in recent years. Even though we are now in the process of winning, or perhaps even have won, the fight against inflation, we are still in a recession and in a situation where it will continue to be economically tough. The politicians now finally have the opportunity to get the economy moving, and that is what will happen moving forward. The budget that will be presented in this chamber shortly will also aim for this.

When it comes to individual issues regarding housing supplements, housing grants and the like, it is clear that it is important that even the poorest families can afford what they need. But a temporary supplementary grant is reasonably just temporary and no permanent solution. The reasonable thing is that we instead find a permanent solution so that more people can have it better.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As Jimmie Åkesson notes, we are still in a tough economic situation. To then do as the government and withdraw the support for those who have it the toughest and instead invest in those who have [it easier] is completely incomprehensible.

Over one hundred thousand families with children are estimated to be able to participate in the supplementary grant today. It is one hundred thousand families that the Sverigedemokraterna and the Tidö government are now playing an incredibly high game with. Even though the government says that things are now turning around and the economy is improving, that does not apply to this group. It is a group that often lives in rented housing and will not be affected by the interest rate cuts - it is nothing that is noticed in their wallets. With the government's policy, we now risk having even more families being evicted. The Swedish Enforcement Authority's statistics are difficult to look at, and they should be even for the government and the Sverigedemokraterna; child evictions increased by 13 percent last year.

My question is how Jimmie Åkesson views the fact that the Sverigedemokraterna are involved in and contributing to a policy that increases inequalities, when we instead should be building our country stronger and supporting those who have it toughest.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If certain individual measures are taken in times of, for example, inflation, it is reasonable that one does not continue with those measures when the inflation rate is no longer as high.

I do not, however, buy Amanda Lind's description here. What I know is that there are many who own rental apartments that also have loans. It is clear that this also has an impact, just as it affects the person who lives in their own housing. That is a strange view of how things look in society in general.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is most crucial now that we get the economy moving, that we fight unemployment so that even those who are having a tough time today get the opportunity to go to work, and that we ensure that this country becomes safe and cohesive again. And this is what our budget aims for.

Not everyone can always get everything. Even if the Green Party's logic looks that way, it is not so in reality.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There was a bit of a school fight here just now between the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party - I welcome that. More people should talk about the school. Everyone in here should actually talk about the school all the time.

We have very large challenges as a result of the extensive deregulation. The biggest was the somewhat odd municipalization of this important activity. There we are in complete agreement: It should be a state responsibility to ensure that we have good schools throughout the country. Then another deregulation occurred, and free schools arrived. There was a huge rush towards new public management with dreams that this would solve itself without regulations. Now we are in the process of re-regulating.

Jimmie Åkesson said in Almedalen that he does not care so much about who runs the schools. I think that this regarding the countryside is completely central; many independent schools are there and are run in a completely different way than large corporations. Does Jimmie Åkesson stand by that it does not matter who runs the schools, or will he back us now when we demand strong regulations, profit stops, and measures against charlatans?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are, I believe, in principle completely in agreement even regarding that matter. What I mean, and also said just a moment ago, is that the question of operating model and ownership has lain like a wet blanket over the school debate for 30 years, ever since Johan Pehrson's party once upon a time pushed to implement the deregulation.

It is this that I want to move away from, and we do so with the help of the measures that, among others, Johan Pehrson and the government he belongs to, in cooperation with us, are planning. Then we can finally start talking about the content in school instead. We create order and clarity, raise the status of teachers, ensure that those who go to school are safe, and so on. If we can start focusing on that instead, I am satisfied.

I am absolutely convinced that I, Johan Pehrson and Liberalerna, can do a good job together to realize this.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Good! That sounds hopeful.

Another important part in this is that free schools are possible if there is a rock-solid regulation. But what followed was a deregulation with new-public-management-voodoo-voodoo, and it did not turn out very well.

A decisive part has been the lack of transparency in schools, and it is an issue we are now discussing intensively. For the Liberals, it is central that we should maximize transparency in Swedish schools and in the schools that are operated as limited companies, to ensure that we keep track of what the money is spent on and that the resources go to students, teachers, and everything around that makes the school function. It is not just a question of students and teachers, but there are also other important support measures - student health, libraries, and so on.

How does Jimmie Åkesson view the transparency?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am not sure that we should negotiate the details of this here in the chamber.

(JOHAN PEHRSON (L): No one shall say anything.)

It is reasonable.

At the core, we agree. Then, Johan Pehrson is aware that there are different approaches and different ways of looking at these issues. There are different difficulties because it concerns limited companies and other legislation that comes into play.

I am confident that we will find a reasonable solution to this as well, without taking the negotiations into the chamber of the Riksdag. We can handle those elsewhere.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is so much we could do to change and make things better in Sweden. When the large green investments are not made, we lose competitiveness. Sweden could be the world's best country for the establishment of new green industries with reliable transport, cheap electricity, and good housing for everyone to live in. But instead, the government is now shutting down train traffic and cutting back on maintenance. The government pretends that people will move to the jobs, but there are no homes to move to.

Just last week, the number of unemployed people increased by approximately 2,000. We have not had such high unemployment in ten years - the pandemic excepted - and we can therefore understand why Johan Pehrson was given a new ministerial portfolio yesterday. We cannot have a Minister for Employment who sleeps on the job while unemployment stands at 8.3 percent. It is hardly an example to follow.

This year, the government is spending 120 times more on tax cuts than on preventive work against gang crime in the municipalities. The teachers, psychologists, and student assistants who are supposed to meet and catch the children are disappearing. Children should not be hanging out in town. They should be in the classroom. We must have teachers who have time to take care of every child, to take them by the hand when they need guidance. Children should dream of becoming carpenters and astronauts - not murderers.

HVB-homes are being sold on Blocket. The government must settle the ideological sell-offs of large parts of the operations that are supposed to protect both young people and society from crime. Swedish welfare has become a smorgasbord for the criminal gangs. The government that takes over after the election will do everything to reverse the development. Now it must come to an end. I and Vänsterpartiet are ready to do the job.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now we have had discussions about antisemitism and other matters with not least Magdalena Andersson. The Left Party is also affected there – to put it mildly. It is clear that I can ask Nooshi Dadgostar questions about that, but I do not care about it; we can do that in other contexts.

However, I wanted to ask which ministerial post Nooshi Dadgostar intends to have in Magdalena Andersson's government. Which other portfolios does Vänsterpartiet intend to take?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We will discuss that when that day comes and when we have obtained a majority.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that this will be discussed by four parties jointly.

But I think that Nooshi Dadgostar reasonably has an idea of which ministerial post she wants and which other portfolios the Left Party intends to try to negotiate for and take hold of. That is what I wonder about – not what one should talk about later, but what one intends now.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have answered Jimmie Åkesson's question, but I can explain to Jimmie Åkesson why we need to change the government. It is because Jimmie Åkesson is doing such an enormously bad job.

We have the highest unemployment in ten years - the pandemic excepted. It is only 2 percent of the unemployed who get access to a labor market training.

Emissions are increasing because Jimmie Åkesson is not carrying out investments in Sweden and in Swedish infrastructure. There is still no double track on the Malmbanan. There are still no homes in Skellefteå, Gällivare or Mariestad. People should be able to move to the new jobs. It is the municipalities that now have to take out large loans themselves.

There are non-functioning schools. Trained teachers are being laid off, and the classes are growing. Therefore, Jimmie Åkesson, we need to change the government.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I still want to ask Nooshi Dadgostar about what we have read and heard recently, about the antisemitism that has been uncovered in parts of Vänsterpartiet.

I want to ask Nooshi Dadgostar about the support that Left Party members have expressed for the PFLP. It is a terror-classified organization that has committed several bestial murders and to a large extent has been involved in the act of terror that hit Israel on October 7. It is clear that it is not a matter of any individual examples, not a matter of any isolated incidents, but that it is a rot that has crept into the Left Party.

My direct question to Nooshi Dadgostar is what she intends to do to drive this out by the roots and ensure that the support never grows back again.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is an important issue that Muharrem Demirok raises. I am therefore glad that he is asking the question.

This is about three individuals who have shared things on the internet, and they have nothing to do with Vänsterpartiet. Racism and antisemitism is a poison that has become ever larger in Sweden, which pits human against human and ethnifies problems and conflicts. We will never, ever stand for that, and it does not belong in Vänsterpartiet. Perhaps it belongs better in other parties. We will never pit human against human. We believe in cohesion, and we believe in people's right to believe what they want and live free lives regardless of background and skin color. Muharrem Demirok can rely on that.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that Nooshi Dadgostar distances herself from antisemitism, racism, and all support for violence-promoting organizations. I also want to be clear that I absolutely do not believe that Nooshi Dadgostar shares these party comrades' views, which has also been clear. However, it is not enough. Obviously, this has crept into the party and taken root, because these are not isolated incidents. I therefore ask the same question again: What will Nooshi Dadgostar do to, in the long term, not only condemn but also prevent and preclude this type of views from appearing within Vänsterpartiet again?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will devote my life to, and the party's task moving forward will be, to hold Sweden together. You may be Jewish, Muslim or Christian in our country. We hold together. No one shall ever burden Swedish Jews for what an Israeli regime does, for example. In the same way, Swedes shall not be burdened for anything that happens in other parts of the world just because they have a certain faith.

We will work consistently with this. Muharrem Demirok can rely on that. One person is already excluded. What has been shared has nothing to do with Vänsterpartiet. We are now looking at whether it is persons who can continue to remain in the party.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! At the risk of appearing tedious, I ask Nooshi Dadgostar: When have you decided? It has been over a month since the first report from Sydsvenskan regarding blatant antisemitism and sympathy for the terrorist organization Hamas. We are used to Magdalena Andersson hesitating and taking her time sometimes when she is going to overhaul migration policy, or when it concerns NATO support, or when it comes to handling terror romantics in her own party, but this kind of hesitation from Nooshi Dadgostar is actually not something I am used to, Mr. Speaker. How long is it going to take?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Antisemitism and racism have no place in the Left Party and nowhere else either. I want to send that message to everyone watching this debate. Ensuring their safety is our absolute task.

We will do everything we can to handle this. It has nothing to do with Vänsterpartiet. We believe in cohesion. It is not people's religion that decides, but what one does in life.

To explain to Ebba Busch, who has now asked this question several times, why no one takes her concern seriously or believes that this is meant seriously, I want to say that it is because her ministerial post is based on the party that has brought hate into Swedish politics, which has as a business idea to pit man against man and which organizedly operates troll factories. It is Ebba Busch who has given Björn Söder the chairmanship of the OSCE delegation that is to ensure minorities' rights. Therefore, Ebba Busch, it is no one who takes Ebba Busch seriously.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The setup in the chamber is such that different people are to ask questions in different rounds. If Nooshi Dadgostar has a question for me regarding a specific person or regarding some current statement from a party – mine or another – I look forward to it in the exchange of remarks later. But then we must get out of this damn sandbox of "but what about you." So, one cannot continue like this.

Now, the Left Party clearly has several people who express antisemitism or sympathy for terrorism, and it has been over a month without action following Nooshi Dadgostar's words. Then one must be able to answer, Mr. Speaker, to the question of how much longer it will take before these words, which Nooshi Dadgostar is now repeating in the chamber, are accompanied by action.

If this has nothing to do with Vänsterpartiet, why does Nooshi Dadgostar continue to keep people who harbor sympathy for antisemitic expressions in the party? How long are these people going to remain? For over a month they have been allowed to stay in Vänsterpartiet - how much longer?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch is very upset about racism and antisemitism. I think that is very good, because I am too. It is about people in our country having to feel safe going to the synagogue, the mosque, or the church. I will work very hard for that - I promise that. One person has already been excluded from my party, and nothing that has been shared has anything to do with Vänsterpartiet. This is being looked at now, and we shall continue to do so. I promise to work hard on it.

Does Ebba Busch promise to work hard to remove the antisemites and racists whom she has given large and important assignments here in the Riksdag? It is also about this. We must take this fight together. We have a person who is the chair of the Justice Committee who has spread very gross antisemitism and who has said that Jews are okay as long as they do not constitute too large a group. We have a chair in the OSCE delegation who has also expressed very gross antisemitism. Ebba Busch does nothing there. That is the hypocrisy and the problem.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is in no way the case that it is only in Sweden that one finds this debate about how the left, with its roots in anti-democracy, has united with some form of Islamism. One can see this developing in France, where education ministers have been much questioned. It has been pointed out that the left-wing parties there must reckon with Islamism.

So this is about the fact that there are people in Sweden who hail the largest pogrom since World War II. It is no small matter. The terror romanticism surrounding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis is a mockery from hell. It is appalling.

Then I ask Nooshi Dadgostar: What does Nooshi Dadgostar intend to do to prevent? Ebba Busch asks what should be done now about what has happened. How does Vänsterpartiet intend to prevent these forces from growing stronger within Vänsterpartiet?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a serious issue that Johan Pehrson raises, and I have answered it several times. We took action on this immediately when we found out about it. The important thing is to handle it. When people share things and have prejudices, one must act quickly, and that is what we have done. To pit person against person has nothing to do with what Vänsterpartiet stands for.

Let me then, also for Johan Pehrson, explain why no one really believes this. That Johan Pehrson and Ebba Busch only have this as a political punching bag is because they build their entire government base on a racist party that has troll factories and whose sister parties in Europe are financed by Russia or take loans from Russia and who pit human against human. We have a chairman in the Committee on Justice - a mandate that Johan Pehrson has given him - who spreads conspiracy theories about Jews.

Is Johan Pehrson also prepared, together with me, to combat racism and antisemitism by removing these individuals from the important assignments they have and which Johan Pehrson has given them?

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can assure you that the Liberals are fighting against almost all injustices except for liberalism very clearly.

We have a polarization in society. We have an uncertainty when it comes to gathering around the most important thing in our constitution: freedom and respect for, for example, other religions. When then the hatred pours out from people in Vänsterpartiet, I must simply ask: What are you doing to prevent this? I am not saying that it is Nooshi Dadgostar or any other leader in Vänsterpartiet in the Swedish Riksdag who is doing this, but you must ensure that you stop the attraction to your party among these forces. It is they who make it so that students and teachers do not dare to enter universities and colleges because there are some sitting in a park and shouting out their hatred towards Jews. Why? And how does Nooshi Dadgostar intend to prevent it in her party?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I will do everything I can to hold people together. All the Left Party members out there will do everything they can so that people are not valued differently because they have a certain background or a certain faith.

It is Johan Pehrson who has given hate power in Sweden. It is clear that no one believes what Johan Pehrson says. What Johan Pehrson stands and talks about is absurd. The Sweden Democrats, who stood and saluted when the party leader marched, were created by an SS officer. These neo-Nazis you have given power in Sweden, Johan Pehrson, so do not lecture me on these issues!

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! As many as 80,000 more people were unemployed in July this year compared to in July 2022, according to SCB. To put this into perspective: This corresponds to more than an entire Luleå, an entire Kalmar, or an entire Täby who do not have a job to go to. It is about people and their faith in the future.

We are talking about thousands more young people who have not entered the labor market. We are talking about thousands more men and women of my age who have lost their jobs and who have not succeeded in starting over, thousands more children who do not get to see mom or dad go to work in the morning, and thousands more long-term unemployed who still do not get to experience the sense of community that comes with having a job, getting to talk with colleagues in the breakroom, paying taxes, and contributing to our common welfare.

It is important to remember the people behind the statistics, because it is about individual life destinies, about people like us. Of course, every person has their own responsibility to do everything to get a job or start a company and work their way toward a life journey, but we as politicians also have a responsibility to give them all the chances we can.

Almost all the debates we have these days are about immigration, and in that case, it is worth reminding of a simple thing: There is no better tool for breaking down exclusion and segregation than for more people to have a job to go to. As I said earlier, the government and Sverigedemokraterna have failed at this.

Sweden can and must become the world's best country for life journeys, where those who strive can create a better life for themselves and their family. The time is now. It is time to invest in warm liberal and, above all, job-creating reforms.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Before the election, the government promised that Swedish energy production would be expanded quickly, and that it would also be cheap. But now we see how the government's energy policy is collapsing right before our eyes.

The plans for offshore wind power in Skåne, which were supposed to provide lower electricity prices, are coming to nothing, and the promises of rapid and cheap nuclear power did not hold up under reality's scrutiny. Now, Swedish competitiveness and household budgets are threatened by the government's inability to secure more cheap electricity, and the government's house of cards collapses when it meets reality.

How does Muharrem Demirok view the government's failed energy policy and the worsened conditions for offshore wind power?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

The government's decision to pull the plug on offshore wind power by not supporting the connection costs risks becoming a death blow for Sweden - for Swedish companies, for Swedish families, and for the green transition overall.

The announcement regarding Krieger's flak may be the beginning of the end for the total expansion of fossil-free electricity in the form of offshore wind power but also for nuclear power. It is a discontinued project where there are an enormous number of question marks.

The Center Party knows that all fossil-free energy is needed. All production is needed. What the government repeatedly manages to miss in this is that what they are now presenting will not become a reality until in 10, 15, or perhaps 20 years. Until then, Swedish families, Swedish households, and the climate will have to wait. That requires an energy dialogue and long-term rules of the game. I know that several of us have invited to it and waited for it to happen, but nothing has happened.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That the government is bungling the energy policy, the economy of ordinary Swedes, and the competitiveness of the whole of Sweden, Muharrem Demirok and I are in complete agreement.

Just as Muharrem Demirok pointed out, Sweden needs a new energy policy agreement where we sit down and start from how we shall ensure a short-term and long-term energy supply at good and competitive prices for Swedish companies and at good prices for Swedish households.

It is obvious that this is needed, and it is also something that the parties in the labor market are requesting. How does Muharrem Demirok view the possibility of achieving such an agreement? Until now, the government has wanted to proceed on its own.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is extremely unfortunate that we have ended up in a situation where Swedish energy policy has been reduced to being mandate-period based. None of what we are talking about, whether it is offshore or onshore wind power or whether it is hydropower, solar parks or nuclear power, can be solved during a mandate period and perhaps not even during two. Sweden's problems need long-term thinking.

Not listening to each other and failing to find common ground on what creates the rules of the game increases the risks but also the costs for the taxpayers, but above all for those who are to invest. What is happening now – that actual mature projects are being withdrawn – means that Swedish families, companies, and the climate will be affected.

I hope that what I heard on Sunday in Agenda when Ebba Busch and I debated – that there was an opening – becomes a reality and that we can find a long-term perspective. So far, I have not seen any tendencies toward this, but I do not stop hoping.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Muharrem Demirok and the Center Party want warm liberal reforms, he says. In order for him to be able to get his warm liberal reforms, he must have political influence and therefore reasonably be part of a government led by Magdalena Andersson. I assume that this is the starting point for the Center Party.

In such a government basis, the Left Party is also included. I just asked a question to Nooshi Dadgostar about what she and the Left Party have for ambitions in such a government formation. In exactly the same way, I think it could be interesting to hear how the Center Party and Muharrem Demirok reason regarding this.

I am actually asking the same question: Which ministerial post does Muharrem Demirok want in a government together with Vänsterpartiet, under the leadership of Magdalena Andersson? Which other ministerial portfolios does Centerpartiet want to claim?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Jimmie Åkesson enjoys this role, where he has succeeded in making Swedish politics about two laws, where there do not seem to be any other solutions than just two laws and where the fringes are given such great influence that everything else seems to become irrelevant. But I do not believe that.

When I look out over Sweden, I see completely different solutions. I see adult politicians who try to find solutions to everyday problems, and they look completely different. Sweden can find solutions, and has done so before – solutions that do not let the fringes have the influence they have today, which move Sweden forward and do not get stuck in looking backward, which lift what ordinary people seek answers to and which actually reduce polarization in society instead of increasing it.

It is my answer to Jimmie Åkesson. I believe there are more than two solutions in this chamber.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are aware of this thing with the broad center. A lot has been talked about it.

Then there is this issue with the map preceding the terrain, what is feasible in reality and so on. I appreciate the ambition somewhere, but based on Muharrem Demirok's answer here, I interpret it as that he has no ambition to join a government led by Magdalena Andersson together with Vänsterpartiet. I find it difficult to interpret his answer in any other way. When I asked Nooshi Dadgostar just now, she did not reason in those terms, but she said: We will talk about that later.

Has the Centre Party made any kind of decision that they do not intend to enter into a government together with the Left Party – a government led by Magdalena Andersson?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have listened to Jimmie Åkesson countless times. I have heard him say that he will not sit in opposition in the next mandate period but that he will, on the contrary, sit in the government. I have also heard other representatives for the Tidö government say that they will never sit in the same government as the Sverigedemokraterna. That is the reality that exists right now.

In a situation where Sweden is to form a government in these difficult times, everyone seems to agree that more need to make a choice. We in Centerpartiet will not be able to form a government ourselves, but we will form a government together with those who want to move Sweden forward – those who turn against antisemitism, racism and polarization and do not all the time look at where people come from but at where people are headed.

It is my answer to you, Jimmie Åkesson, to everyone in this chamber and to the entire Swedish people: We will do what is required to move Sweden forward, and more must have the strength and the will to make that decision.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As a Christian Democrat, I safeguard a social community that guarantees freedom and equal rights for all. Immigration from countries whose map of values differs significantly from our own has entailed tough challenges. Therefore, I would like to speak briefly about Islam's place in Sweden.

In Sweden, Islam cannot be practiced in the same Islamist ways that occur in totalitarian states. It does not belong here, because Sweden is not a totalitarian state. Islam therefore needs to adapt to a foundation of basic common values that guarantee peace and freedom regardless of whether one prays or does not pray. Here in Sweden, one must be able to live as a believer, a Swedish Muslim, without encountering prejudice, Islamophobia, or totalitarian and controlling moral police.

Mr. Speaker! It is not possible to turn a blind eye to the oppression that often occurs in the name of religion and that people all over our country have experienced. In the last four years, in my home municipality of Uppsala alone, 570 honor-related reports of concern involving children have been made. It concerns violence, oppression, and the risk of being forced into marriage, many times in the name of religion. In Malmö's preschools, there are girls who are not allowed to wear short sleeves or short trousers, while small boys believe they can sit over the female preschool staff simply because they are boys and the staff are women.

The Muslim who has fled oppression thus risks encountering the same oppression here. It is our Swedish, Muslim daughters who are controlled and have their choices questioned. We must crack down hard on this. Sweden belongs to all of us.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's companies want to lead the climate fight. They want to both reduce their own emissions and earn money from products and services that reduce emissions not only here but across the world.

For companies to be able to do this, long-term rules of the game are required, but what they have received from this government - with Ebba Busch at the helm - is something completely different. Energy agreements have been torn up, rules of the game have been changed, and different types of energy have been politicized. Sweden's companies and households deserve much better than that.

That is why the Center Party has for a long time demanded new energy talks, and I was very happy on Sunday when we could actually hear an opening in the debate – that the Minister is willing to negotiate across the block divide and would like to see us reach a broad agreement in politics. The question to Ebba Busch is therefore: When will the initiative and invitation come for the broad and long-term energy agreement that all Swedish families and companies need?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe in dialogue in politics regardless of whether one agrees with each other or not, and I would gladly sit down and talk specifically about the conditions for nuclear power in Sweden. I am happy to talk about other types of power as well, but that is where we have the great and tough competition, also internationally. We sometimes end up in a very tight and locked discussion about Sweden where we do not see that we are now on our way to being overtaken by other countries that also realize that nuclear power must be built. We risk falling far behind. I am therefore happy to sit down and talk about this.

What we have done in this chamber, with the energy policy direction proposition that was decided upon, is that we have actually tried to leave the time when we slammed wind power or nuclear power into each other's heads and instead switch over to technology neutrality: What does Sweden AB need? What do Swedish households need? It is not about the individual power source but about what characteristics can be delivered. It is stability in total defense times and power output that is what is important, and that is the path we shall continue to walk.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I choose to hold on to the joy, because I am once again happy when Ebba Busch now nevertheless confirms that there is a possibility for joint talks and perhaps also for a long-term perspective in energy policy. It is needed now more than ever as we see what reality looks like outside this chamber: Kriegers flak was stopped, and 500 households may see their energy supply disappear.

The reason this happened was that the government pulled the rug out from under the project. Decades of planning were wasted overnight, not just for Vattenfall but for households and companies in all of southern Sweden. I therefore repeat the question, and it is not just about talks: Can Ebba Busch confirm that the government will invite to energy talks with a view toward a broad, long-term energy agreement that extends over mandate periods and focuses on fossil-free electricity and long-term perspective for all of Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I wish we had more entries in the exchanges, because I have a counter-question. Does this mean that in the Center Party one is now prepared to unambiguously say "Yes, let us pave the way for new nuclear power - let us discuss how, not if!"? In that case, we can indeed sit down and discuss this.

I do, however, take note of what the Prime Minister said last yesterday: It is not the one who wants the least for Sweden – or the one who hesitates the most, which the Prime Minister did not say but which I add – who shall decide the pace of reform for things that the Swedish people and Swedish companies have waited far too long for. Nor is it the case that an individual wind power project that has been planned for 20 years fails because we no longer say that an individual type of power shall have its connection fee covered while neither land-based wind power nor any other type of power shall have it and that the bill shall be sent to the households.

Now we need to move towards technology neutrality - and preferably long-term thinking across the party divide.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On the government's table lie applications for offshore wind power equivalent to more than all of Sweden's annual electricity consumption. The Energy Minister came to a set table; Busch could at that point have already made decisions that would secure Sweden's electricity supply and industrial transition. That has not happened. Instead, the minister has let the pile of applications grow. In two years, the government has said yes to only 2 of 25 applications.

One of the few approved projects is Kriegers flak. By 2028, the park was supposed to be ready to deliver electricity equivalent to 20 percent of Skåne's electricity consumption. Now, however, Vattenfall is pausing the development of this project because the government has stopped Svenska kraftnät's expansion of the offshore grid. Our neighboring countries - Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark - have enabled offshore wind power.

My question to Ebba Busch is: Why should investments in offshore wind power end up in Sweden's neighboring countries and not in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! All good forces are needed. We are now moving forward with the decisions needed to increase the incentives for municipalities to say yes to land-based wind power. This was something that the previous red-green government failed to agree on or get through in the chamber. There, we deliver once again – this time to pave the way for more wind power without forcing it down the throats of the residents in the municipalities. It is a good balance. It is a popular anchoring of climate policy that can make a difference.

At the same time, we are paving the way for flex services and aggregation services – such as those that allow us to get more out of the electricity that exists in the system.

Skåne's problem is a lack of power capacity. I mean that it is made all too easy for oneself when one talks about how much electricity one can get out on windy days. We need to talk about how to get more capacity. Offshore wind power alone will not solve this. Therefore, it is strange that a single type of power source should have its connection fee subsidized while others cannot. It is not technology-neutral.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch's reasoning does not add up. For two years, the Minister has referred to the laws of physics. It has been said that it is not possible to connect more wind power without first producing more nuclear power. Now, however, the laws of physics suddenly seem to have changed – now it is suddenly important to produce land-based wind power in the near term.

I am glad that Ebba Busch has changed her mind here; she and I are in complete agreement that we need to do more for land-based wind power. But then perhaps it has never been about physics. Then perhaps it has been about the Kristdemokraterna's political tactics.

I understand that Ebba Busch is stressed. During the election campaign, it sounded like this: With a few legislative changes, new nuclear power could begin construction within 100 days after the election. Now we stand here 700 days later, and no new nuclear power is in sight. The government is investigating proposals for a state subsidy program for nuclear power that will become a sinkhole for taxpayers' money. It is surreal to hear Ebba Busch talk about technology neutrality.

Has the government investigated whether new nuclear power is needed? No. When, Ebba Busch, can we expect a clear statement that offshore wind power will begin to be treated in a way that makes it possible to release the renewable energy that is required?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The laws of physics still trump the will of politics and grand political words. I have never been against any individual power stroke. I have pointed out the need for effect. It is completely obvious that we today have an opposition in Sweden that still does not understand what effect is. Go home and read up on what this is!

The greatest power shortage is in southern Skåne. This is the result of a red-green energy policy with a belief that one - even on calm days when there is no wind - will have enough power to transition the industry if one simply pushes a lot more electricity into the system without it being baseload. That is not the case.

Therefore, we need to work with both wind power and storage. This will, however, not be enough if we are to double our energy system without it affecting households.

Let us pave the way for all good forces. However, it is not just more electricity that must come in now, but it is also more power that must go out – otherwise, we will still only be able to consume as much today as we did ten years ago. This is the result of your politics.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of every parliamentary year, it can be stated from this rostrum that the past summer has not only brought with it holidays, time with friends and family and beautiful summer evenings, but has also come with a striking reminder that we live in the era of climate change.

This summer was no exception. During the past months, communities around the world have burned, people have died from heatstroke, and extreme weather has put entire communities on edge. This is the new normal, and there is a risk that it is only the beginning.

We need to reduce emissions, and we need to do it quickly. We need to do it so that our farmers can harvest Swedish food for Swedish households' tables even in the future, so that the fish in our seas and lakes can get a chance to recover, so that our elderly can be outdoors even during the summer months, and so that our children and grandchildren will have a future to look forward to. The most unjust thing towards people today and towards coming generations is to do nothing at all.

At the same time, this transition needs to happen in a fair way. Different solutions may be needed in different parts of the country. Regardless of your wallet and where you live, you should be able to participate in the future transition that our country has so much to gain from.

A strong policy for economic equality goes hand in hand with a climate policy that truly reduces emissions, but this government refuses to see that. Instead, they do the opposite. Now, they are making it harder for people to get out into nature and to seas and lakes, while aviation is subsidized. Yet another job tax deduction benefits those of us sitting here, while those who have the least receive nothing. The petrol tax is lowered for everyone – including those with the highest incomes – while public transport prices are left as they are.

When Sweden needs a just transition, where you, regardless of who you are, can be given opportunities for a good life, the government comes with unjust emission increases. We can do better than that. Without justice, there is no transition, and without transition, there is no justice.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by welcoming Amanda Lind home from the Green Party's summer tour, which was a train journey on the Inlandsbanan. One of the messages I noted from the Green Party's journey is that rural policy must not be reduced to only being about fuel prices but is about much more than that, and this is indeed very true.

The problem is only that many companies and households in this elongated country literally went to their knees when the diesel price was allowed to rise above 28 kronor per liter; I imagine, therefore, that we are still going to talk about this. If the reduction obligation had not been lowered, the price at the pump would still have been very high. Today, Sweden instead has Europe's lowest fuel prices.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how much the Green Party thinks a liter of soup should cost. Because surely rural policy must be about more than unreasonably high fuel prices?

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The reduction obligation is needed; we can begin by stating that. Even this government has had to accept a reintroduction of the reduction obligation that was first totally slaughtered in order to at least have any chance of approaching the targets for climate emissions.

At the same time, it has been reintroduced in a fundamentally unfair way. Everyone gets the same reduction, regardless of whether one lives in the countryside, in rural areas or in the middle of a large city where there is public transport, and regardless of the size of one's wallet. It is not a fair climate transition. It is a fossilization that is the same for everyone. It is an unfair climate policy that we do not stand for.

We want to see a reintroduced reduction obligation where a differentiation is made depending on where in Sweden people live. We also want to see a real commitment to electrification; in that regard, this government has failed completely. Electric car sales are falling. Volvo has decided to scale back its ambitions regarding electric car sales. Investments in public transport - anywhere in the country - we see nothing of.

This is not a fair climate policy, Ebba Busch.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The question remains: Does the Green Party think it is a fair climate policy when an ordinary family with children in the countryside, who are dependent on the car and have several kilometers to the nearest rural bus, pays 28 kronor per liter? Furthermore, when the Green Party was part of the government, there was a forecast for the reduction obligation that would have meant that the price had shot up far beyond 30 kronor per liter. Is this a fair climate policy? It is not.

The reason we are now moving forward with a slightly increased reduction obligation is that it is partially changed. Furthermore, we compensate households by lowering the tax, so from a political standpoint, we are still paving the way so that it does not become more expensive to be Swedish.

At the same time, we are expanding significantly with charging stations and paving the way for a robust energy policy with impact, so that people can also dare to switch to an electric car. Now we are subsidizing this and helping economically weak households to be able to buy an electric car. It is a fair climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When we saw the cost shock spread across Swedish households as a consequence of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, we presented a package to support the households, a package that would have made it fair for everyone, even those who do not have a car. We wanted to lower the food VAT, invest in public transport and provide support to the families with children who are doing the worst. But the government did none of these proposals. One can never believe that inequality in society is solved with climate policy alone, one must look at the whole. Justice and equality are a prerequisite for the climate transition.

We want to review the reduction obligation and make it more differentiated. But the government has launched a system that is fundamentally unfair. It is not sustainable and it does not reduce emissions either.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome to this wonderful association for party leaders, Amanda Lind! We gather regularly to talk about important matters and reflect on history.

Few things are as important as young people developing their creativity, their motor skills, their hunger, and their perseverance in school. But there, over the years, they have been met with many screens instead of folders. This was pushed forward by environmentalist activists before Amanda Lind, but your representative Peter Eriksson, an excellent person, has performed an exorcism and regretted that he pushed this forward because it has complicated children's situation when it comes to facing the toxic algorithms and also taken away creativity, perseverance, and ingenuity.

Does Amanda Lind share Peter Eriksson's prayer?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party's school policy is based on science. We think it is good that the Liberals have pushed the proposals that the Green Party also worked for during its time in government: staffed school libraries, more textbooks in schools, and a read-write-count guarantee so that children really learn to read early in school.

When it comes to digitalization, there has been a broad consensus in the chamber that Sweden should, of course, not fall behind when it comes to providing children with digital tools and opportunities. It is equally clear that the profession, the teachers, must have good opportunities to offer analog teaching materials. Of course, there shall be books in every Swedish classroom.

But it is a matter of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we talk about moving from screen to folder. Sometimes the screens are needed in the classrooms, and I believe that Johan Pehrson also realizes that.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is brave of Amanda Lind to challenge Sweden's brain researchers, pediatricians, the Public Health Agency, and others who point out the seriousness of many very small children being exposed to toxic algorithms. Peter Eriksson has said that one was naive and did not take the problems seriously enough, and now he has made amends.

Of course, school libraries are needed, and therefore the government is implementing changes that, among others, the Liberal Party has pushed for. There must also be many more school books than screens in school.

I do not, however, understand if Amanda Lind shares Peter Eriksson's self-reflection and apology regarding the fact that mistakes were made and that it went too far with screens in schools.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Pehrson is speaking about two different things. The Chamber has agreed that one should be given the opportunity to use both digital and analog tools in school. There should, of course, be a good balance so that teachers can make the choices required so that the children also have real schoolbooks.

When it comes to the harmful algorithms, awareness in society has increased that giants in social media really abuse their dominant market position and make both children and adults screen-dependent. Here, the government must do more against the addictive algorithms that these large corporations are allowed to have. There is an opportunity to do much more at the EU level, and I hope that the minister will push the government to take a more active responsibility when it comes to these algorithms.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I was going to make use of a screen here in the rostrum, Amanda Lind, but I am very much an adult.

We increasingly understand what consequences follow from too early and too much screen use among children. Now, a wave of screen limitation is sweeping across schools in the democratic world, and here at home in Sweden, more and more principals are deciding on mobile-free lessons. We will also ensure that we show leadership here so that it becomes the main rule.

Research is clear that children learn worse with screens. They lose focus faster, and there is a strong connection between weak school results and too much gaming and social media in their free time, especially during the nights. Among the younger generation, the eternal scrolling is called brain rot or TikTok brain.

The Liberals rang the warning bells early, and at the government's initiative, the Public Health Agency has issued new advice on children's screen use. I hope that this will give Sweden's parents the strength to also manage to set boundaries for unhealthy screen use in the home.

The Liberals in the government are also acting so that school becomes a counterforce to TikTok brain. With more schoolbooks and folders, we can make real efforts to increase reading and perseverance. Even in preschool, screen use must be significantly restricted. We are also now looking at an investigation on a mobile phone ban in Swedish schools.

Fundamentally, it is about focus and discipline in the classroom and about giving young people a chance to take in what they need to carry with them into the future. The school's teaching should give the young people faith in the future and opportunities. I usually say that the school should move from screen to binder, and that still applies.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! In ten years, over 160,000 young people have left school without eligibility for upper secondary school. Every fifth student leaves primary school with a one-way ticket directly to exclusion. Sweden is the country in the EU that fails the most students every year, ten times as many as Denmark and Finland and twice as many as Estonia and Romania. The reason is not the Swedish students and the Swedish teachers, but that we politicians have failed them.

Therefore, I want to ask the new Minister for Education and the leader of the party that, more than any other party, has helped shape today's Swedish school system: Why do the Liberals and the government insist on maintaining a grading system that closes the door for so many life journeys before they have even begun?

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The school system has experienced a collapse in knowledge. This is shown by PISA, and it is Muharrem Demirok who is on it. One must address the root of this. It is about, among other things, getting the screens out, as I mentioned just now, and ensuring that students read more. One should be able to test more but also provide earlier interventions and support to those young people who truly need it.

The perception that facts are not important, that is, the postmodernist view of knowledge that has prevailed for too long, we must also air out of the Swedish school system. We must become clearer that knowledge should be built on facts. It is nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to subject knowledge.

We see that more needs to be done so that more young people pass the knowledge goals. That is why we are restructuring not only the free school policy but also the policy for order and discipline and more focus on knowledge in school. We want to lift back and continue to lift Swedish knowledge results in school so that students fare better in Pisa. We shall have the goal of becoming the best in the world in Pisa.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard Johan Pehrson talk about moving from screen to folder. It is quite witty and not necessarily a bad argument, but it is insufficient. It is not enough.

Thousands and thousands of young people end up in exclusion today and enter the summer holidays after ninth grade without having anything to do in the autumn. They are not allowed to move forward because they did not receive passing grades in enough subjects. Will it be a consolation for them to be able to take the Liberals' summer holiday book home when they leave school for the last time already at the age of 15? Will they look less at the screen if they do not get into upper secondary school? No, we must do everything we can to raise school results. We do not do that by sabotaging young people's life journeys before they have even had a chance to begin.

We must manage to ask the difficult questions about the grades. We must also give the young people more chances to succeed. I look forward to more proposals from the Minister for Education regarding this.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The extensive language poverty is due to an integration policy that is too weak. There are too many young people who come to school with too weak knowledge of Swedish. We shall strengthen the Swedish initiatives in preschool for those children. One should not only be given a book from the state during the holidays but also attend holiday school significantly more often and significantly earlier. It is the path to passing grades.

There are different ways to help young people achieve the goals and be able to continue their studies at upper secondary school. It is about different forms of introductory courses to ensure that they move forward, for example to practical education. All of that is completely central. But to say that we should lower the requirements for what is passed is in itself no solution to the extensive knowledge problems. It is perhaps up to a quarter of young people who leave primary school as functional illiterates.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There was a time when the Liberals were both a liberal party and a party that, in any case, had ambitions for reduced emissions and stopped climate change. It was, to put it mildly, another time.

Today, the Liberals proudly stand at the front of the line when policy is presented as they themselves note will increase Sweden's emissions. Last week, they paraded together with the Sweden Democrats with the claim that the aviation tax shall be abolished. It will increase flying and increase emissions by 110,000 tons, according to the government representatives themselves. They speak of how the EU's emissions trading system is somehow to replace this, but it does not account for the high-altitude effect, which accounts for two-thirds of aviation's emissions, nor does it account for travel outside of Europe. It is therefore only half the solution.

My question is what the Liberals' proposal is for aviation to pay for all its emissions. What is to replace the aviation tax? Right now, it looks as if the government is abolishing climate measures without replacing them with new ones.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It was not that the Liberals jumped for joy over the aviation tax – on the contrary. We pointed out that it was inefficient, that it would risk driving air travel from Sweden to other countries, and that it would be a threat to one of the world's longest countries, which has a need for regional air traffic but also for international air traffic to continue to be an attractive country in the world. People must be able to travel here.

We look forward to this being addressed at the European level, as aviation is a European issue. We do not have a purely nationalistic climate policy, but a European and a global one.

We must solve the issues regarding aviation emissions together in the EU. There is a very clear plan for that, and it is essential that the EU maintains this when the new commission takes office. That is the answer to the question of how we are to address aviation emissions. The answer is not to drive away aviation so that all Swedes will fly from Kastrup instead of from, for example, Arlanda.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Johan Pehrson does not answer my question. Over half of the emissions that aviation accounts for will not be able to be handled in the EU's emissions system. What is the Liberals' answer to the question about those emissions?

It is fascinating to listen to Johan Pehrson's argumentation. It sounds as if the words are coming from a Sweden Democrat when they should be coming from a Liberal. If the Tidö parties dislike the aviation tax – then replace it with something that is better! Or will Johan Pehrson and the government continue to stall throughout the entire mandate period?

However fascinating it may be to listen to, it is also tragic, because Johan Pehrson knows just as well as I do that emissions must decrease quickly and that they must decrease immediately. We do not have time for excuses and smokescreens.

Your policy and your climate action plan have been sawed to pieces by the Fiscal Policy Council, the Climate Policy Council, and researchers, but somewhere I still want to believe that the Liberals are not satisfied with the situation. Can the Liberals promise, Johan Pehrson, that you will meet the national climate goals by 2030?

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We are pursuing a climate policy that is sustainable for both companies and families. It is a climate policy that can also, in the long term, take Sweden all the way to net zero 2045 and beyond.

We are pleased to now reintroduce a part of the reduction obligation. We were clear when we took office that there would be a pause in this for a certain period. That is what we said, but we now see that this can contribute to us meeting the ESR commitments.

I heard Amanda Lind say earlier that the government's policy is eating up the entire surplus that has been created. It is not the Green Party's reduction obligation that has created it. It has been created by Swedish companies that have been even more forward-looking, been even better at technology and been even greener. They have made it so that this has been built up.

We must go hand in hand with Swedish industry. It should be leading in the climate transition, but it also requires that people should be able to get to Sweden. They often fly planes if they come from America or Japan and are going to invest in Sweden. It is very difficult to get here in any other way.

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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