Party debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! First of all, I want to say that we are in a turbulent time. Sweden and Europe face very great challenges both in the east and in the west. Sweden's security and Swedish national interests are the government's foremost priority. Therefore, we are heavily reinforcing our own defense force, and we are expanding our defense industry. For this reason, some officers from the Swedish Armed Forces are arriving today in Greenland, at Denmark's request. They are part of a group from several allied countries that will prepare the Danish exercise Operation Arctic Endurance. To stand up for and cooperate closely with our closest neighbors and most important allies is an absolute priority for the Swedish government.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I want to speak today about one of our own greatest societal problems, namely men's violence against women. The horrific murders of two women in Boden and in Rönninge have deeply affected our entire country. We can all imagine the paralyzing terror and the unspeakable sorrow.

Many governments have spoken a lot about the importance of stopping men's violence against women. Despite that, the confidentiality barriers have been too many, the penalties too low and the recruitment of entirely too many new perpetrators of violence – for the protections for women have been too weak.

We are now doing what should have been done a long time ago, so that women dare to be out, do not feel afraid and are not restricted. Ultimately, it is about justice.

Now we are implementing a shift in perspective from an old focus on the perpetrator to a new focus on the crime victim and societal protection. Therefore, on January 1, we tightened the rules for parole from prison sentences. Therefore, we are now introducing an entirely new punishment – security detention – so that pedophiles, serial rapists and men who murder women can be locked up for an indefinite period.

(Applause)

The laws that are now entering into force, we have worked on for several years. Now we take the next step through a zero vision, and I will personally lead a special ministerial council for women's peace. Tomorrow, the government will decide that repeated gross rape can lead to life imprisonment, even when life imprisonment is not in the sentencing scale for the individual crime.

We do all this so that no more women are murdered. It is about violence in close relationships, assault violence, honor violence, and pure acts of madness. So that we can gain strength in the change for women's peace in Sweden.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The deadly gang violence has been halved since we took office. The number of wanted serious criminals arrested abroad has, on the contrary, doubled. Many more serious crimes are being solved, and the number of police officers is higher than ever. We have launched a historic offensive against gang crime with harsher penalties, better tools for the police, and strengthened preventive work. Much remains, but we are on our way to defeating organized crime.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden was pressured for a long time by the high inflation that the Social Democratic government left behind. Food prices alone rose by 18 percent in 2022. It has been very tough years. The government managed to conduct a tight economic policy to bring down inflation, and now we see the results. Things are brightening in Sweden.

Swedish companies are starting to invest again. Exports are increasing. We are not taking any victories in advance, but it is clear that more and more people dare to believe in the future again. Sweden is projected to have Europe's sixth highest growth this year. We have moved from the bottom to the top in the growth league since we took over responsibility. To simultaneously be able to afford important investments in police and defense, the justice system, and the green transition, a growing economy is absolutely necessary. The government is therefore pursuing an economic policy for hard-working people. We are now lowering the tax on work, on pension, on savings, and on electricity. The preschool fee is lowered and the housing allowance is strengthened. The greatest improvement is for single parents with low wages. That is also fair.

In eight months, the Swedish people will face a crossroads. Shall we continue on the path already taken, or shall Sweden turn back?

Mr. Speaker! On my side of politics, we have both the will and the proven ability to unite to solve major problems. We have shown that we get things done in Swedish politics. Now, the Strängnäs Agreement lays the foundation for our continued cooperation. On the left side, they want to increase the benefits, raise taxes, and increase immigration again. But that is the recipe for more of precisely the problems that we are now working so hard to solve.

Voting is ultimately about justice. Should Sweden be a country where effort pays off and where crime is punished, or should Sweden make a sharp turn to the left that takes us back to precisely the problems we had? My side of politics, Mr. Speaker, seeks new trust for increased security, for a growing economy, for a country characterized by faith in the future and faith in ourselves and our own ability to take our own destiny into our own hands, for a country that we can leave behind with pride for future generations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ludvig Ceimertz, Gustaf Göthberg, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, David Josefsson, Mattias Karlsson i Luleå, Joanna Lewerentz, Marie Nicholson, Thomas Ragnarsson, Johanna Rantsi, Magnus Resare, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson, Maria Stockhaus, Helena Storckenfeldt, John Widegren and Viktor Wärnick (all M) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The world as we know it is being transformed right now before our eyes. The order that was built up from the ruins of World War II with international courts, international law, international organizations such as the UN, EU and Nato, the order that turned enemies into friends and which lifted millions of people out of poverty is now shaking to its core. The world of yesterday no longer exists. It will not come back.

We can observe that nostalgia is not a strategy, but we must now act. First and foremost, we shall stand up for our fundamental principles. Therefore, Sweden shall be a strong and clear voice when international law is violated, whether it is in Ukraine, in Gaza, or in Venezuela. We shall raise our voices when protesters are murdered in Iran. And when the USA makes power claims on Greenland, every single person in Denmark and Greenland shall know that all of Sweden and the Swedish people stand on their side.

(Applause)

We shall build protective barriers around our country, strengthen our military and civil defense, deepen cooperation with the other countries in the Nordics and around the Baltic Sea, and build a bastion in our part of the world. We have the prerequisites. We are over 500 million inhabitants in Europe. Our economy is many times larger than, for example, the Russian one. We have a state-of-the-art defense industry and a strong will to defend. Together with others, we shall do what is required, and we in Sweden shall do our part.

We do not choose the time we live in, but we choose how we meet it. In a time that is dark and restless, politics must concentrate on what is most important: to build a strong Sweden again, a safe home. Therefore, we shall strengthen our defense and the resilience of the entire society, but that presupposes that we build the whole of Sweden strong.

Over the last decades, the economic gaps have increased in our country. This has been fueled by an economic policy that has lowered taxes for the very richest. Just in recent years, Jimmie Åkesson and Ulf Kristersson have rewarded themselves with a tax reduction of 6,000 kronor every month. At the same time, ordinary families are currently wondering how they will manage the finances until payday.

This, paired with the fact that the Tidö parties lack an idea of what we should live off of in Sweden and lack a growth agenda, has led to catastrophic results. We have mass unemployment with 100,000 more unemployed, a record in the number of bankruptcies, a deficit in the treasury of 363 billion, an increase of over 500 percent in the number of children under 15 who are involved in murder cases and rowdy classrooms. At the same time, we have the longest healthcare queues ever measured.

That is how it looks, even though the Swedish people have held together and stepped up for their country for several years. During the pandemic, ordinary people went to work at risk to their life and health and were moderate in their demands for wage increases to save Swedish companies. And during the inflation crisis, ordinary people with ordinary wages again refrained from making hard wage demands so as not to fuel a price–wage spiral. They have made sacrifices, taken responsibility, and stepped up for Sweden. Therefore, my message is crystal clear. Now it is time for Sweden to step up for them. Now it is ordinary people's turn.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Our country needs a new direction that ensures more people get a job and that those who have a job get a higher salary when growth increases, that supports ordinary families with abolished carens, higher pensions and increased child allowances, and that ensures that everyday life functions and that the waiting times at health centers become shorter. A direction is needed that seriously deals with the chaos in the school, that ensures there is order in the classroom and that perhaps ensures that our tax money stays in the school and does not flee away to welfare capitalists.

It is a policy that lifts up vulnerable areas, which relentlessly tramples out the crime that threatens the safety of the Swedish people, regardless of whether it concerns criminal gangs or the horrific violence against women. No woman should have to look over her shoulder when she walks home after work. One should be safe on the street and in the home.

When I say that it is the common people's turn, I want it to be noticeable in everyday life and in the wallet. For the Swedish people, a policy that puts them in the forefront is deserved.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Ultimately, this choice of path is about what kind of country we shall be and who we are. In eight months, the choice lies in the hands of the Swedish people. I seek a mandate for a new direction. I want Sweden to become more like Sweden, the country that we love so much and which became Sweden because we stood up for one another, for the neighborhood, and for the country. We trained the football team, took night shifts, educated ourselves, became class parents, and helped out on cleaning day. We researched and built. We did military service.

We did not become a fantastic country because we fueled contradictions or used fear and lies as tools. It was not because we gave most to those who already had the most. Sweden became Sweden because we lifted each other up. That is what I want us to do again – together. That is what I am seeking a mandate for.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz, Malin Larsson, Leif Nysmed and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the spontaneous applause.

It is like this: A little over a thousand years ago, Vikings discovered an uninhabited island far up north, west of Iceland. One of the first and probably also most famous Vikings who settled there, Erik the Red, gave the island the name Greenland. Erik the Red's son, Leif Eriksson, subsequently discovered another large landmass that had previously been unknown to us Europeans, namely North America. But that is another story. A few hundred years after the Norse colonization of Greenland, Inuit hunters and fishers chose to settle there. Norse people are thus discoverers of and the indigenous population of Greenland.

Much has happened in a thousand years, Mr. Speaker, but Greenland is a part of Europe. Greenland is a part of the Nordic countries and to a very high degree a part of Denmark. I want that said given what is currently happening in our world.

There is also much to say about the dramatic developments in Iran. For the moment, I intend to keep it to a few words. May the Islamist regime that has oppressed its people for over 40 years fall! May it fall as soon as possible, and may it fall forever! Above all, may the bloodbath cease, and may those responsible be judged harshly! But also: May the rest of the world learn its lesson! Islamism is nothing to be coddled. Islamism must be smothered in its infancy wherever it appears in the world, in Tehran as well as in Rosengård, in Kabul as well as in Gottsunda.

Mr. Speaker! With small, determined steps, Sweden is moving, we can state, in a positive direction. Sweden is today, compared to a few years ago, before the last election, at least a somewhat better country to live in for hard-working Swedes. You are no longer nearly ruined when you fuel the car. You get more left over in your wallet when you work. In a few months, we will halve the tax on food. Many now also have the opportunity to make that visit to the dentist that they previously could not afford. It is, in other words, a good policy that leads to good things and gives people a little more freedom in everyday life.

We have ensured that more dangerous people are in prison and that they stay there for longer periods. We have addressed sentence reductions and dealt with the much-discussed "saft-and-buller" mentality. We have done this while simultaneously marking that it is the victim and not the perpetrator who should be in the foreground. It is, in other words, Mr. Speaker, a good policy that leads to good things and that increases safety.

We are heading towards a more requirement-based integration. We appreciate the privilege it is to hold a Swedish citizenship. We are gradually strengthening our community and our cohesion in Sweden. It is, in other words, Mr. Speaker, a good policy that leads to good things and which makes Sweden a little more Swedish with each passing day.

This is something that at least I am very proud of – proud but of course not satisfied, because we are not anywhere near being finished. It is a fact that we still have dangerous people walking free on streets and squares and that the so-called shadow society and parallel social structures are still a reality as a consequence of decades of irresponsible immigration policy. It is a fact that organized crime is still claiming victims and eating its way into the body of society.

Men, Mr. Speaker, in a few months there is an election, and then the Swedish people will face a crossroads. Shall we continue in the direction that we have now begun, or shall we turn back time and go back to what made our country so vulnerable? It is up to the Swedish people to decide that, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jonas Andersson, Pontus Andersson Garpvall, Tobias Andersson, Clara Aranda, Mats Arkhem, Bo Broman, Chris Dahlqvist, Staffan Eklöf, Matheus Enholm, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Yasmine Eriksson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Rashid Farivar, Runar Filper, Josef Fransson, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Rasmus Giertz, Sara Gille, Roger Hedlund, Erik Hellsborn, Patrik Jönsson, Fredrik Lindahl, Linda Lindberg, Christian Lindefjärd, Angelica Lundberg, Adam Marttinen, Thomas Morell, Eric Palmqvist, David Perez, Daniel Persson, Charlotte Quensel, Patrick Reslow, Michael Rubbestad, Jessica Stegrud, Robert Stenkvist, Jimmy Ståhl, Johnny Svedin, Per Söderlund, Victoria Tiblom, Martin Westmont, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! First, a few words about what is happening in Iran. The Iranian regime has for decades committed gross violations of human rights through imprisonment, torture, and brutal violence against its own population. We are now receiving reports that the regime may have murdered 12,000 people whose only demand was freedom – someone's child, someone's loved one.

The government and the EU must act. The killings on Iran's streets must be stopped, the revolutionary guard must be branded as terrorists and the political prisoners released. The regime must fall.

(Applause)

Now we have reached the end of the mandate period. It is time to take stock. The Moderates asked us to grit our teeth, and SD asked us to go and shop cheaper if it didn't fit with high food prices.

Some in Sweden have had it fantastically much better during these years. Kristersson and Åkesson have lowered the tax by 70,000 kronor per year for themselves and everyone else with equally high salaries. But everyone else has had to pay the price for it.

The big shots raised the prices, profits skyrocketed and many families were brought to their knees, but nothing was done. The landlords raised rents and the banks raised interest rates, but nothing was done. Instead, the fees for obtaining medicine were raised. Instead, the retirement age was raised, and the CSN loan has become more expensive. Cuts in healthcare have given us even longer care queues and led to anxiety, stress, and worry for those who receive a serious illness.

It is not how it should be. When one builds such large gaps between people, it also becomes harder to solve major societal problems together – to build away the climate threat, combat unemployment, and get control over crime. This is a Sweden we do not recognize ourselves in. It is certainly not the Sweden I grew up in.

The billionaires have become record-breaking in number in Sweden, as have those living in poverty. And believe me – there is a connection. We were promised that if the billionaires just became richer, the jobs would come. It was 25 years ago, and they still have not come.

Now it is time to take back the money and create real jobs that make the trains run and ensure that welfare, school, healthcare, and elderly care function. Therefore, we propose a billionaire tax.

(Applause)

Today, five people own as much as five million Swedes. While patients die in care queues, others buy private jets and luxury boats. It is like rewinding human development by 100 years.

This year is an election year. This year we are to get a new government and a new direction for Sweden. We need to re-establish the Swedish folkhemmet. There shall be no stepchildren or pampered children. No one shall any longer be able to take tax money from our children, the sick and the elderly for private purposes. Our tax money shall be used for the common good.

It must become cheaper to live and to reside. The bills must go down. Food, housing, leisure activities for the children, dental care – the costs must be cut. That is our promise.

Everyone should have a job to go to. Today we have mass unemployment in Sweden. A new government will invest in Sweden and build up Sweden. Large investments need to be made, and it will create jobs and growth.

We will go hard against work-life crime, tax crimes, drug trafficking and fraud. The children shall be protected and the recruiters punished severely. We shall take back control over our railway, our electricity production and our school. Those who have much can contribute more to secure our preparedness, contribute to ensuring that cancer patients receive the best possible treatment in time and build a wall against the raw poverty that is once again showing its ugly face in our country.

The future is bright if we build it together. Perhaps it is your turn to stand up today; you can create change. Talk with your family, your neighbors and your colleagues for a Sweden that holds together!

(Applause)

In this speech, Andrea Andersson Tay, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Isabell Mixter, Håkan Svenneling, Ilona Szatmári Waldau and Jessica Wetterling (all V) agreed.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Storms are raging in the Tidö government's Sweden. During the Christmas weekend, the country was hit by several powerful storms. Four people lost their lives, and tens of thousands of households were left without electricity for days, sometimes weeks. People sat – some still sit – in cold and darkness. The damage to farms and forests will take years to repair.

Still, it passed by quite unnoticed. It was written about traffic and passenger chaos. But people's safety and livelihoods were left in the shadows while the debate on the editorial pages was about snow removal in Stockholm's inner city. It says something about the perspective in Swedish debate.

The difference between waiting for the snowplow and lacking electricity, heat, and the possibility to call 112 is the difference between irritation and insecurity. One thing becomes clear: If all of Sweden is to function, the country cannot be governed from the city center.

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidöre government's somewhat chilled Sweden, more power shall be moved to the capital and the Government Offices. I understand the temptation. It sounds so simple. A quarter of the service centers in the countryside have been closed down. Local self-determination shall decrease, and all healthcare and school shall be centralized.

But it is not a lack of state governance that makes you have to wait for a doctor. It is not the absence of detailed directives that makes students leave school without passing grades. The problem is not too little centralization. The problem is too little trust in people, in local communities, and in companies.

In the Center Party's Sweden, we are moving in the opposite direction. We build strength from below. We give back power and money to local communities. We listen and try to understand how preschools, schools, and health centers can be run locally.

We know that without the countryside, Sweden stands still. But for Sweden to function, more than functioning systems are required. It requires faith in the future. And faith in the future begins with jobs.

(Applause)

Cold winds are also blowing on the Swedish labor market. Half a million people are unemployed. Behind every figure is a person waiting for life to begin or continue. For it is not only people with a lack of knowledge in Swedish who are left without jobs. It is also newly graduated academics and experienced managers of middle age.

Moving from unemployment to a job changes everything for the individual, for the family, and for society. If we could only reach half of the EU average in unemployment, the state treasury would have approximately 45 billion more. That corresponds to 55,000 nurses or teachers.

The majority of all new jobs are created in small and growing companies. It is there that young people get their first jobs and the long-term unemployed get a new chance. But then politics must also do its part: lower costs, reduce bureaucracy, and ensure that the companies find the right competence.

Mr. Speaker! Jobs must increase while emissions decrease. There is no contradiction. Quite a few people say that the climate is bad for companies and that ambitions would brake growth. We believe the opposite.

The real threat to Swedish competitiveness is a lack of visions and a lack of ambitions. If it is something this government lacks, it is climate ambitions.

When we work together with a clear goal, then something happens. Then innovative power is unleashed. Then we almost surprise ourselves with what a small country can achieve when brilliant entrepreneurs, strong industry and world-leading technology pull in the same direction.

Mr. Speaker! When the storms howl over our country, it reminds us that Sweden must function everywhere and always. It is not fate that decides our future, but our choices.

We in Centerpartiet choose faith in the future. Our election promises are clear: jobs shall increase, emissions shall decrease, and all of Sweden shall function.

(Applause)

In this speech, Alireza Akhondi, Madeleine Atlas, Christofer Bergenblock, Daniel Bäckström, Martina Johansson, Mikael Larsson, Stina Larsson, Helena Lindahl, Rickard Nordin, Niels Paarup-Petersen, Anne-Li Sjölund, Helena Vilhelmsson and Anders Ådahl (all C) agreed.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Now Sweden rises. During this parliamentary term, we have settled accounts with political ideals that have been allowed to paralyze our country.

For far too long, the Swedish people have been fed the opinion that Sweden must have the world's highest tax burden to have a good welfare state. Yet, we have been forced to live with record-long healthcare queues. We have developed an over-reliance on bureaucracy in a country where women in childbirth have not been able to be completely certain whether there is a midwife available to take care of them.

We have been told from the red-green side that we must sacrifice ourselves to reach the climate goals. From this chamber, parents have been blamed for taking the car to drop off their children. Honest farmers' work has been branded as environmentally hazardous activity, and ordinary Swedes' finances have been squeezed to the bottom with high fuel prices. But now, slowly but surely, Sweden is rising.

The price of gasoline is now the lowest since 2021. The turnaround came despite it being considered impossible at the time.

Now, the National Institute of Economic Research notes that the sentiment in the Swedish economy is better than normal for the first time in a long while. An average family gets 5,000 kronor more in their wallet every month compared to 2022 – that is delivery.

(Applause)

As of the LO-guarantee, the trade unions' economists state that the recovery in Sweden's economy is actually here.

And you know: We see a trend break in healthcare. The healthcare queues are shortening. We now have 25 percent fewer people waiting illegally long for specialized care compared to when the red-greens were in power.

In area after area, Sweden is rising. A Sweden that stands strong can also stand firm for both Denmark's and Greenland's rights. We stand firm in the fight for freedom, against the dictatorship in Iran.

(Applause)

Our country has risen before in history. When Sweden went from being one of Europe's poorest countries to becoming one of the world's richest countries, it was actually many political reforms that paved the way. It shows that politics can be either a hindrance or a catalyst.

When the red-green parties ruled our country, they were skilled at imposing bureaucratic burdens on our entrepreneurs. Now we are fighting the bureaucracy. Look at the concrete example with the receipts. Previously, business owners had to keep their paper receipts for three years, even if they existed digitally.

I don't know if I am supposed to dance to this background music at the same time.

But we did, therefore, remove expenses corresponding to 3.9 billion for Swedish companies. It is worth a small anti-bureaucracy day – cringe so it hits.

(Applause)

Now people will be spared unnecessary administration and unjustified costs. With a reduced regulatory burden, Swedish entrepreneurs will have more time to develop their businesses. It is truly important, because little but fantastic Sweden is in second place in the entire world when it comes to innovation. We are a space nation. We build both submarines and fighter jets. At the same time, we actually make the whole world a bit prettier and a bit more fun with companies like H&M, Fjällräven, Spotify, Ikea and Minecraft.

Mr. Speaker! It was a tough transition. Our country has smart engineers and driven entrepreneurs. Sweden has enormous mineral deposits and world-leading industries, but none of all this can be taken for granted.

We therefore, as Christian Democrats, want to see a Build Sweden Strong strategy. We have presented concrete proposals on how Sweden can rise as a growth nation, how the state can organize the major problems that exist with old roads and railways, and how we are to achieve an even more stable energy system.

Despite the fact that only 3 percent of all land in Sweden is used for houses, roads, and industries, there are still very many red lights from various authorities at place after place. Today, a single small bird or plant can put a stop to everything. That must not be the case. The state must make it possible to move forward in development, and the state shall join forces with municipalities to share risks.

The Build Sweden Strong strategy creates the conditions for a Sweden that can see a brighter tomorrow. Our four coalition parties have started the turnaround for Sweden, but we have only just begun. Now we seek a mandate for four more years and a Sweden that truly rises.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André, Yusuf Aydin, Camilla Brodin, Gudrun Brunegård, Hans Eklind, Cecilia Engström, Dan Hovskär, Ingemar Kihlström, Magnus Oscarsson, Kjell-Arne Ottosson and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (all KD), Rashid Farivar (SD) and Sara-Lena Bjälkö (-) agreed.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis is not a future threat. It is here and now. I have stood and said this in this chamber in debate after debate. But it seems not to matter how many times Ulf Kristersson is criticized. He is not only criticized by me but also by the EU, OECD, and various experts and researchers. It also seems not to matter how many extreme weather events hit people, companies, and municipalities all over Sweden or how many job-creating industrial investments are pushed into the future. He waves away the responsibility and leads a government that dismantles the climate policy bit by bit. This – friends – is the opposite of how a responsible Prime Minister should act.

(Applause)

The government has actively increased emissions, pulled the rug out from under the companies and municipalities that want to transition, scrapped instruments that work, slowed down investments in renewable energy and made it more expensive for both ordinary people and companies to make climate-smart choices. This is a historic failure.

While other countries have the freedom to rush forward in the green transition, Sweden hesitates. It is incomprehensible, because the truth is that we have everything to gain from transitioning. We have the competence. We have the industry. We have the research. We have the companies that want to lead the development. And it is here that the jobs of the future are created – in fossil-free steel, in a circular economy, in sustainable transport. But the government continues to stick its head in the sand, as if reality would change because they close their eyes to it. When the government fails climate policy, they also fail Swedish competitiveness, people who want secure jobs, and young people who rightly demand that politics takes responsibility for their future.

Friends! We can choose to close our eyes, back down and brake as the government does. Or we can choose to lead, invest, take responsibility, give young people faith in the future and invest in Sweden.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Many are being killed now in Iran in what is described as a real bloodbath in the people's struggle against the unjust regime. China is escalating. Russia is preparing for war in our neighborhood. And an increasingly unpredictable USA not only threatens its allies and targets Greenland but also abandons international climate cooperation.

Today's Europe is squeezed between different interests. It is about power, land and natural resources. What is needed now is international leadership. We in Sweden shall do what we can. We used to be a strong voice in the world that had a place in the important rooms. Unfortunately, the government's wavering leadership has weakened that image of our country – with a slashed aid budget, reduced international engagement and less climate leadership. But we can if we want to. It is time that we roll up our sleeves again.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition is necessary, downright inevitable. And it must happen fairly. It is precisely fairness that is lacking in Swedish politics today. We see a Sweden being torn apart, with growing economic divides. The difference between city and country is increasing. Sweden is today a country where every eighth child lives in poverty. It is indecent.

More and more people feel insecure. Will I be able to buy enough food for my children at the end of the month? Will I get a job when my substitute position ends? After nearly one parliamentary term with this government, far too many people feel that the politics are no longer for them. We must turn this around.

Mr. Speaker! For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious. Climate policy must go hand in hand with a strong policy for justice and equality.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! When we invest in the climate transition, we strengthen the Swedish economy and create jobs all over Sweden. With affordable public transport and trains that work, we strengthen both the climate work and facilitate people's everyday lives. With energy efficiency, we lower emissions and electricity bills. That is how we build a sustainable society.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet knows that the transition requires a political leadership that dares to think bigger. I will continue to say it as it is: Continued fossil dependency is expensive, dangerous and irresponsible, and therefore we politicians must ensure that the alternatives exist instead of shifting the responsibility onto every individual.

Miljöpartiet chooses a Sweden that takes the climate crisis seriously, that holds together and that is not torn apart. It is not only necessary. It is also possible.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leila Ali Elmi, Janine Alm Ericson, Mats Berglund, Camilla Hansén, Daniel Helldén, Annika Hirvonen, Rebecka Le Moine, Katarina Luhr, Emma Nohrén, Amanda Palmstierna, Jan Riise, Jacob Risberg, Nils Seye Larsen, Malte Tängmark Roos and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) agreed.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! It is finally an election year and time for the Swedish people to have their say. It is a privilege and a freedom that many people around the world still dream of. I am thinking of all the brave women in Iran who defy the regime's brutal violence to demand freedom and democracy.

Sweden is entering an election campaign in a very uncertain time. Cooperation, trade, and diplomacy are about to be thrown overboard by great powers who want the right of the strongest to decide everything. It is now that we must stand up for the liberal world order. We do that best in the EU, in a European community where we together raise our defense ambitions and where we arm ourselves for peace and freedom.

But much must be done. Take the situation in the Arctic, which has become more tense as great powers take an interest in natural resources. Now our Danish and Greenlandic friends are being pressured by an unpredictable President Trump.

It is with this in mind that the Liberals want the EU to become a defense union. That is why we have spoken from day one about a united European response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and that is why we have today proposed that Sweden should strengthen its Arctic presence – for Sweden's security, for Europe's common defense, and for the solidarity with Greenland and Denmark.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! In the 90s, major changes occurred in schools that lacked grounding in research but also in the teachers' everyday lives. The school was deregulated and municipalized while classes swelled and teachers were burdened with new work tasks. The Social Democrats but also conservative parties bear responsibility for this.

In practice, it has led to stressed-out teachers rushing between lessons. It has led to capable girls acting as pillows between rowdy classmates. It has led to mobile phones replacing football on the schoolyard. That is why the Liberals are re-regulating the school. Not least, it is about improving the teachers' working environment. They should have plenty of time to prepare their lessons, not spend time picking up trash and cleaning toilets. We are going to put a stop to classrooms of size XXL. With new legal requirements, we want to give every child the right to be in a classroom of size just right.

In the Liberals' Sweden, teachers get peace to work and students get peace to study. Thus, we build a knowledge school for the future where all children get a fair start in life.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Let me present some hard facts. The number of layoffs has more than halved since Sweden moved from a social democratic to a bourgeois and liberal government. It is thanks to the bourgeois parties that Sweden has been a member of Nato since March 7, 2024. Swedish families with children now get 5,000 kronor more in their wallets every month compared to when Sweden's Prime Minister was Magdalena Andersson.

Against the Tidö cooperation, a dangerous leftward turn is now forming again, which wants to return to a Sweden that prioritizes perpetrators over crime victims, return to a Sweden that abandons climate-friendly nuclear power, and return to a Sweden that taxes everything that moves but where one hardly dares to move outside.

We shall not go back. We shall have a Sweden where more parents wave goodbye to their children on the schoolyard on the way to work, where there is safety both in the classrooms and on the streets, and where more young people run out with joy, to proud parents, during the students' happy days.

Sweden is finally on the right track. Let us continue in that direction.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrik Karlson, Martin Melin and Mauricio Rojas (all L) concurred.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! No task is as important for this government as the country's security and the safety of its citizens. In one of the world's most equal countries, a woman should not have to fear for her life on her way home in the evening or in her own home.

That is why we are now fighting violence against women with the exact same force as we fight the criminal gangs. We are introducing a new penalty – security detention – which means that pedophiles, serial rapists, and men who murder women can be never released again. We ensure that repeated acts of aggravated rape can lead to life imprisonment, even when life imprisonment is not in the sentencing scale for the individual crime.

On this new crime policy, we should be able to agree. But on the left side, they want, on the contrary, to abolish life imprisonment entirely. When Magdalena Andersson was in government, we demanded exactly security detention for truly dangerous criminals. Then the answer from the then Minister of Justice, Morgan Johansson, was no. No one was surprised. Now, in opposition, it is easy to talk. But it is when you govern the country that the ability to get anything done is tested. The Social Democrats' crime policy is roughly like leaning against a shower curtain.

It matters who governs Sweden. Now we are changing the laws that the previous government could not, did not want to, or did not dare to change.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, Thomas Ragnarsson, Johanna Rantsi and Oliver Rosengren (all M) concurred.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the restless times we find ourselves in, leadership is absolutely crucial for the security of the Swedish people. We need to strengthen both the military and civil defense, something that Ulf Kristersson and I completely agree on.

I think that we also need to fortify the political defense to withstand destabilization attempts from foreign powers. A bulwark against this is precisely political unity, to conclude long-term agreements that hold over time.

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we have agreed that we shall increase defense spending. But I wonder if Ulf Kristersson thinks it would be good for Sweden if we could also agree on the defense financing, a long-term energy agreement, and a pact against gang crime that also includes the municipalities' important work.

If he thinks it would be a good idea, will he then take the initiative for such conversations?

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz (S) concurred.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first acknowledge that the dialogue to protect Swedish democracy against illegitimate foreign influence is extremely important. There are reasons why you all have an invitation to come and meet us in the government in February, along with all the agencies that work with those issues, precisely to immunize our society against the types of risks we have seen in other democracies. We take this extremely seriously.

I usually say that I value broad consensus in serious matters, and I really mean it. After the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats changed their views on the NATO issue, we are now six of eight parties standing united behind a new security policy line after the sacred neutrality has been scrapped. That is no small matter. Nor is it a small matter that half of the Social Democratic government base does not stand behind the new Swedish security policy.

I usually point out that it is valuable that so many people now want to support the Swedish defense. It would be good if we could also earn the money that makes it possible for Sweden to afford everything that must now be done.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Was it a yes or a no? My question is honestly asked. Just take the defense that will cost enormous sums in the coming years. Of course, we need a better economic policy than the one we have now when we perform far below our potential. But beyond that, we will need to find other ways to finance the defense. If this were the case, there would be every reason to reach a broad agreement.

Regarding energy policy, we have come incredibly far in the discussions. We are close to each other. An agreement is possible. It would result in cheaper electricity for the Swedish people.

It also concerns the entire crime policy, where much of the important work with early crime prevention takes place out in the municipalities. With a broad agreement, that work could gain a completely different momentum, regardless of who governs in the municipalities or who sits in government.

Would it not be good to have such conversations? Will Ulf Kristersson invite to that?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, we have moved from the bottom of growth under your government to the top of growth under our government. It is a good start. It is not enough, but it is a good start.

When it comes to crime policy, I now understand that you would like a pact with the Moderaterna for ten years so that we will help you away from your own intended government base. Thanks, but no thanks!

(Applause)

If you mean seriously, you are very welcome to join as a qualified and quite large support party – perfectly fine. I want unity in the big issues, not for you to be afraid of yourselves.

If you want our help to raise taxes so that you can avoid doing it yourselves, the answer is the same: Thanks, but no thanks! We have shown that we can prioritize in the state budget and double the defense appropriations this far. Now we are making a historic investment, starting with borrowed money, which we will then grow into. Helping you to raise the tax, we will not do.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Rents have increased by 17 percent over the last three years. These are record-high rent increases. Many tenants are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the high housing costs which only rise, not necessarily because the maintenance has become significantly better or that anything has improved in the apartment – it is simply general rent increases that the property owners are now making, and these need to be curbed fundamentally.

Instead, the Moderaterna in the autumn made a decision at their convention to introduce market rents if they win the next election. This means that the tenant completely loses their protection against excessively large rent increases or high rents. The property owner can set any rent whatsoever on the market's terms.

All studies that exist show that this would shock-increase the rents. Why do the Moderaterna want to increase the rents further by several thousand kronor a month in this situation, Ulf Kristersson?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! A lie does not become truer because it is repeated time and again. I believe it is the fourth time we have had this exchange of remarks.

The Moderates have no such proposals to introduce what you call market rents with free rent setting in any way so that people are thrown out of their homes. The answer is no.

However, there is another point in what you say. It is quite true that rents have been raised. In the same way, people living in housing cooperatives have seen their mortgage interest rates rise. All of this is spelled inflation – the high inflation that rose to double digits during the government that the Left Party so strongly supported, praised, and wanted to be a part of, and now demands to be a part of if misfortune should occur. It worsened the finances of all Swedes.

Now we have fought inflation. Now inflation is down at the target again. Then there are conditions for people to also have a good personal economy.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! What kind of comfort is this? Rents are not being lowered. They will not go down unless the government and the Sweden Democrats do something.

I am very surprised by Ulf Kristersson's answer, because I looked at the Moderaternas housing policy spokesperson's article in Fastighetstidningen. According to that, the idea is that the negotiation between the property owner and the tenant should be completely unregulated, but precisely that Ulf Kristersson now denies. Is he trying to pull a fast one by saying he will introduce market rents? Is he not standing behind his housing policy spokesperson?

The core of the idea of market rents is that the property owner is free to set the rents on the market's terms. The Moderaterna themselves write this in their decision. The Liberalerna and Kristdemokraterna have also stood behind this proposal. It is therefore a government proposal that one is now going to the election on.

I want an answer to the question of why the Moderates should shock-increase people's rents if they win the next election.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party and sometimes the Social Democrats have tried to scare people with what they call market rents over the last three, four – or five – decades. It has always been equally wrong. It is wrong now too. They do it because they want to hide another failure. During the previous government's time, inflation rose to such an extent that everyone's housing costs skyrocketed. This applied both to the rents, because everything became more expensive, and to the mortgage interest rates, because inflation demanded it. All of this was a capital economic failure.

We have spent three years fighting the damage the left caused in the Swedish economy. Now there is only one common answer from the left: Raise the tax! For completely ordinary people with completely ordinary incomes, they want to raise the tax – on top of the costs that have increased since before. It is a ruthless housing policy and a ruthless economic policy. We will stop it.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Right now, unemployment is high among the highly educated. Over 95,000 academics are without jobs. In the Academics' unemployment insurance fund, unemployment is the highest in 20 years. It is young people who have done everything right. It is people in the middle of life who have suddenly lost their jobs. It is a result of companies not hiring.

The Prime Minister has increased the costs and only scratched the surface to reduce red tape. Still, the Prime Minister does not seem to be listening properly. It is a bit like the smoke alarm is sounding in the kitchen, but one turns up the volume on the TV instead of going there to check.

I want to ask a simple question that many at home on the sofa probably wonder about: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the fact that people who have done everything right are just now standing without jobs?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist to this format as well. Welcome to your first party leader debate! I look forward to good conversations when we agree and good debates when we disagree. I have had reasons to meet you regularly since you were chairperson of the Swedish Private Equity Association.

Regarding unemployment, I want to say two things. One is structural unemployment. That is the one that is truly serious in Sweden and long-term deeply problematic. It is primarily about people who do not have Swedish as a mother tongue, do not have education, do not have the language and have never worked in Sweden. It is fundamentally due to something that the Centerpartiet should reflect on, namely that the immigration was far too high for far too long. We have now changed that.

The second type of unemployment is also serious, but it is cyclical. Therefore, it has been incredibly important for us to fight inflation, bring down interest rates, gain increased confidence in the Swedish business sector, and get the wheels moving again. We see signs of that now.

I am not satisfied with this. But the light we see now is much better than the dark time we are leaving behind.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the spring, when I and the Prime Minister debated this, he said: "With all due respect: the Center Party always returns to the employer contributions for young people. To be honest, it is about much broader issues when it comes to who employs in Sweden."

Let me be fair – the government has listened. The employer contributions for young people have been lowered, but only temporarily and only during the election year. It is nothing that unemployed academics can take part in.

The truth is that it is not going particularly well for Sweden economically, even though there is some growth potential next year. The number of bankruptcies is at the highest levels since the 90s.

Academics get jobs when companies can offer them jobs, and companies hire when politics gives them reasonable and long-term conditions. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make more of the reforms that are required for companies to dare to hire permanently and not just temporarily?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is about three things. The first is that we are moving from the bottom of growth towards the top of growth. That is a good start. We have moved from a swamp where the Swedish economy did not grow at all, with very high inflation and low confidence in the future, to the opposite. It is incredibly important for Swedish business. I encounter it everywhere.

Secondly, it is correct that we are now lowering the employer contribution for young people. We are also lowering the food VAT. We are doing this as a cyclical measure to help with the recovery that is underway.

Which taxes does Centerpartiet believe they will be able to lower together with Vänsterpartiet?

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: We shall see that as a rhetorical question since Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist has no further remarks.)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Electrification was Ulf Kristersson's primary climate promise, but it has become his greatest failure. Time and again, we have heard the Prime Minister talk about the electrification of transport and industry as the main strategy for the climate transition. But this far into the mandate period, I can state that it has been nothing but just talk.

In practice, Ulf Kristersson has pursued an anti-electrification policy that has caused the expansion of electricity production to grind to a halt. The industry that demands more electricity in the near term has been forced to postpone its investments into the future.

Kristersson has made record-breaking tax cuts on fossil fuels and scrapped the electric car bonus. The signal to everyone who has wondered which car to buy has been that fossil will become cheaper and electric cars more expensive.

Mr. Speaker! The electrification has slowed down. My question to Kristersson is therefore whether this is an honest failure or deliberate misleading.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not understand why the Green Party, which honestly and sincerely has been in favor of environmental policy for very many years, so systematically disparages Swedish environmental and climate policy abroad. We have the world's best basic energy and climate policy. We have the world's cleanest electricity system thanks to hydropower, other renewable power, and nuclear power.

We have an ongoing electrification and, moreover, better opportunities than many other European countries to do so now that we are expanding nuclear power. We have the forest, which my government protects against EU bureaucrats who think it should help other countries avoid transitioning. We have some of the world's best conditions for a really good climate policy, and the Green Party always speaks ill of it.

When it comes to electrification, it is clear that it proceeds more slowly in a recession. That is the case throughout Europe. Electrification is ongoing. The companies want it. The consumers want it. Let us give all consumers the conditions for electrification!

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is 2026. I do not think it is sufficient for real climate leadership to refer to policies that were pushed through 30 years ago or policies that might take effect in 30 years. By then, it will be too late.

The fact remains. Electrification has slowed down. Nothing Ulf Kristersson says can change that. Yes, the recession has contributed. But it is also unequivocal that the policy has had a negative impact. Many analysts show that. It is clear that enormous subsidies for fossil fuels and the removal of electric vehicle support have had an effect.

That the government is now introducing an electric car bonus is nothing to boast about because the EU essentially requires it.

Sweden lags far behind both Norway and Denmark, which have also been hit by the recession. But in Denmark, the share of new sales of electric cars is at 70 percent and in Norway at almost 100 percent.

The expansion of wind power has been stalled.

Electrification was Ulf Kristersson's primary climate promise, but I note that it has become his greatest failure.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén (MP) and Gustaf Lantz (S) agreed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Electrification is based on widespread access to electricity. That is, so to speak, inherent in the very concept. And if it is to be meaningful at all, that electricity must be fossil-free. To make the world's most advanced electric cars, which are to be powered by and produced with the help of German coal power, is quite meaningless.

We have the world's best conditions. If you had been as keen on this as you say, Amanda Lind, you would have voted yes to new Swedish fossil-free electricity. Instead, you systematically vote no as soon as the opportunities are tested to expand Swedish nuclear power.

My question is rather: Will you see to it that the Social Democrats are also forced to be against Swedish nuclear power, should the accident occur and a Swedish left-wing government be formed?

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: That too can be seen as a rhetorical question.)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Remote work is an expensive story for millions of hard-working Swedes. It creates an unfair gap between those who can work from home when they wake up with a cold and those who cannot. That injustice has always existed. But after the pandemic, when the possibility of working from home has increased significantly in certain occupational groups, the injustice has increased.

For me it is obvious: the Karens shall be abolished. It is about respect and justice.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that this debate is taking place in the evening, so that more people can follow it. I have also invited several people to the gallery here in the Riksdag today. One of them is a specialist nurse. She works in an intensive care unit and sees how unfairly the care shortage hits. Many heard her speaking on the summer program on Sveriges Radio about what it was like to work during the pandemic, when everyone applauded the healthcare staff. She wonders how the care shortage can even be a right-left issue and what happened to those applauses.

There are also electricians, subway drivers and several others who lose thousands of kronor because they cannot work from home. They wonder what the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna call justice.

Mr. Speaker! When the other party leaders are now to respond to my contribution, I ask them to address the gallery and tell our guests why they advocate for a system that punishes those who work hard and strive for Sweden but who cannot work from home.

(Applause)

In this speech, Johan Andersson, Gustaf Lantz and Leif Nysmed (all S) concurred.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats pushed for lower fuel prices during the election campaign. And today we see a marked difference in just the fuel prices compared to when Magdalena Andersson was in power and was Prime Minister. That is good, by the way, for ordinary people.

Four parties in the government base met in Strängnäs shortly before Christmas. We then agreed that fuel prices shall remain low during the coming mandate period. It is a promise from us four parties.

Mr. Speaker! Can Magdalena Andersson, with the government basis she has at her disposal, give the same promise of low fuel prices?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not in fact know what that promise from Jimmie Åkesson will mean for those who vote, because Jimmie Åkesson in the last election promised that healthcare staff would be spared the care gaps.

I give Jimmie Åkesson another opportunity to turn to all those sitting in the stands, who must have the unfair quarantine deduction, and explain why he betrayed his promise that it would be abolished for contact Turks.

Regarding the price of gasoline, it is entirely correct that it has fallen, partly due to tax changes but not least due to the world market price. I assume that Jimmie Åkesson cannot promise how the world market price will develop.

We Social Democrats have a proposal regarding Sverigebränsle, about purchasing large quantities of Swedish fuel which can then be sold to Swedish consumers at low prices. It would increase Sweden's resilience in times of crisis and give Swedish households the opportunity to refuel with Swedish fuel and not be dependent on the dirty fuels of Muslim dictatorships.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! To quote Magdalena Andersson herself: Was that a yes or a no?

The question regarding the fuel tax, Magdalena Andersson is very happy to answer me when it is her turn to reply to what I say. But now I asked a very concrete question, and I am actually not particularly interested in the Social Democrats' own proposals, which they have come up with in opposition, regarding Sverigebränsle and whatever different constructions they are coming up with. What I am interested in is how they are going to navigate the political reality when they are going to build their government, which they want to form, on other parties that want to raise fuel prices in Sweden.

Can Magdalena Andersson promise that they, even if it becomes a Social Democratic-led government after the next election, will still guarantee continued low fuel prices, naturally not depending on the world market price but depending on the reduction obligation, taxes, and other things? It is not a difficult question to answer yes or no to.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that Jimmie Åkesson nevertheless admits that he does not control the world market price and will not do so in the future either. It is, in fact, the world market price that explains the majority of the change in the fuel price.

It is strange how concerned the Sweden Democrats are that the Swedish people should continue to be dependent on dirty fuels from Islamist dictatorships. I want us to refuel with Swedish and that we ensure we buy up these large quantities in long-term contracts. Then we can drive with Swedish in the tank and do not need to be dependent on the world market price of oil, but can be resilient and drive on the Swedish, not least in a plug-in hybrid. Then one can charge the car and drive the everyday traffic on electricity, and then one drives on the Swedish fuel when one is going to visit mom and dad.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since I have hardly heard a single sound from the opposition during the entire Christmas holiday regarding violence against women, despite everything that has happened, I would like to bring this up today.

As I said, a completely new penalty, a detention sentence, will be introduced in April, so that one does not release truly dangerous criminals. And tomorrow, the government will therefore make a decision to toughen the penalties for rape.

I actually have two questions. One is: Why did it require a bourgeois government to do such things, Magdalena Andersson? Why were you against all of this during the years when you yourselves could influence the issues?

My second question is: How would you, if the worst should happen and we get a left-wing majority in Sweden's Riksdag, handle the Left Party's lax crime policy? They even want to abolish life imprisonment.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The difference with me as Prime Minister is that I lead the largest party in the government base and have a bit more to say than the current Prime Minister.

(Applause)

The issue of violence against women by men is fundamentally extremely serious and needs to be prioritized as highly as the fight against gang crime. I think it is good that the government is making changes. During our time, we introduced the consent legislation. We had a ten-point program against violence against women by men. We made the financial support to women's shelters permanent. We carried out hard work against honor-based violence. We fought hard for women's economic equality. Having one's own means of support is crucial in order to be able to leave a violent relationship. The work for equality needs to become significantly more extensive than what we see in Sweden today.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One interpretation of what Magdalena Andersson just said is that she guarantees that Vänsterpartiet will have no influence in Swedish politics if it becomes a left-wing government in Sweden. It will be interesting to hear Vänsterpartiet's view on that question.

(Applause)

The second and more plausible interpretation is that you in the Social Democrats were larger than the Left Party even when you governed yourselves and that you yourselves saw to it then not to do the things that we are doing now. It was your lack of restraint. It was your shower curtain. It is you who speak in opposition but do not deliver in a government position. That does not impress Swedish voters.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was important with the consent legislation. I also think it is important that we have in so many ways lifted women's economic situation, improved equality and worked against honor-related violence.

Regarding security sentences, we Social Democrats stand behind that proposal. Ulf Kristersson is right: We have changed our policy in opposition. We are going to the election as a straighter and more action-oriented party. It is good that Ulf Kristersson raises that question, so that I can clarify it for the Swedish people. Yes, the Social Democrats' crime policy is tougher in 2026 than it was in 2022. It is clear to the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson and I have a few things in common. For the first, we are both critical of the low growth and the record-high unemployment. For the second, we both studied at the Stockholm School of Economics. It was many years ago, but the most fundamental economic principles probably still hold. It is companies that create jobs, growth, and resources for our common welfare. Companies are the solution to Sweden's unemployment crisis.

That is why I am so perplexed that she wants to see more of the politics that has brought us here. In recent years, the government has made it more expensive for companies, and the Social Democrats have joined in. But when they finally lower the tax on hiring young people, albeit by too little and only temporarily, Magdalena Andersson says no to that reduction in her budget.

If the unemployment crisis is important, how does Magdalena Andersson want to ensure that small businesses can hire?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to welcome Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist to the party group and to the first party group debate in the Riksdag. I look forward to a close cooperation. I appreciate Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist's focus on jobs, on entrepreneurship, and on making it work in the whole country. All of Sweden shall not only live but also grow and develop.

When it comes specifically to reduced employer contributions for young people, we can go back to the Stockholm School of Economics: The research is very clear that reduced employer contributions are not a particularly effective instrument for increasing employment. There are other instruments that are better to work with. It is against that background that we say no to that proposal and instead allocate the money to a job contract for young people, so that no young person will have to be unemployed for a longer period.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Recent research shows that lowered employer contributions actually both increase companies' hiring and lower inflation. It is therefore two in one – excellent!

We read the same course literature in the 90s, but it seems as if Magdalena has forgotten important parts of business economics. Increased costs for companies lead to fewer jobs. That is exactly what a scrapped sick pay deduction does. The purpose is good: people should not have to work when they are sick, and people who work in healthcare and schools have a harder time working from home when they are sick. But a scrapped sick pay deduction will mean that sick leave will increase, just as it did last time when the Social Democrats removed the sick pay deduction. The cost is estimated at 40 billion kronor per year.

My question is: In what way does the removal of the career deduction benefit growth and job creation?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has become one of the world's richest countries because we have skilled companies, competent labor, and work hard. An important part is also that we are a society that holds together and that we have a justice in Sweden.

The travel deduction is an obvious injustice for the nurses, doctors, teachers, military personnel, police officers, security guards, and nursing assistants who have to do the job at work. I believe it would be good for Sweden to remove that injustice. We also saw during the pandemic that it actually worked. Sweden becomes a better country if we ensure that we invest in what holds us together: in roads, in railways, in education, and in the skills development that is completely necessary for companies to be able to function.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz (S) agreed.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Our government has done more for women's health than the governments that Magdalena Andersson has sat in. The Social Democratic efforts made over the entire eight years do not reach what has been achieved during the last three years. We have, for example, in addition to what Ulf Kristersson just mentioned, strengthened care for things that primarily affect girls and women.

Firstly, we have developed a national maternity plan to reduce regional differences. Secondly, we finally get, for the first time in earnest, national guidelines for what one can expect from menopause care. Thirdly, we have an investment of 1 billion to, among other things, increase the number of operations for prolapse, where the queues have been very long. The number of women who have waited illegally long for that type of operation has now decreased by just over 60 percent. Why do the Social Democrats want to end this investment? It is hardly feminist politics.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch is missing the big picture. Where do the large sums of money for the regions, which are responsible for healthcare, come from? Well, they come partly in the form of tax payments from those who live in the region, and partly in the form of state grants from the government and the Riksdag. Regarding the state grants, it is the general state grants that come in the big bag. In addition, we have some targeted investments, but those are the small pucks. What Ebba Busch now completely forgets is that the general state grants have not developed at all in line with inflation; everything that has become more expensive in healthcare has led to large savings in healthcare all around Sweden.

Now the staff is so stressed that Försäkringskassan is warning about their health. I am for small-scale initiatives. But one must do the basic work first, and the government is not doing that. Instead, they have lowered the tax for themselves and the others who are rich.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I hope those sitting in the gallery and those listening at home hear, and all the women in Sweden who are pregnant and wonder: Will there be an available midwife when it is time for me to give birth? It took a bourgeois government for national guidelines to be put in place for what one should expect from maternity care.

All of us who, like me, have entered menopause and all those who are in menopause know how derelict and underprioritized the care has been. It took a bourgeois government for women's health to be taken seriously.

Now the so-called opposition leader does not even answer the question of why one wants to remove the targeted funds that have had a proven effect on the types of problems that only affect women.

(Applause)

I think it is a pathetic answer we are getting from Magdalena Andersson today. It is, above all, a non-answer. It is cynical regarding something as important as women's well-being and health. It is something that we know is crucial for women's participation in the labor market, for pensions, and for our opportunity to be treated equally as men.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have nothing against Ebba Busch's guidelines. But what do guidelines help when there is no staff or money to live up to the guidelines, Ebba Busch?

Ebba Busch can raise her tone. But it is impossible to escape the fact that Ebba Busch has not given healthcare the resources that healthcare needs in the inflation crisis.

(Applause)

Instead, Ebba Busch has lowered the tax for Jimmie Åkesson, Ulf Kristersson and Ebba Busch herself by 6,000 kronor every month. This is happening at the same time as we have measured the longest healthcare queues we have ever had in this country.

It is the result of Ebba Busch's healthcare policy. Now she also wants it to be nationalized and managed minutely from Stockholm. How long the queues will then be, one might wonder?

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Lantz (S) concurred.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! In December, the magazine Kvartal revealed that voluntary associations in Malmö feel pressured by the Social Democrats. One association tells Kvartal that municipal grants that were intended to get more people to vote in the 2022 election have in fact been used to collect votes for S.

This stinks of corruption. Money that is supposed to go to the voluntary association life is instead used to pressure associations to make contributions for the governing party. This does not belong in Sweden.

My question is: Will Magdalena Andersson take action against her party colleagues in Malmö?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am not familiar with what has been written in Kvartal. I do, however, know that one should not always take everything that is written in Kvartal as a direct truth. I can, of course, look at the issue to see if there is any problem here.

I am completely certain that if there is a problem here, Katrin Stjernfeldt Jammeh in Malmö is prepared to rectify it. I feel completely calm and secure about that.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that it can be difficult to answer, and I understand that one might perhaps need to workshop an answer at Sveavägen 68 before doing so.

Let us try again. We travel on, as they say in På spåret i tv. We are now heading to Gothenburg instead. In Gothenburg, Magdalena Andersson's party comrade has arranged premises for Islamists.

My question remains. When will Magdalena Andersson take responsibility for her party comrades in Sweden's largest cities?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If there is a problem in a city, it is of course important that the politician in that case rectifies it. I am sure that they do.

What if Simona Mohamsson perhaps took responsibility for Swedish school? It is a bit of work. There we unfortunately see how the school results have fallen, how it is rowdy in the classrooms and how nothing is still being done about the Swedish market chaos in the school. Here, a complete renovation of Swedish school was promised. Of this, not even a thumb's breadth was achieved.

It is four lost years for Swedish school. If the Swedish people want reality of what the Swedish people truly think – that there should be an end to the pursuit of profit in Swedish school, an end to venture capitalists who send our tax money to tax havens and that we instead should ensure that they stay with the children, the students and the teachers – then one should vote for the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is noticeable that we count on a good number of people watching the debate on TV. There is quite a high energy in the debate. It is fun. There are also quite a few in the chamber and a lot of applause. That is also fun. It is also noticeable that it is an election year. Not least, the Social Democrats in opposition are now once again promising gold and green forests.

Magdalena Andersson said in her first speech: Now it is the ordinary people's turn. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. I have thought so for a long time. That is why we have lowered the tax on work, and that is why we have lowered the tax on pensions.

That is why we have lowered the tax on electricity. That is why we have lowered the tax on fuels. We have significantly reduced the detestable reduction obligation so that we now have Europe's second lowest fuel prices. It is good for ordinary people.

We are lowering the tax on food – we are halving the tax on food. We have removed the tax on caravans. We have reduced the tax on dance performances. We have raised the ceiling in the unemployment insurance fund (a-kassan). We have introduced a real high-cost protection for dental care in a first step for those who are 67 years of age or older this year.

We are locking up more dangerous people, Mr. Speaker. We have reduced asylum-related immigration to the lowest level in 40 years. We have stopped immigration to low-wage jobs. We have done a lot, Mr. Speaker, during these three years.

We have done much that the Social Democrats did not want to do, that the Social Democrats were not able to do, and that the Social Democrats did not dare to do for ordinary people during the eight years they had the chance.

Now the Swedish people must choose whether we shall continue in this direction or whether we shall go back to that which the Social Democrats will not do.

(Applause)

In this speech, Clara Aranda, Mats Arkhem, Carita Boulwén, Chris Dahlqvist, Staffan Eklöf, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Yasmine Eriksson, Mikael Eskilandersson, Josef Fransson, Ann-Christine Frohm, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Erik Hellsborn, Patrik Jönsson, Fredrik Lindahl, Linda Lindberg, Christian Lindefjärd, Angelica Lundberg, Thomas Morell, Daniel Persson, Charlotte Quensel, Patrick Reslow, Oscar Sjöstedt, Jimmy Ståhl, Johnny Svedin, Victoria Tiblom, Pia Trollehjelm, Martin Westmont, Eric Westroth and Leonid Yurkovskiy (all SD) as well as Sara-Lena Bjälkö (-) agreed.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Before the last election, Jimmie Åkesson promised to be the guarantor of the welfare, but now we see how the school, healthcare, and elderly care are struggling. The staff is so burnt out that Försäkringskassan is sounding the alarm.

The Sweden Democrats also promised not to worsen the unemployment insurance, but now the unemployment insurance is worsened while at the same time 100,000 more have become unemployed. The Sweden Democrats also promised to remove the karens for welfare personnel, but it remains.

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson is a good debater, but in the real world, his election promises do not become reality. Jimmie Åkesson invited the question that I pose once again: Why did he betray his promise regarding the allowance for welfare staff? It is about thousands of kronor for them.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That the Sweden Democrats cannot fulfill all election promises is due to the fact that we did not receive all the votes or at least more than half. I note, however, that we can fulfill more of our election promises than Magdalena Andersson can because we cooperate with the government.

Unfortunately, we have not gone all the way when it comes to this issue. That does not take away from the fact that I think Magdalena Andersson is at least partially right when it comes to the grace period. There is an injustice in this, not least linked to who can work from home or cannot work from home. There is also an injustice if one were to remove the grace day, where those who get up in the morning despite perhaps feeling a bit unwell and actually make it to work do not get anything out of doing so.

There is, therefore, an injustice on both sides. I am absolutely prepared to discuss various measures to rectify it, but I am not prepared to support a proposal from the Socialdemokraterna without any negotiation or discussion whatsoever.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That you do not want to support the abolition of the quarantine period, we have evidence of in the Riksdag, for you have voted no to it. Jimmie Åkesson says that there is an injustice, but then I want to point out that staff in healthcare and elderly care are not allowed to go to work if they feel they have a cold. That kind of injustice does not apply to the welfare staff, so it was a rather poor argument.

It is obvious that this was not one of the issues that Jimmie Åkesson prioritized in the negotiations. It was obviously more important to lower the tax for himself by 6,000 kronor every month. It was more important to lower the tax for those who are the largest capital owners, for those who have large capital incomes, and for the Swedish companies. That was the priority when Jimmie Åkesson was going to negotiate.

This is also an important message to everyone who has now had their unemployment insurance reduced, who have not had their waiting period abolished, and who have been given more expensive medicines: It is not ordinary people who are the priority when Jimmie Åkesson negotiates.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I note that this was also not something that Magdalena Andersson prioritized during the eight years she had a place in the government.

(Applause)

(MAGDALENA ANDERSSON (S): Yes, wrong!)

Again: This is just empty promises from the Social Democrats. Time and again, they have promised anything and everything that then never happens. On one hand, they are unable to create stability in a government base so that they can push through their policies, and on the other hand, it is a matter of pure political opportunism.

Magdalena Andersson talks about how important it is to tackle unemployment. In what way are more jobs created if we send a bill of 40 billion for abolished sick pay to those who create jobs? Let us discuss the issue seriously. Let us discuss it in a way that means you also finance what you propose! You do not do that, but instead Magdalena Andersson sends the bill to Sweden's companies. That is not what I am prepared to do in this situation.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! During the time that the Sweden Democrat Jimmie Åkesson has supported the government, waiting times in healthcare have increased. The school system is on its knees, and households are having a really, really tough time, but he has given people with ministers' salaries and party leader salaries 70,000 kronor in tax cuts per year. Think of how much else could have been done with that money!

It is not just about that. At the same time as many compare prices in the grocery store, the Sweden Democrats also give large grants to wealthy individuals. We have looked into that. If an ordinary family has a sufficiently large capital and is sufficiently wealthy, one can receive grants of 50,000 kronor per month if they are stacked on top of each other.

Is it not time, Jimmie Åkesson, for a benefit cap for the rich? Should electricians and warehouse workers really work so that very wealthy people can receive such large benefits? Should these monies not end up in their own pockets? Is it not reasonable that we introduce a benefit cap for the rich?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am actually not following here, but I may get a more detailed explanation later.

My position is that I think it would be good if as many as possible who work and behave correctly got to keep as much as possible of what they work for, that is to say that we should have as low taxes as possible, especially on work. The taxes should be so low that one wants to work and feels that it is meaningful to work a little more and perhaps take that extra shift without everything disappearing into Nooshi Dadgostars state treasury and so on. I think that is a good starting point.

Then we also have a welfare state that we need to account for, and therefore we cannot lower taxes as much as we want. We must have a reasonable balance, and I think we have a reasonable balance.

I generally think that we should have a benefit ceiling regardless of whether one is rich or poor or whatever one is. Continuing to stack up a lot of benefits for people feels like a waste.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is about this: If you have extremely many millions in the account, you can receive grants, and this government has introduced this to a greater extent. If you have a property on the French Riviera, you can, despite being a billionaire and having very large incomes and a large capital, have the cleaning completely financed by ordinary workers. If you are super-rich and have a property in the Stockholm archipelago, you get the cleaning tax-financed.

Then the question is: Is it a priority that such wealthy individuals should receive such large grants when we have such great problems in Sweden? We have gang shootings. We have school results that are falling, and the children do not get the help and the support they need. So many people work and toil but are expected to participate in paying for this grant for the individuals who receive it. Is it not reasonable that we set a cap on this?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The only concrete thing I heard from Nooshi Dadgostar was the route deduction, and we do have a cap on that. Or have I missed something?

(Applause)

With all respect to Nooshi Dadgostar: It scared me a little when she said in her speech earlier that one should take back control. When left-wing extremists say that, it usually does not end so well.

We know that Vänsterpartiet does not like billionaires; it has become clear with all clarity lately. Nooshi Dadgostar said here that the jobs have not increased over 25 years despite the fact that the billionaires have increased.

I can give you a fact: Over the last 25 years, the number of employed people in Sweden has increased by approximately 1 million people. Reasonably, this should mean that the number of jobs has increased by approximately 1 million. Whether it is the billionaires' merit or not, I do not know, but if you are a billionaire because you run a successful company, you also have the opportunity to employ people so that people can work and support themselves and their family. I think that is quite good.

(Applause)

(NOOSHI DADGOSTAR (V): The population has increased.)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin with a quote: "An excessively high proportion of decisions are made today by those in power who lack proximity to, and understanding of, the citizens, local communities, and businesses affected." Those words come from the Sweden Democrats' rural program in the 2022 election campaign.

Despite these fine words, the Sweden Democrats want to scrap an important municipal veto, that against uranium mining. Here on Helgeandsholmen, it is a long way to Oviken, where fertile farmland becomes an open-pit mine and where Jämtland's most important drinking water risks being poisoned. It is clear that the local population says no – and not only in Jämtland but also in all other places threatened by uranium mining.

I would like to give Jimmie Åkesson, who is one of these power holders, the opportunity to explain why he wants to remove the municipal veto against uranium mining.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Much has been said, even in this debate, about the importance of more electricity, electrification and so on. One can be in favor of this for various reasons, but not least for climate reasons, it is important that we transition to electric power – and then with fossil-free electricity, instead of fossil fuels or fossil-produced electricity. In that case, we also need minerals that we can use to produce electricity.

We believe very strongly in dispatchable power production, that is to say nuclear power. It is the reason why we need to do something to enable a self-sufficient supply of important fuels.

It does not mean that there should be no compensation. There must be. I have always been of the opinion that if we utilize different types of natural resources in a part of the country, one should be compensated for it. I think that is the important discussion, rather than the one about a veto.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree. Nuclear power was needed. We can import uranium from many places where uranium has been mined for a long time.

But I am also a defender of the countryside's self-determination. I grew up by Storsjön. When my neighbors in Jämtland say no to a uranium mine, it is not because they know less than Jimmie Åkesson, on the contrary. I trust the environmental assessment, but people want to have local control over houses and homes now, not wait for 25 years until the environmental assessment is complete.

Now people's assets are being rendered worthless, as SD wants to allow uranium mining and at the same time disregards people's right to be involved in the decision-making.

But this is about more than just the uranium issue. I am a bit tired of politicians who treat those who live in Sweden's rural areas like an old aunt that one visits every four years and then forgets about once the votes are counted.

I give Jimmie Åkesson a new chance to explain why people who are affected should not be allowed to participate in the decision-making.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that people should be allowed to participate in the decision-making. However, there are other ways to make decisions than through a municipal veto. I am happy to continue discussing that.

I do not think the argument that we can import uranium from other parts of the world where uranium is already mined holds up. It is not only Sweden that is to have new nuclear power, but large parts of our part of the world are to build new nuclear power on a very large scale. In that case, it is quite unreasonable not to enable a domestic supply of what is required to be able to have nuclear power not only now but in the long term. That is the reason for this.

Since then, I am again very concerned that there should be an opportunity for compensation where uranium or other minerals that we need to transition, as it is so beautifully called in the debates, are to be extracted.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Here I want to join my party leadership colleague Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, for in this matter we stand completely united – together with municipalities, citizens, and entrepreneurs around Lake Storsjön and in other regions around Sweden that are now threatened by uranium mining and furthermore no longer have the opportunity to say no.

On January 1, it became permitted to mine uranium in Sweden. The ban had existed to protect people all over our country from poison, from radiation and from contaminated lands. At the same time, the municipal veto was weakened.

What does this mean? Yes, in practice that a municipality can be forced to accept mines that destroy forest and agricultural land, nature and outdoor life and risk drinking water and people's health – this through decisions made far away, over the heads of those who have to live with the consequences.

Mr. Speaker! What does Jimmie Åkesson say to all Swedes who are worried about their health and the place they live?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The environmental assessments that take place do not disappear just because the municipal veto is weakened. They naturally remain. People's health must not be risked – I believe everyone here agrees on that and that Amanda Lind also understands.

Then it is almost a bit cozy to hear the Green Party's sudden enthusiasm for local self-government and that people who are affected and impacted in different ways by decisions in this assembly shall have the opportunity to say stop. Did one think that during the asylum crisis in 2015? No, one did not.

(Applause)

We also have the municipal veto regarding wind power. There is a long series of things where I mean that Miljöpartiet stands on the other side.

This rhetoric echoes quite hollowly. Miljöpartiet hates nuclear power, plain and simple. We do not. We think nuclear power is good. That is what we need, and therefore we need to take these types of measures.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is distressing to wave away the anxiety of people around Storsjön, in Nianfors, in Skövde and in Vilhelmina in this way, as well as their frustration over no longer being able to participate in making these decisions. Now, people and politicians here in Stockholm are to make these decisions over their heads.

At the same time, it is often about mining of alunschist with low uranium content and large, documented risks for both health, agricultural land, and the environment. Furthermore, it occupies enormous areas.

Jimmie Åkesson lies as well. Miljöpartiet stands for the municipal veto in the matter of wind power. But that is typical Jimmie Åkesson: As soon as the narrative does not fit his story, he changes the subject. Then he wants to talk about other things.

I mean that it is completely central that people who live where there is a risk of getting a uranium mine should have the opportunity to say no. For Miljöpartiet, it is clear: We say no to uranium mining and yes to local self-determination. SD, instead, wants to override their own residents.

Which side does SD stand on? It is not the countryside's.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Electricity is needed in the countryside too, not just in large cities. Jobs are needed in the countryside and in sparsely populated areas as well. Mineral extraction and mining can contribute to more jobs that can ensure that sparsely populated areas and the countryside are not depopulated, and so on.

I would still argue that a mining-friendly and nuclear power-friendly policy is largely a policy for Sweden's countryside, not the other way around as Amanda Lind claims. That is the point.

Then it is a matter of having things sorted. If one does not want nuclear power, I understand that one is against uranium mining. I also understand that there is no reason to mine uranium if it is not economically profitable or if it is extremely dangerous for people's health and for the environment. Then, of course, one should not do it. I have no other opinion than Amanda Lind's regarding that. But that the possibility should exist is obvious to me.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have long pursued the issue that immigration has been too high. I am willing to admit that Jimmie Åkesson has had a point. An all-too-high immigration in combination with a lack of requirements for integration has led to the fact that we have 170,000 children who today are growing up in exclusion.

I wonder if Jimmie Åkesson is willing to admit that the Liberals also have a point, namely that the uncertainty in our global environment shows why a deepened European cooperation would be good for Sweden.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! European cooperation is deepening progressively as we relate to the world around us, as Simona Mohamsson herself describes.

Then we know that when Liberals talk about deepened European cooperation, it is more of central control from Brussels, more of standardization and more of federalism that is intended. It is something else. Then it is not just a deepened cooperation, but then we move towards the development that we get a kind of European federation with a high degree of federal laws, the right to collect tax and other things that the Liberals want. That is something I am not prepared to support.

However, it is obvious that we in Europe need to unite. If we are to maintain a rules-based world order given the global situation, we must be able to measure up in strength and power with others in the world who wish us ill, and of course, we need to do that together.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! When we had party leader debates in the chamber last autumn, Jimmie Åkesson's deputy said that the military cooperation for Europe's freedom must be deepened. It sounded like the Moderate Party's position. But the question is how it is to be done if one constantly has a fear that the cooperation will be centralized and that deepening is a problem.

The Liberals have proposed that the EU should be developed into a defense union, where one has, among other things, a common cyber defense and a drone wall. Do the Sweden Democrats share the Liberals' analysis that the EU should become a defense union?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, we absolutely do not. The EU should not be a defense union; rather, the EU is fundamentally a trade union to promote trade. That is what we stand behind. That the EU should be a defense union, the Liberals can push for on their own.

We have deepened the defensive Europe in recent years. Both Sweden and Finland have joined Nato. It is, to a large extent, a deepening of the cooperation, not least from our perspective. We have abandoned the neutrality policy in favor of the new order. I embrace that. I know that the Liberals do as well. Let us maintain the cooperation there. Let us not build a United States of Europe with its own military power, but let us instead distinguish between what is military and what is the rest of the European cooperation, which fundamentally is based on us promoting trade with one another.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party is a party of everyday life. Our mission is to make your life better. Did you think it was expensive to shop at the store last time? It is not that strange. It has become almost 3,000 kronor more expensive per month for you and your family to shop for food in just a few years. And the wages have not kept up.

We will ensure that costs are reduced. Among other things, we propose total transparency in how prices are set, and in that way, excessively high customer prices can lead to fines. The high rents need to be curbed. I know that many go to bed with anxiety and worry over bills. It must come to an end.

The Left is also a welfare party, a healthcare party, so that you receive the care you need. In July, two people died while waiting for surgery. How can people die while waiting for care in a welfare society? It is an unbearable thought, and it cannot be accepted.

The Left is a welfare party, which means that the seven-year-old who has difficulty with letters shall receive support to form the first sentences with chunky letters, and that the person who is older and has home care shall be spared stressed staff during dressing and toilet visits. It is more important than tax cuts for the richest.

I love Sweden. Historically, we have done a good job of using energy, natural resources, and the will to work to build one of the world's richest and most equal countries. What is needed is a leadership that can manage the country in a better way. Major societal problems can be solved, but then the gaps between us must decrease. The best days lie ahead of us.

(Applause)

In this speech, Andrea Andersson Tay, Samuel Gonzalez Westling, Ilona Szatmári Waldau and Jessica Wetterling (all V) concurred.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! During this parliamentary term, we have had a number of debates in this format and in slightly other formats where Nooshi Dadgostar has been given the opportunity to express her and the Left Party's view on economic policy. I will not be too sarcastic, but the Left Party advocates a policy that in principle should give everything to everyone always. If you do not do that, you are evil.

I noted at the beginning of the parliamentary term that Nooshi Dadgostar claimed to demand the position of Minister for Finance in a government led by Magdalena Andersson. Does Nooshi Dadgostar stand by the demand to become Minister for Finance in an S-led government?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are not saying that it should be everything for everyone. We do not think that Jimmie Åkesson should get 70,000 in tax cuts.

(Applause)

We do not think that the richest should receive subsidies that stack up to 50,000 kronor a month. There are bigger problems. But we will have to take those later when we have solved all other problems, when there is no longer half a million who are in unemployment and when there is no longer a market school that cannot help children who have difficulty passing school.

Until then, we must reduce crime, increase housing construction, and increase pensions. What the Sweden Democrats have done is raise the fee on medicine, raise the retirement age, make CSN loans more expensive, and give themselves a tax cut of 70,000 kronor per year. It is true that we say no thanks to that.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! That was more of a background to my concern regarding the demands that Nooshi Dadgostar put forward at the beginning of the parliamentary term about becoming Finance Minister in an S-led government. I note that she did not answer the specific question. Whether it was because she forgot it, that she did not want to answer, or that she did not dare to answer because she would risk making herself unpopular with her intended Prime Minister, I do not know. But she at least gets a chance to answer the question of whether she stands by the demand to become Finance Minister in an S-led government.

I can also state, based on Nooshi Dadgostar's answer, that I am no less concerned by the demand. Now she is to do even more for even more. She has promised to raise pensions, lower the interest on CSN loans, and do the first, the second, and the third. Good luck, I say. Let us, by God and others, hope that you do not become finance minister in Sweden's government.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Jimmie Åkesson is naturally preparing for his departure from power. It is realistic. I understand that you therefore wonder what the government will be in the next situation. We will negotiate the exact ministerial posts after the election, but it is good that Jimmie Åkesson is now preparing for the closing of the books for this mandate period. I appreciate that.

Will we do better for more people? The answer is yes. We will ensure that Sweden's working class gets a better country to live in. They shall not pay higher fees for their medicine so that Jimmie Åkesson can get tax cuts. They shall not pay in a higher retirement age so that Jimmie Åkesson can get tax cuts. They build this country, and they shall have their welfare. They shall not die in long care queues. Their children shall get the best possible school. Therefore, Jimmie Åkesson needs to ensure that he no longer governs the country this autumn.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Everyone here knows how serious the security situation is. The acute threat from Russia persists. The USA under Donald Trump is, at best, unreliable, at worst, a significant danger to our neighboring country.

The Left Party's strategy for Sweden in that situation is that of the hedgehog – to turn inward and curl up a bit, however without spines because they are not willing to invest the hundreds of billions more that would be required for us to be able to defend ourselves on our own. Without Nato membership, we would have been even more dependent on Trump. Without EU membership, we would have stood outside when Europe tries to unite. Still, the Left Party wants to leave Nato in the long run.

Sweden needs more cooperation in the EU and with like-minded members in Nato. We will not manage on our own. I would therefore like to ask Nooshi Dadgostar: Will Vänsterpartiet scrap its demands for withdrawal from Nato?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are not pushing for a withdrawal from Nato. Let me clarify the question that Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist poses, which is very good.

To begin with, we must build up our own defense. I am not ashamed to say it. We shall protect the Swedish people, and we are best at protecting ourselves. We can count on ourselves. We shall ensure that the women and men who defend Sweden receive all the support and help they need. We shall ensure that they protect precisely Sweden and are not primarily engaged in other countries. This requires resources, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist. In this case, it won't work just with large tax cuts, but the richest must also participate in paying to defend our country against hostile forces.

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist should not be worried about me or what I do with Nato. It is Donald Trump who is destroying Nato, not I. Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist needs to address Donald Trump. It is he who is now violating international law and, with a language of power, attempting to take over our neighboring country. That is something we do not intend to accept.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Nooshi Dadgostar, for the answer!

We agree that we are to build up our own defense. But I become a little worried when Nooshi Dadgostar says that we should not send our soldiers on missions in other countries. That is exactly what Denmark has asked us to do now. We are sending officers to Greenland because we think it is important to stand up for Nordic cooperation and Nordic cooperation in Nato. What does Nooshi Dadgostar think about that?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist is deliberately misunderstanding me. We are to have a defense that defends Sweden and like-minded countries. It was we who already several years ago proposed a cooperation with other like-minded countries. We already foresaw then that the USA and Turkey were heading in an authoritarian direction.

I mean that we cannot only have a defense force that travels to Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to have a defense that defends the Swedish people. Of course, in that situation, we help our neighboring country. It is completely obvious. We shall stand side by side with the Danish and the Greenlandic people in this difficult time.

It is not we who have created the anxiety, but it is Donald Trump who has created it. Let us stand united against those who want to destroy the rules-based world order. I hope that we can agree on that.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! "Welfare party" and "care party" are the words we hear Nooshi Dadgostar speak in the chamber today. But what kind of politics is actually hidden behind these words? It is obvious: If Nooshi Dadgostar is allowed to choose in a possible future red-green mess, we will return to the model where the state unreservedly sends out money to 21 different care regions. But we already know how it goes when unreserved state grants do not yield results for either patients or healthcare staff. What kind of welfare party is that then?

After over 30 billion in unconditional government investments in so-called good and close care, the Agency for Health and Social Care Analysis concluded the following: Patients do not experience increased accessibility to care. Staff conditions have not improved. The competence shortage persists. The work environment is strained. Primary care resources have not been strengthened.

Why does the Left Party continue with a demand-free healthcare policy that results in patients and staff being squeezed?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Dear colleagues! Ebba Busch has lowered taxes by over 100 billion this mandate period. There is no money – and so they are sending press release money to the regions.

Inflation is rising, and you are not even managing to match the wage developments and the price increases out in the regions. Apparently, it is much more important that the absolutely richest should get more tax cuts. It is fundamentally about economics.

I love requirements. It is the best thing I know. I hate when private healthcare companies can draw tax funds completely without requirements, double-bill, and refrain from hiring trained staff. In almost every private company that the regions have inspected, it has been shown that there is cheating and fraud. We are going to put a stop to that.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, it has become painfully obvious that it is more important for Nooshi Dadgostar to continue rattling off one-liners about tax cuts for the rich. It is more important for her to continue hating on people who have managed to get themselves in a slightly better position than to enable more people who are struggling today to get into a better position. I am so tired of it.

Thanks to us, an ordinary hard-working family has received 5,000 kronor more in their wallet. We have improved dental care. We have introduced a leisure card. We have succeeded in fighting inflation, which is the worst enemy of hard-working parents. Those who have received the largest tax cut are single parents with low incomes.

But Nooshi Dadgostar does not answer the question of why they are robbing women of the care they could receive. In Stockholm, where V is part of the government, they have withheld the money that should have gone towards cutting the care queues for operations that only women need. Stand for the fact that you have a demand-free welfare policy that results in women being squeezed!

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have a mother who has worked in Swedish healthcare for 30 years. She can tell you what it looks like on the floor, Ebba Busch. You cut the resources and lower the taxes for your friends. Two people died in the care queue over Christmas. They did not get their operations, which was because it was more important to put the money on Sweden's billionaires. I will never back down from that.

Care is the most important thing we have in Sweden. It is about human dignity. It should not be about having private insurance and buying one's way ahead, as Ebba Busch wants. It cannot be about cheating companies double-billing and taking our tax funds. It must be based on need. Those with the most severe illnesses should go first. We Social Democrats will always stand up for that. We put care before Ebba Busch's tax cuts.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! During the recent turbulent days in world politics, it has struck me: Nooshi Dadgostar says exactly what Donald Trump loves to hear. The American right believes, in fact, that Europe is not doing its part – that we are not taking responsibility for our security.

What does the Left Party do then? Well, they take every opportunity to criticize Nato. Nooshi says no to Nato bases and to Swedish support for Nato operations – no, no, no. She always says no to Nato. That surely sounds lovely in Trump's ears.

My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is: Is it not time for Vänsterpartiet to drop its opposition to Nato and prove to the Americans that we Europeans do indeed take a common responsibility for security?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Donald Trump would be very surprised to be equated with me, in many different ways.

Simona Mohamsson does, however, raise an important issue. What do we do now, when it has become exactly as the Left Party said when the security review was conducted in the spring of 2022? We warned that the development we see in countries such as Turkey and the USA is authoritarian, and then we must have a readiness for this. We always put the safety and security of the Swedish people first.

It was not us, but the Moderaterna, who dismantled the defense. We are now building up the defense. Then it is important that it does not occur at the expense of healthcare and school. And we naturally need to cooperate with like-minded countries. It is very important that we do so, and we shall now stand up for our neighboring countries.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! "As the Left Party said" – if we had listened to what the Left Party says, we would not be members of Nato.

This autumn, Sweden risks getting a red-green government with a left-wing party that does not respect Sweden's membership in Nato. Sure, Nooshi Dadgostar can stand here and say that is not the case. But in practice, the Left Party continues to show that one does not stand behind Nato. I say: Don’t tell me – show me!

Last autumn, the Left Party voted against, despite everything, that Sweden should be able to send troops to help NATO allies – which is the very core of the NATO cooperation. My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is: Will Nooshi continue to work to weaken Sweden's role in NATO if Nooshi becomes Minister for Defence in Magdalena Andersson's government?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We fully respect that and will not push for any withdrawal. I do not know what vote you, Simona Mohamsson, are talking about.

Sometimes, in a historical moment, one must stand up for one's friends. No, we do not think, in a situation where Donald Trump threatens to invade, conquer, or intervene regarding our neighbors in Greenland, that Swedish territory should be used by the American military to attack Denmark. That is what we stand up for.

Somewhere you have to put your foot down. You can agree, flatter, and coddle Donald Trump. But a bully and a bully must sometimes understand that a no is a no.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! When politics stops taking climate goals seriously, it is quickly noticeable. Last year, climate emissions increased by 7 percent in Sweden. The government has shown in both words and actions that the climate goals in Sweden and the EU no longer carry much weight. It is like stopping to set boundaries for children and then being surprised when things start to spiral out of control.

This laxity is spreading. We see how the EU now risks following in the footsteps of the USA, where heavy, old fossil industries are lobbying hard to dismantle climate goals and delay the transition. For those companies, every day of waiting is a profit. They profit from the rest of the world being stuck in technology that is dependent on oil.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden does not benefit from waiting. Our companies, our technology, and our innovative power benefit from leading, not following. When the government brakes, we give away our competitive advantages to other countries, and the jobs are created there instead of here. It is not just bad climate policy – it is poor growth policy.

Mr. Speaker! We must drastically reduce emissions in the transport sector, which today accounts for more than a third of our national emissions, and it is possible. The Center Party wants to make it cheaper to switch to an environmental car and to install solar panels and charging boxes to be able to charge the car at home. We also know that the diesel engine will remain in timber trucks and forestry machinery and in agriculture, but in that case, biodiesel is obviously the natural complement.

Either we slow down, or we choose climate-smart growth. It is good for the climate, the jobs, and the households.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, to this chamber!

I want to speak about healthcare. When the Centre Party in the Riksdag speaks about investments in healthcare in rural areas, I find it difficult not to think of Region Västernorrland, where the Centre Party has decided to decommission Sollefteå Hospital. In 16 days, the children's ward will be closed. It is the first ward to be closed, but not the last. In the autumn of 2027, the decommissioning of Sollefteå Hospital will be complete.

C clarifies in its budget motion that the party does not believe in KD's model of combining payments to the healthcare regions with requirements. Now, do not drag it out by saying that we want it to be Stockholm that decides! It is precisely Centerpartiet's Stockholm policy that causes healthcare in the countryside to be phased out instead of the power, which we have proposed, being moved from a mass of regional politicians in 21 different regions to a unified healthcare system governed more by healthcare politicians.

How can you speak of a healthcare policy for the whole country when this is the result for Sollefteå?

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ebba Busch, for highlighting Sollefteå! The hospital in Sollefteå illustrates incredibly well the challenge for healthcare in rural areas: a lack of money and a lack of staff. However, we solve neither of these by removing the rural residents' power over healthcare.

You point out several problems in healthcare, and we agree. But this is about the right for people to influence the care they depend on and to be able to vote out the politicians who do not listen. That is exactly what must happen.

Today, with the government's policy, it is not possible to start the small clinics that both patients and staff are demanding. It is not possible to start a clinic that has, for example, a doctor and a nurse, because the red tape is far too extensive. It is completely incomprehensible how the Kristdemokraterna can believe that healthcare would function better if there were a giant central authority for healthcare in Södermalm, which would decide on healthcare in all of Sweden. Describe that to me!

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that the regions' tax revenues differ greatly. It is no secret that there are large differences in how easy it is to recruit healthcare personnel depending on where in the country one has their health center or one's hospital. It is therefore our most important issue before this election that we should have a unified national responsibility for healthcare.

But it is not about this scaremongering from the Center Party's side that I am so incredibly tired of – that it is Stockholm that should rule over healthcare. That is something we absolutely do not want.

In Stockholm, where the Centerpartiet is involved in governing, they have been absolutely worst at using the performance-based funds, which can be used to cut healthcare queues. It is women, not least, who are affected by long healthcare queues. We absolutely do not want that policy.

We want to have the opportunity to listen to the voices of the countryside when they say: Let us keep Sollefteå hospital! Do not close the children's ward! This is prevented by the Center Party's so-called healthcare policy and so-called rural policy.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now I understand. Ebba Busch does not understand that "Stockholm" for the rest of the country does not mean Region Stockholm or the City of Stockholm. "Stockholm" means that there is an authority in Stockholm that we in this chamber on Helgeandsholmen decide over. That is what is the large healthcare authority.

Very many people in the country disapprove of such central control. We see that. This government has phased out very many of the service offices that existed across the country.

I cannot find a single example where a centralization in Sweden has led to more activity out in the country – I cannot think of a single example. I do not believe that Sweden's countryside will benefit from a central management of Swedish healthcare.

On the contrary, it will lead to more closures and a greater distance between what people actually need and what will be able to be delivered.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals and the government are in the process of completely renovating the independent school system. For far too long, we have read about irresponsible independent school owners who prioritize away the children's right to laboratories, about unauthorized teachers, and about unhealthy food. We are now moving forward with profit limitations for independent schools that do not behave.

The question, however, is what the Center Party thinks about profits in schools. The previous leader of the Center Party let the door open slightly towards profit caps. Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist's predecessor was not as pleased with that, and Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist herself has defended the profits of the friskolor (independent schools).

My question is: Does the Centre Party stand on the side of the children or the private school owners?

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Simona Mohamsson and I become just as upset when we read about the problems in Swedish schools. It is riding academies without horses, chemistry lessons without laboratories, and PE lessons without real sports halls. It is about how "joy grades" compensate for knowledge and about schools that systematically hire unqualified teachers to lower their costs. So, it must not continue.

Let us solve the fundamental system error together. Here are four proposals where we agree and where Mohamsson would have the Center Party's support every day of the week if she only laid the proposals on the table of the Riksdag:

Change the school fee so that independent schools do not receive compensation for responsibilities they do not take.

Reform the grading system fundamentally, so that it does not continue to be 20,000 students who are knocked out every year.

Introduce the principle of public access in schools, so that every student and parent gets better insight.

Abolish the queue system so that no one who has not already placed their child in the queue at BB is too late.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Liberals and the Centre Party do not share the same view on profit interests in schools.

I myself belong to the generation of "friskola" (free schools). I have seen how friends have attended schools without laboratories and without qualified teachers, where they have received food vouchers instead of breaded fish and cold sauce in school.

The Liberals will always put the children before the listed companies. Therefore, the Liberals and the government will present proposals on profit caps.

My question remains. Will the Center Party listen to the country's students and teachers and vote for our proposal on profit caps, or will you vote against it?

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I do not want the hundreds of thousands of students who attend a free school that is good and that they like to have to leave it. What I want is to give every student a really good education.

We want those who employ more qualified teachers to receive higher school funding than those who employ unqualified teachers. We want teachers who teach in schools with poor results to receive a salary supplement of 5,000 kronor per month. We want support for students who need it to become better and mandatory.

I become just as upset as Simona Mohamsson when I read about problems with profit-driven schools. The important thing, however, is that we can retain the hundreds of thousands of students who are nevertheless satisfied with their school. We must not let the small proportion of schools that do not do their job decide for the large majority of students who are nevertheless very satisfied with the schools they attend.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Nearly half of the Swedish people support the Christian Democrats' proposal for a ban on burqa and niqab. This is revealed by a survey commissioned by SVT.

It is not a question of any garment whatsoever. The burqa is the symbol of a system that controls the woman, restricts her movements and defines what is permitted and what is not. It is a system that, we are told, emphasizes tradition and morality. But with these concepts, honor oppression and total control are exercised instead.

It is a system that anonymizes women's presence in society. We can call this system burkraty.

Let us see it in relation to democracy. In the burqocracy, women lose their civil and political rights. When we women are no longer visible, we cease to be defined as persons. In the burqocracy, Muslims are subjected to demands of submission. Swedish Muslim women who love our country and want to be a part of our collective we are met with an expectation that they too should turn around.

In the burqa, we see the same totalitarian idea that is manifested in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even though the Islamist regime does not require the burqa, it stifles every cry for freedom.

This is a battle of values that Sweden must take. It is a battle of values that Sweden must win. The bureaucratization challenges our common ethical minimum and erodes our social cohesion. Those who deny the threat from this diminish women's vulnerability and weaken every serious approach to integration.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the autumn of 2026 is the autumn when Sweden votes for a ban on the burqa and niqab and the values that come with this. They do not belong in our country.

(Applause)

In this speech, Lili André, Yusuf Aydin, Mathias Bengtsson, Magnus Berntsson, Camilla Brodin, Hans Eklind, Cecilia Engström, Ingemar Kihlström, Larry Söder and Kjell-Arne Ottosson (all KD), Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD), Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M) and Sara-Lena Bjälkö (-) agreed.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Since April last year, more than 650 people who work and pay their taxes have been deported from Sweden. It has affected the healthcare assistant Sara just as much as the restaurant owner Sharmin. These are people who have worked, paid taxes, and done everything to become a part of Swedish society.

They are being deported now because the possibility of switching tracks is gone and because the government has repeatedly raised the wage floor for those who come to Sweden and work. What are the Christian Democrats doing to stop these unnecessary deportations – deportations that make it difficult for many companies today to find the right personnel and get their companies to grow?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! My party's starting point has always been that it should be possible to become a part of Sweden for those who are prepared to make Sweden their own. It is about adapting to our values, so that we share the same values, and being prepared to learn the language so that we can also both speak the same ethical mother tongue and speak the same language, even if we did not have the same mother tongue from the beginning. It is also about being prepared to behave correctly and find a means of livelihood in order to be able to support oneself and one's family. In that case, our starting point has been that it should be possible for integration and social cohesion in Sweden to grow. Then it should also be possible to become a part of Sweden. Those who commit crimes or refuse to adapt to Sweden shall not be allowed to stay.

I am proud of the realignment of the migration policy that we have made. We need to have a strict migration policy for a long time to come. But that being said: We will always navigate based on the principles that I started with, and we will always be prepared to review our own system, both moving forward and even in a government position.

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

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Svenskt Näringsliv and Ebba Busch's ministerial colleague Johan Britz have both said that this is not good for Sweden. The Center Party agrees with that conclusion. One must nevertheless understand that this wage floor is quite high. It means that newly graduated nurses, librarians, pharmacists, and research students should not remain in Sweden, because their salaries are lower than 35,000 kronor, approximately, which this will be at during 2026.

In an already tough situation with a prolonged recession and with low growth, the government therefore wants to put further spokes in the growth wheel. Why is that good for Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the 2026 election, it is quite obvious this far into the party leadership debate.

It can be four more years with law, order, and decency. Then there will be order and decency in energy policy and in crime fighting. There will be order and decency in economic policy and not least order and decency in migration policy. It is about that which has stopped anyone from being able to waltz into our country and stay here without even applying for a residence permit or applying for a residence permit and being rejected and still choosing to stay here and commit serious crimes and not be expected to leave the country.

It stands between, on one hand, law and order and on the other hand, total chaos – the pig in the bag with four red-green parties that diverge in every decisive issue.

No, we will not back down from the line of a strict migration policy. But the starting point will still be: If you are in Sweden and you are Swedish, you shall seek the jobs that exist. That is where we must begin. That will be the policy and the line that we have for a long time to come, and we stand by that.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In recent months, we have seen examples of people who work in elderly care, healthcare, and welfare being deported now due to the government's migration policy. It concerns people who have jobs, who pay taxes, who can speak the language, and who have colleagues and friends and often children born in Sweden. They are integrated. They are needed. Yet, they are being sent out.

Mr. Speaker! This is not a worthy policy. In a time when welfare is crying out for staff, the government chooses a policy that results in us deporting people who are needed in our country. This does not just shatter lives. It also creates insecurity in workplaces and in communities across the country.

Miljöpartiet wants a migration policy that is legally secure, orderly and humane, and that actually works for people and for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! I listened with interest to the previous exchange. Ebba Busch argues that one is prepared to reconsider if negative consequences are seen. My question then is: Will Ebba Busch and the government review these unjust consequences of the strict legislation?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This is a complicated and difficult question. Our starting point is always that we shall stand on the side of the human being, not on the side of the system. We know that there is no system that will be perfect. That is why I gladly repeat my answer from earlier. We always remain humble before our own legislation even when we sit in a government position. If it is the case that we have landed incorrectly in nuances here – and the basic intention has been correct – we from Kristdemokraterna are prepared to review the legislation so that it hits more accurately.

It is, therefore, people who have come here, who have made Sweden their own, who share our Swedish values, who share the Swedish language and who have also done everything they can to enter the Swedish labor market. They have a job, provide for themselves and support their own family. It is clear that the starting point should be that they are to stay. But then one must also be able to ensure, at the other end, a policy that expels immigrated men who have committed aggravated rapes against women in home care. Unfortunately, the Green Party cannot manage to stand for that policy; we do.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I actually feel embarrassed when I hear Ebba Busch speak.

So, I am asking about people like 35-year-old Sam, who has a permanent job at an elderly and dementia care home in Nyköping and who risks being sent to Syria after ten years in Sweden. I am asking about a specialist nurse in Lund, in home healthcare, who from one day to the next is now to be deported with his wife, who works as a nurse in Malmö. From little Norsjö, reports are made about Sara, Farhood and their son who have been walking around and waiting for a deportation notice. Sara says herself: We have done everything right. We have learned Swedish. We have worked, bought a house and managed on our own. It is them I am asking about, Ebba Busch.

Is Ebba Busch satisfied with these deportations? Are you, now that you see the consequences of a system that is obviously far from perfect, prepared to back down and prepared to do so now?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I have given a straight answer to Amanda Lind here today. We will always stand up for the people who get caught in systems that had an intention and where one ended up on the sidelines. Since I sit in the government, I will not be able to comment on individual cases, but this is the line I stand for.

I mean that there is a problem. I can, therefore, meet the Green Party on this issue, but then the Green Party must clearly declare before this election that during the eight years they supported a red-green government, they consistently turned a blind eye to all the serious crimes that people committed in our country while they sought asylum, had been granted residence permits, or had received dual citizenship. They have, nevertheless, defended that they should be allowed to stay in the country.

That is why I say: I am prepared to show humility when it comes to ensuring that our legislation, which has been tightened, becomes accurate and truly reaches the goal. But then Miljöpartiet should be able to move when we have now seen such serious rapes against women in home care in Sweden. Those people must out of the country. That policy is not supported by Miljöpartiet. It is supported by our government.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! During the Christmas weekend, two women were brutally murdered. I become terribly frustrated, sad, and upset when I think about this and about all the women who before them have fallen victim to violence. We need to do so much more so that women in Sweden feel safe.

Today, the Green Party takes an initiative to broadly review the criteria for forensic psychiatric care. More people should be able to be sentenced to forensic psychiatric care with special discharge review if they are judged to have a serious problem and can pose a danger. This enables care, and it prevents very dangerous people with a high risk of recidivism from being released.

Mr. Speaker! Violence against women is one of the most serious safety issues in our society. It requires perseverance, many interventions, and a broad consensus in the Riksdag – over time and across party lines. That responsibility is our damned duty to take.

Mr. Speaker! January is called the poorest month of the year. With Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister, it has become even poorer for many as the economic gaps have increased. We see mass unemployment while the government weakens the safety nets and prioritizes tax cuts for the richest over welfare.

Mr. Speaker! Many in our country walk around with an anxiety. It is about a woman's anxiety of being beaten to death by a man, a parent's anxiety about the economy or for the children to be recruited into gang crime, and a family's anxiety of being forced out of the country. At the same time, there is anxiety about the global situation and for the climate.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, all children and young people should be able to grow up with faith in the future. It is possible to change course. It is possible to get Sweden back on the right track, but that requires a change of government. With Miljöpartiet, Sweden will get back faith in the future.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén, Jan Riise and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) concurred.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is late, and we will take a slightly different approach.

We imagine that we have taken over the family farm, which stands just as steadily as when we were children. The children who are now on the farm know that they will one day, if they wish, take over. It is the dream, but the dream is threatened. To take over the farm, the siblings were bought out, which required large loans with the forest as collateral.

So comes the news. The forest cannot be cultivated. Someone has reported that there may be a black grouse site in the forest. We have no shortage of black grouse, on the contrary, but still, the Swedish Forest Agency says the appeal must be examined. Perhaps the forest can never be logged. The resource is therefore worthless, and the farm must be sold to avoid bankruptcy.

This is what reality looks like for many forest owners today. What does Amanda Lind intend to do to take the forest owners out of this Kafkaesque situation?

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist to the party leadership debate and I look forward to discussing these and other issues with Elisabeth moving forward!

When it comes to today's forestry, there are many challenges. We know that there is a diminished biodiversity in our forests. We know that the forest is so valuable for capturing carbon dioxide. We also know that many, not least small and medium-sized forest owners, struggle with profitability. We also know that situations can arise that are, of course, completely unacceptable.

That is why we in Miljöpartiet have, in recent years, put forward many reforms to increase the freedom of choice for forest owners and strengthen the possibility of compensation. We have put forward a species bonus which means that one should receive a compensation if one ends up in a situation where there are valuable species on one's land.

We must remember that very many forest owners want to contribute more to biodiversity and carbon sequestration. In that case, we in politics must provide the conditions, and I am happy to discuss these reforms with Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist.

(Applause)

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that Amanda Lind is raising the issue of biodiversity. It is very important. But let us speak plainly about the forest. The climate struggle cannot be won by stopping the use of it. When it comes to carbon dioxide, trees are like teenagers: they eat most when they are growing. Furthermore, Sweden's forests are needed to replace plastic, to build more houses in wood, and to let the countryside drive the green transition, not be slowed down by it.

Amanda Lind claimed in a Saturday interview that Miljöpartiet wants to reduce logging by up to 20 percent but that this should not lead to fewer jobs. This obviously does not add up. When politics begins to treat the forest as a shop window instead of an industry, one has lost touch with the forest a bit. How does Amanda Lind intend for reduced logging by 20 percent not to affect the jobs in Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that the Centre Party must catch up when it comes to both the research and the Green Party's policy.

Of course we should be able to utilize Swedish forests! Of course we should be able to combine the possibility of jobs in the forests with an enhanced climate and environmental benefit. The research is clear: To reach climate and environmental goals, nature consideration must increase. One needs to let the forest grow longer before it is harvested and also cut down fewer trees. A report has also been released showing that the forest's climate uptake would have been strengthened due to, among other things, reduced harvests.

We must do this in a controlled, smart, and wise way. We know that the jobs will decrease in the Swedish forests even if we continue with status quo. That is what we see when we look back. The countryside has been depleted of employment opportunities, and there we need to do more. We need to strengthen the innovative power, strengthen the processing capacity, and find new ways to manage our forests that also provide jobs.

As said, I am happy to further discuss these proposals, but I believe that Centerpartiet needs to read up on the research a bit more.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The hour is late, and I wish to continue speaking about healthcare.

The Green Party took over government responsibility in the autumn of 2014. Two years later, the number of patients who had waited more than 90 days for a new visit within specialized care had increased by 73 percent. The number of patients who had waited more than 90 days for surgery had increased by 84 percent. This was once again a result of a demand-free healthcare policy.

The Authority for Health and Care Analysis stated in 2017 that the development was heading in the wrong direction and simultaneously said that the government needs to develop the strategic management to promote improved accessibility. This is now being done. Now we have seen a trend break, and the healthcare queues have decreased by 25 percent. The targeted investment to shorten the healthcare queues within three specific healthcare areas has yielded good results thanks to a demanding healthcare policy that puts the patients at the center, not systems and regional politicians.

What is Amanda Lind's view on increased state control of healthcare? Could we find a way forward together here?

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In certain areas, I am convinced that clearer and strengthened state governance and state support are needed in order to make the right priorities. For example, Miljöpartiet has proposed large investments in both adult psychiatry and child and adolescent psychiatry. In other areas, clearer directives are needed. I also think that the national healthcare coordination that is being worked on now is completely obvious. That is something we must absolutely proceed with.

I would, however, like to return to what I hear and what is judged to be the absolute most central for us to be able to get more care beds and a better functioning healthcare in the whole country. It is the staff. It is the working conditions. It is that one gets more colleagues so that one actually has a chance to open these care beds in order to work through the queues so that those who have the very greatest needs also get care the fastest.

That is where this government fails. There is too little money for the regions. There are too few investments in the working environment within healthcare. Sick leave is unfortunately increasing within welfare. More nurses need to get a colleague so that they can avoid being signed off on sick leave in the way we are seeing now.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would still like to plead for an opportunity to continue talking with Miljöpartiet about this and for Miljöpartiet to rethink the entire way through. We have tested the model that Amanda Lind points to fundamentally, and it does not hold. 21 different regions cannot manage it. It is time to go all the way and abolish them and get a national responsibility.

Amanda Lind points out here the need for more resources to the regions, but when 30 billion was poured over the regions last time, it did not, in fact, yield measurable results. In Dagens Samhälle, this was summarized with the words: "Neither the regions, the National Board of Health and Welfare, nor the government have taken responsibility for reporting that the tax billions have actually gone towards transforming healthcare." That is not the way forward.

I hope that we can become more in politics who are prepared to put the patients' best interests before the regions' best interests. We have now seen the results regarding hip joint operations, where the care queues have decreased significantly by 55 percent. The number of operations has gone up for cataracts, and the waiting times have gone down for hernia.

It is in this direction that we need to continue to go, and I would very much like to do so with MP.

(Applause)

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have de facto, all parties in this chamber, discussed the issue of the nationalization of healthcare and broadly agreed, however, not with the Christian Democrats, that it is not a major reorganization that Swedish healthcare needs. On the other hand, there are several areas, for example ambulance flights, helicopter operations and vaccinations, where we should coordinate more.

When one speaks with people in healthcare, it is the lack of resources that is repeatedly mentioned. Not resources for the sake of resources, but so that more staff can be employed. It is, therefore, thousands of nurses who have left the profession because of the working conditions and because it is not sufficiently attractive to work within Swedish healthcare.

The Christian Democrats are the party responsible for healthcare today. I would like to hear your commitments. Will you invest in the working conditions within healthcare? Will more resources be provided? Will you act so that Sollefteå hospital can also be protected? You have the opportunity in the government.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, several parties in this chamber took responsibility and put Sweden's interests first. They were put before ideologies and party views. We joined Nato because Sweden needed it.

Now we are starting to turn somewhat regarding nuclear power as well. When the government takes important steps forward for new nuclear power, even one or another Social Democrat begins to change their stance. But the Green Party holds fast to its opposition to nuclear power, even though we need nuclear power to manage the transition and to make Europe energy independent. Anything else would be a major security policy mistake.

In this restless global situation, my question to Amanda Lind is whether it is not time to put Sweden's need for nuclear power before party interests.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Given the experiences from Ukraine, I have with all due respect difficulty seeing that nuclear power would be what strengthens Swedish security. That being said, Simona Mohamsson also speaks with falsehoods. I would like to see those authority reports and those energy researchers and experts who point out that nuclear power specifically is crucial for Swedish security moving forward and for Swedish energy supply. Expert after expert has, on the contrary, pointed out that it is possible to carry out the energy transition in other ways.

The focus on nuclear power delays the climate transition because it takes so long to set up. Investments in renewables are being pushed out. Nuclear power will become extremely expensive for the taxpayers – and it is not needed, because it is entirely possible and cheaper, and furthermore faster, to expand renewables in combination with green base load.

If there are any who are ideologically blinded, it is the Liberals.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet is happy to talk about electrification – but that requires electricity. It requires fossil-free electricity, and it requires nuclear power.

The Swedish people have already received a taste of the Green Party's nuclear-free society. When reactor after reactor was shut down during the Green Party's time in power, it led to electricity prices that fluctuated like a roller coaster. It led to the fact that coal-fired power plants had to be started up. Strangely enough, only the Green Party rejoiced at this.

My question to Amanda Lind is when Miljöpartiet is ready to reconsider its no to Swedish nuclear power.

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

Amanda Lind (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I ask the question again to Simona Mohamsson: Who are the ones who say that it is nuclear power specifically that is needed for us to manage the electrification and our climate goals?

What this government has succeeded in is to totally stall the electrification, which Simona Mohamsson's party and also other parties in the Tidöregeringen pointed out would be the absolute most important thing to meet the climate goals.

The sale of electric cars decreased during the Liberals' time in government. The expansion of renewable electricity and the baseload power that is required stalled. Now they point to nuclear power, which might be in place in 15–20 years, if we are lucky, at enormous costs to the taxpayers. Where is the investment in electrification here and now? Where is the accountability for the climate transition?

I am so tired of getting nuclear power as the answer in debate after debate. It is completely unserious, not least from the Liberals who actually also have the climate minister post.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall become more like Sweden, Magdalena Andersson usually says. As a liberal patriot, I can only agree. We are one of the world's best countries with the world's best values. But Magdalena Andersson does not understand what it is that makes Sweden exceptionally good. That Sweden is a wealthy, open, and free country does not depend on the Social Democrats' tax increases or on their lax attitude in integration policy.

What makes Sweden a fantastic country is the girl who exerts herself and studies to become an engineer, the woman who dares to start her own business and creates new jobs, the teacher who stands up against antisemitism in the classroom and the police officer who puts a stop to violence in the home. The recipe for success is spelled as a society where people educate themselves, behave, and care. Sweden is simply Sweden because our country is built on liberal values. We value diligence and effort. We do not only believe in equality, but we practice it every day. We always defend every person's right to a free life and self-realization. It is a country that I, together with the Liberals, want to manage, improve, and defend for a brighter future and for a more hopeful tomorrow.

(Applause)

The party debate was hereby concluded.

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