Sweden cannot be ruled by a minority government, but neither can it be ruled by a party who has just started to use the national colours pea flower to cover up its earlier preference for the swasitika. On the other side of the equation, none of the parties with democratic tradtions are willing to curb immigration from non western migrants. A new election is called due to the impasse partly caused by the pseudo democtaric SD splitting the right vote and taking some left wing votes. We must remember the original National Socialists in the Gerrmany of the 1930s were democratically elected. But also the concerns of the electorate about imigration in terms of poor integration, strains on public resources, radicalisation and unemployment amongst Swedish youth are not being addressed by any other party.
There is the same perception as we find in England, and of course the austro-teutonic states of the 1920s that immigration is the cause of low wage growth and unemployment. Of course from the far right it is an overstatememt of a part truth, while on the old conservative right they just tickle the semantics of the issue. In the 1970s the Nordic countries and Holland embarked upon a plan for populatiuon growth via immigration. They followed Britain's example of seeking cheap labour from abroad to fill jobs and crack union dominance in order to abate wage inflation by creating a new under class who would work without being unionised. Palestine, vietnam and cambodia were also cause-celeb for the new european liberal power bases in the UN, and the then EEC - brussels and strasbourg. From capitalism's side the right wing parties stood to gain such 'silent' labour and thus keep wages down or even reduce average pay in respect of cost of living, which has been acheived through most of europe more by union busting legislatiuon, CCT and exporting plant to China. A stream though of willing workers with low wage expections, also prepared to rent delapodated properties. Capital tacitally went along with the 70s liberalism.
Sweden and the UK perceive themselves at least to have allowed the growth of poorly integrated sub populations, with high dependency on the state, high crime and high unemployment all created by socialist policy. Rather it is not enough spend or interest in integration which is the issue, with the laisez faire approach actually leading to poor integration of a minority of the minorities. We come back then to the contention that there are too many immigrants of a non Christian non western background, to be blunt, and that western governments must be realistic on how many such people they can afford to porperly integrate.
How many ethnic swedes from the poorer estates round Malmo or Stockholm would any government pay to integrate to the ideoligically acceptable perfect citizen from which ever political stand point? How many Scots from the Schemes where there is a large drug economy and benefit dependency would the left of centre parliament in Holyrood pay to bring into normal economic productivity and self sufficiency? How many English career criminals or drug addicts would westminster lavish such spending as we see dished out for assylum refugees?
It is a politicsl no go area for all but the fascist parties because there are too many vested interests in the other parties, from being either liberally poltically correct, or from the capatilist parties sisde as avoiding being seen as restricting the supply of cheap labour. The only answer is that the immovable object shifts, and the unstoppable force comes to a standsstill. Sweden now goes to the polls, where the right parties can ask themselves if they want to go against their paymasters and present policies to radically halt the rate of immigration and tackle isolationist islam doemstically. Or the public can decide to shift to the left and bet on a centre left improving both Integrativ on , by higher spend, and the lot of below average workers by reversing conservative anti labour laws.
When the sun shines and few white europeans need to worry about jobs and rising prosperity, then immigration is a cross political collusion to hold unemployment above 3% as a target below which the labour market ceases to favour employers entirely. In a stormy economic autumn and following recession then immigration is suddenly the scape goat, and a vote winner for the right when canvassing working class voters - white and even established immigrant second generation voters. Now in England and Sweden they have their own parties finally to tweek out the mumbling minority xenophobes, and spkit the right wing vote.
The reality is in finding what the reality is- how many are poorly integrated? are we allowing societies within society to grow ? how much does it cost to fully integrate a family, a lone young man or an invalid froma war zone? The big questions are - how many can society afford to integrate as a function of GDP, and why can society not better integrate its own ethnic wayward underclass fringes, and force minority communities to participate in integration?