Update: Seems like I borked it up on this one:
Parterna på bostadsmarknaden får förhandla. Det uppger statsminister Stefan Löfven på en pressträff i ett försök att lösa regeringskrisen.
—Januaripartierna är överens om följande: Om parterna når en överenskommelse om hur hyresmodellen i nyproduktion ska reformeras, då ska regeringen lägga förslag i linje med överenskommelsen.
—Om parterna inte kommer överens, då genomförs utredningens förslag efter remissinstanserna synpunkter, säger Löfven. Avsikterna är att parterna förhandlar till 1/9, enligt Löfven.
The operative phrase being “…då genomförs utredningens förslag efter remissinstanserna synpunkter”. Oh, wow. That’s awful.
Original article follows:
Swedish politics time!
V, if this commissioned public inquiry report was the actual government proposal, I’d be joining you. But it’s not yet. You are acting prematurely. Please don’t join up with the fash for this.
I agree with you that the proposal (on setting housing rents) is awful. A typical C-reeking backwards-thinking policy proposal. But the proposal has not reached the table yet.
As in, S is not actually saying this (yet). It’s still only the commissioner’s report.
Now, from interviews, you’re right, it seem like they would head down this horrible policy path soon. You’re right that they absolutely need to get in talks with Hyresgästföreningen.
But I disagree with you on the timing for what you’re doing in retaliation. It’s too soon to retaliate before they’ve actually done anything.
I get that you want to time what you are doing before someone actually gets hurt. (I.e. before housing rents get messed up.)
In the analogy, you want to stop the shooter before the gun is fired. Which I agree with.
But you’re hanging them so soon that they haven’t even loaded the gun yet. They’ve only gotten a gun catalog in their mailbox along with all the other junk mail. They haven’t been proven guilty yet.
You’re doing some Minority Report style precog-garbage here.
You’re acting before they’ve had time to dirty their hands. (I.e. before they’ve put forth an actual motion.)
I’m not defending the comission’s proposal.
Neither am I saying “wait forever, wait until rents are actually
messed up”. But you acted a little bit too soon and are costing “our
side” (whatever that means) a lot of credibility.
Our side…
Politics is a lonely place for me.
In terms of analysis, of looking at our world and seeing what’s wrong with these messed up systems like market capitalism (or, in this case, market driven housing rents), there basically is no left enough for me. Marx didn’t go far enough. I’m with you all the way.
But in terms of actual solutions to those problems I’m not onboard with what you’re doing here. It seems to me that you’ll be making things worse. It seems to me that you’re leaving the lukewarmers (S and MP) with their hands clean by executing them prematurely, and you’re leaving the fash (SD and their lackeys KdML) with a road to power.
I’ve feeling pretty bad about posting this.
Housing is a dangerous thing to play “chicken” with and maybe V is right to not let it go too far. I would’ve wanted them to wait a little longer, to let S’s hands get some actual dirt on them, but am I not just nit-picking? Isn’t it obvious enough that S will be heading down this road?
If my criticism is “the consequences of what you’re doing is bad”, then shouldn’t I apply that same caution to my own political writing? Sure, I disagree with what V is doing, but what happens after? Should I really be writing thing like “S and MP will have their hands clean” instead of swallowing my pride and doubling down in support of V? The true enemy is SD and KdML. In the face of that, I shouldn’t be disparaging V, the “least-bad” of politics (awful as they are, I’ve been voting for them for decades).
I dunno.