Populist Sweden Democrats won election by reshaping Swedish politics

Move along, nothing to see here. Relax. The Swedish Democrats – the unwholesome, populist, nationalist, anti-immigration party – fell short of their anticipated showing in yesterday’s election. They lost. They came third and the moderate centre-left Social Democrats topped the poll. All is right with the world, according to progressive opinion the day after. The populists have been vanquished, it seems, if you are following the aftermath on social media.

As ever, Bojan Pancevski of the Wall Street Journal got to the real heart of the story:

“Er, no. The result (best ever for Sweden Democrats) reflects the fact that both the Social Democrats and the conservative Moderate Party have performed a de-facto u-turn on asylum immigration policy, and sharpened their rhetoric beyond recognition to stop the bleeding of votes,” he wrote on Twitter. “As a result the rhetoric of mainstream conservatives become identical to that of Sweden Democrats. And yet the election boosted the SD, so there is no option for a properly functional coalition now. Unprecedented for a traditionally stable political system.”

Spot on. Anyone who has visited Sweden in recent months cannot fail to have seen the enormity of the shift taking place. The progressive political class – initially with the support of welcoming Swedish voters – decided to up the tempo on immigration to such an extent that it has provoked a transformation in attitudes. Mainstream Swedes whisper it. They like controlled immigration and Sweden is a tolerant place, but the scale of it allowed by the government from 2015 was madness and bound to lead to tensions and conflict.

Pancevski was responding to Jeremy Cliffe, a columnist for The Economist and founder of the trailblazing UK Radical Party which he established on Twitter late one night. Unfortunately, a staffer starting an anti-Brexit political party was deemed a step too far even for the anti-Brexit and increasingly left-wing team at The Economist. Cliffe had to resign the leadership of his new party the next day. Politics’ loss is journalism’s gain.

Cliffe’s view on Sweden was that the British and US media had got it wrong, because of their obsession with the exciting but toxic narrative that Europe is everywhere supposedly returning to the 1930s. No. The point surely is that there is an ongoing and welcome (within limits) backlash taking place against the globalist, anti-nation state, smug illiberal liberals whose approach dominated for decades. Better get adjusting, fast.

Missing the point as usual, the hysterical historian Simon Schama raged on social media that BBC Radio 4’s Today programme (that hot bed of nativist populism) was reporting the story wrongly. The Sweden Democrats lost, he said.

No. Look at what has just happened. The Social Democrats have achieved their worst result in a century, making coalition talks difficult. The rise of the Swedish Democrats forced the two mainstream blocs to transform their policies and their rhetoric. Moderate conservatives switched to echoing the Sweden Democrats in a desperate search for votes.

What a change. In 2002, the nasty Sweden Democrats were on 1.4% of the vote and the mighty Social Democrats were on 39.9%. Now, the Sweden Democrats are on 17.6% and the Social Democrats are on 28.4%, and the Social Democrats have had to change their approach and rhetoric on immigration levels, integration and crime.

There is a parallel with the UK, where UKIP only ever held two parliamentary seats yet can be said to have reshaped British politics because it reflected public anger and terrified the two establishment parties to such an extent that a referendum resulted. Then, at the general election last year both made clear that the UK must leave the European Union, a situation unthinkable five years ago.

Sometimes effective politics isn’t about getting the most seats. Sometimes it is about shocking the established order and forcing it to change.