Sunday, December 28, 2014

Löfven: The Alliance wanted to take over power – Today’s News

Löfven: The Alliance wanted to take over power – Today's News

     
     
     
 


 
     

         
 

     
 
 
     

         
         “It is clear that our policy will be a bit delayed,” said Prime Minister Stefan Löfven to DN after the settlement with the Alliance. “But already in 2015, we can begin to focus on economic policy.”
     


     
 

 
     

     
     
     
     

         

                     

○ Just hours after the historic settlement goes Stefan Löfven to harsh attack against the Alliance in a DN interview.


 

○ In conjunction with the budget vote did the bourgeois in fact take over the government, claiming Löfven.


 

○ Now he reveal s details of the dramatic meeting of alliance leaders during the financial chaos – at the same time he opens for cooperation in education and inclusion.


                     
                 

         

             
                 
                 
                 

                     

 

○ Just hours after the historic settlement goes Stefan Löfven to harsh attack against the Alliance in a DN interview.


 

○ In conjunction with the budget vote did the bourgeois in fact take over the government, claiming Löfven.


 

○ Now he reveals details of the dramatic meeting of allian ce leaders during the financial chaos – at the same time he opens for cooperation in education and inclusion.

There is one at once relieved and combative Prime Minister receiving the Daily News in the workroom at Rosenbad, a few hours after the historic press conference on December agreement.

 Stefan Löfven do not think he has betrayed the promise of refusing to rule with the Alliance’s budget.

 
        
             
     
     
 

 - No. That’s nonsense. Now we have an agreement on rules that allow us in April may add an additional bill. It is clear that our policy will be a bit delayed. But already in 2015, we can begin to focus on economic policy. We begin the job immediately after the end of the year. There will be staggered a few months in 2015. Then we have 2016 and 2017 and 2018. Three budgets to be added where we get through our policies, says Stefan Löfven.

  But when you said you would not reign with the Alliance’s budget, what did you do?

 - That I would not just sit there and wait and say “oh now it was such a rash, then I take the budget” and do nothing. It is clear that it is unsustainable. It does not hold. Now I have an agreement that allows me to quickly during 2015 may go in the direction we want.

  How much can you change the supplementary budget?

 - Income tax, we can only change at the end of the year. The door is closed. But on the expenditure side, we can do much. We can make priorities in the budget. It may Treasury now begin to look at. It is clear that it is important for me to see that I can make a certain change of course already in 2015. Since then I have 2016 and 2017 and 2018. It is clear that I do not miss such a chance and let the others take over.

  But a number of reforms postponed – what worries you the most?

 - The jobs for young people. Now working labor minister with it anyway, how we should do in this new situation, together with the employment office and the municipalities. Our young adults must get out of work or education, or what strengthens them in the labor market. Our young unemployed is a time bomb. It is very dangerous to society. Then there is of course the school and declining school performance. So I would say to the country’s senior citizens to vote December 3 prevented a tax cut. I want to start taking steps toward a reduced retirement tax.

  In Saturday’s DN claimed Liberal Party leader Jan Björklund Stefan Löfvens decision to call a new election was “very premature”. Center leader Annie Loof was on the same theme at the historic press conference.

 The bourgeois party leaders believe that there was an opportunity to make up the rules for minority rule already on the evening of December 2, when the Sweden Democrats announced that they were going to break the practice and trap the government’s budget. The government invited the Alliance to an emergency meeting, a meeting that ended in disagreement.

 Stefan Löfven gives a different picture than the Alliance of the call, and the way there.

 - Of course I had been thinking for a while about what I would do if Sweden Democrats wanted to trap the budget. For me, there was an option. To inform that we would proclaim optional. I believe that the bourgeois had been looking forward to a President round where they would have been asked if they wanted to form a government.

  You think they were prepared to form a government?

 - Yes, I think so. Their statements after budget vote was a signal that they at that time were ready to take over. After the budget vote, they said that “now is our budget genomröstad and it’s great ‘. This famous article in Dagens Nyheter on December 9 breathe the same thing. “Our budget is great.”

  – I had said I’m not going to sit there and just administer their budget. And then there was another. Then it became optional. Now I’m glad we came to this settlement instead. For it is sustainable.

  What are you thinking about their plans?

 - Their policy had dropped ten percentage points. I had the greatest support. Then it is not okay to suddenly change this. Throughout the election campaign had been told that the largest block would have the opportunity to rule, and then they released me through the Prime Minister vote.

  The bourgeois parties claim that you could have made up the rules for minority rule already on 2 December.

 - It is wrong! I had not thought of telling details of the conversation, but now I do it, for the reason that there must be a strange history. That evening, they said bourgeois that I had three different options. One is to have their budget, because it was so good. Option two was to resign. Three to declare optional. And then I feel after all one of the options is realistic. And it says I’m not at that time. But the discussion about closing down votes were never up there.

  When the bourgeois say that it was premature to declare extra election, what do you answer then?

 - It falls on its own absurdity. We’re sitting right here on the night of 2 December. When they come here they say in interviews that they were not interested, there is any number reproduced. We asked if there was anything in the shape or anything thing they could think of to reason to avoid this situation. The answer was no. There was nothing. And then it is for me very strange. I may have a different background, but I think many would think it was weird. To sit with political representatives who do not want to have political influence over the budget on the merits without decide to hold the vote so that our budget falls. It was for me a remarkable experience.

  When they talked about playing field for minority rule, how you perceive it?

 - They first wanted to vote for their budget. When we ask if there is anything we can do in the form or thing to avoid that thing, then the answer is no. We asked if they were aware that there is the Sweden Democrats who get to decide how it will go, not just with this budget, but with other governments’ budgets. They replied, “We will vote for our budget.” It also writes in the article on 9 December.

 - If they had been prepared for such a deal that we have now, where would they put cast on 3 December. My opinion is that if I had resigned, they would have said “here we are.”

  What do you think about their actions?

 - To meet politicians who are elected politicians, who do not want a sakpolitiskt influence … And the day after the cheering of their budget goes through … I thought it was a serious situation for Sweden. And they just saw the opportunity to play in that situation. I disliked it very much. It felt even more true with extra choice.

  – Now I’m happy. I’m serious about that we have had constructive discussions on this last time. There are good. It creates stability for Sweden. It’s good for our country. We have a budget agreement. We have identified three areas that are strategically important for Sweden, where we will have cooperation.

  When the bourgeois say that you could have made up December 2, how do you interpret it?

 - But seriously. If they had been prepared for this, since they had been able to abstain. It was not even on the agenda. When we ask if there is anything in the form or thing that we can discuss to avoid the situation the next day, so the answer was no. It falls on its own absurdity that had those thoughts, because they had acted differently.

  A counter argument from the Alliance is to Stefan Löfven and the government was only interested in resolving the situation the next day, and not to create long-term rules.

 - It is wrong. We said that we certainly could discuss the rules of the game. I have never denied it. However, we had no fundamental starting points. We do not intend to change the rules of the law in such a way that any minority whatsoever can sit and steer Sweden for four years.

 - But we mean seriously with that kind of reasoning, we are fully reasonably willing to do something there and then. There was no such openness. Here it is. I think it has to do with the fact that we said that now it will be optional. I do not think everyone on the edge was so fond of that idea.

  There are those who perceive your notice of extraordinary elections as an industrial action in union spirit – what do you say about it?

 - When we talk all the election campaign that the largest constellation will reign, and in the first test on it when they vote four conservative and Sweden Democrats in a way that allows our budget falls. When we were in an entirely new situation. Then we had to act accordingly.

  What enabled the threat of extra election called off?

 - It was not just a threat. It was a fact. For me it was extra election the option that remained.

  How did you make your way out of it?

 - I think at the same time that it allowed the conversation in a different way. I am quite convinced that it did. It is clear that the parties have so many contacts as it will appear when the battle subsided, there is an opportunity to talk. I also said that I did not close any door, but I was not going to run around. But when we saw that there was a climate for conversation so we wanted to affirm it.

  The bourgeois says that the Social Democrats got cold feet. How do you see it?

 - Why, it’s just to look at the opinion polls. How has it gone? If stares won? They’ve lost. We have strengthened, and unfortunately also the Sweden Democrats strengthened. So that’s an afterthought. It may well be forgiven them. The most important thing right now is that we have come to this settlement. But I will not accept that history is written anyway.

  And then it is wrong to suggest that it could have made up before the budget vote?

 - Yes, it falls on its face. Had they been inside of it, then they had been able to abstain from voting on the budget vote. It was not on the map then.

  When did you understand that the talks could go the way?

 - I affirmed talks. Over time, we saw that there was a mutual idea that we must be able to govern even with minority governments. For us it was important to get to both budgetary rules and areas of cooperation. In exchange, we said something we have not said before, namely that if another constellation becomes larger in 2018, we are willing to let it. It was our concession.

  So when did you think you would agree?

 - One thing I’ve learned, nothing is settled until everything is ready. It has happened many times that it was thought that something is clearly and then it will somewhat at the end. So yesterday – then we felt that this bar across the road.

  What happened during this turbulent month?

 - We have a deal that means that we get through our economic policy. We have had a clearly stated willingness to cooperate. It’s good for our country that we have three strategic areas where sex parties says that “here we wish to cooperate and reach agreements.” It is very important for Sweden in the defense issue, in this time. It is important both for today’s seniors and tomorrow’s retirees that we know we have a sustainable pension system. The energy I have talked at length about, that there is a need for us to sit down.

  As they say bourgeois that you would have collaborated on this yet. So what’s the difference?

 - They are now collectively provide told that they should put themselves in Energy Commission and discuss the analysis of energy needs. Since everyone knows that the bourgeois went out of retirement group when the Green Party came up with. Now the Green Party as long as they sit in the government and the job can then be resumed. The defense, yes, it is true that the work is commenced. But now we express this in light of the deteriorating security situation. That we write that this is an area where we must make an effort to get along.

 - Since we have differing views on matters of fact, and it’s good for a democracy. It moves us forward. It would be a shame if all sat down and felt completely equal. However, we have identified three areas that are important to Sweden where we want to cooperate, it is good for our country.

  What could you have done differently?

 - We all remember how disappointed and angry that Jonas Sjöstedt was when he got to be in government. Then said the bourgeois that my job was to get to a budget with the Left. Prime Minister The vote was based on that I would make it likely that I had the support of the largest coalition. Then I did it. Then said the man from the bourgeois side I made a left turn.

  With this arrangement, it becomes clear that you govern with the support of the Left?

 - Now it says “party constellations” in the agreement. It does not say what it is. But since the four bourgeois say they have their alliance and it remains so in all cases for the foreseeable future, well, then there will be talks and cooperation with the Left in terms of the budget.

  – It was that to some extent surprised me when we asked the bourgeois about it sakpolitiska content of the budget, and was told that it was not a starting point. For me it was strange to sit with four party leaders who did not want a sakpolitisk impact. I’ve wanted and think it’s good if we can break up a too-cemented blocks policy. These areas of cooperation are good. But that does not mean we will stop inviting. We’d love to talk with lots of integration. We have the school issue. We’ll see how it goes. But now we have the beginning.

  But what happened to the bloc politics – has been cemented or loosened up this fall?

 - First held it definitely to be cemented. However, I think the talks that led to this agreement is possibly could be the beginning of something else. Not that they suddenly shifts. However, we have identified three key areas.

  It has always been the nonsocialists argument that if it negotiates sakpolitiken becomes the Sweden Democrats, the only opposition party.

 - The alternative is that we were sitting in his trench. , And then the Sweden Democrats decide. Is it better? No. It is not.

  What do you do now?

 - Now I’ll go back to Z-fold.


 

                     

                
         

         
         
     
 
         
         
 
         
     

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment