Political nomenclature, USA style

[horvendile]

I suppose this may be lost among the war threads, but I'll try anyway!

My impression is that the threads here are dominated by Americans. Often, political words such as "leftist" or "liberal" crop up. Now, the political language in Sweden is probably not the same as that in USA. Thus, it's not entirely easy for me, and probably others, to judge what is really meant with many passages. I'd be happy if the ones who frequently use these terms could try to define them.
I realise that strictly defining political terms is not the easiest of tasks, but I believe that even a fair try would help tremendously. If I don't understand some of the answers, I'll just try to put follow-up questions.

I don't really intend to discuss anything in this thread (pro et contra-style); I'm trying to synchronize watches, so to speak.

Thanks in advance,
Horvendile

[epicstruggle]

http://www.evote.com/fun/dictionary.asp

definition of liberal from site:
liberal, noun: A politician who is happy to steal all of your money, and then proposes a variety of convoluted government programs to give you a small part of it back.
not to far from the truth. :)
to be fair and balanced here is the definition of conservative:
conservative, noun: A politician who is happy to only steal part of your money, provided that (a) he can tell you what you can do with the remaining amount; and (b) you won't do anything fun with it.
also not far from the truth. :)

later

[RM. Andersson]

Well I´m also from Sweden. A "liberal" is almost like what is called a "socialist" in Sweden. Maybe closer to what is called "social-liberal" in some cases.
It´s about high taxes and lots of expensive welfare, health care programs and things like that. I´m sure that some of the most "liberal" people in the democratic party think swedens welfare system is rather nice.
"Leftist" is probably a different word for the same thing.

[DemoCoder]

I think Sweden's most right-wing politicians would be ultra-far left in the US, and US's ultra-left wing democrats would be considered right-wing fascists in Sweden.

[nutball]

I've always had the impression that what in the US called liberal is roughly equivalent to what we'd call Old Conservative (centre-right). What in the US is termed conservative, we would label Thatcherite. Thatcher was the most right-wing Prime Minister we've had in our history I think, and took much of her thinking from US Republican party (hence her love affair with Reagan).

What we call Liberal would (I'm guessing) be regarded as pretty Pinko Leftist in the US, and our Socialists would probably be grouped in with the Downright Communists.

For reference Tony Blair is a centre-right politician leading a party which encompasses people with persuasions all the way from his own to the Communists, which is why he's had so much trouble from his party during his term in office.

[aras]

I agree with what democoder said. I'm from Denmark but the political structures are the same throughout the nordic contries. Multiple parties polarized around center seeking and liberal politics. The difference between right and left wing parties are nowhere near as big as in the U.S. This sometimes forces people to vote on the basis of specific issues that these parties take different stances on instead of looking at the bigger picture. The broad difference is just too small and blurred!

And yes we do have parties on the wide left and right wing but they generally hold very little influence on government politics.

Fortunately our current (right oriented) government has imposed a strict "no-tax-rises" policy which the left wing calls irresponsible. If it were up to them they would raise the tax every time the government needed money. Now whats more irresponsible, heh....

Taxes and cost of living is WAY to high in scandinavia IMO.

[MrsSkywalker]

Great question! Sometimes we don't stop to think that people might not always know our political terms. Sorry non-USAers :oops:

I'm going to try and put this in a manner that won't offend anyone, but no guarantees :) A liberal belongs to the Democratic political party, or the Independant party (there are smaller factions that really have no politicla pull as well). In terms of political ideals, liberals tend to put social issues above all else. For instance, they tend to focus more on issues like welfare, government support for the arts, and that type of stuff. Also, the "tax now and worry about it later" state of mind sets in in order to pay for all of the social services. Another major defining factor in whether or not someone is considered a liberal is their view on the way the country should be governed. They are all for the government having control over everything.

Conservatives are members of the Republican party, or lesser factions of that (green party, militias, etc). In terms of political ideals, conservatives tend to see the responsibility of social issues as the state, county, or town's responsibility, with as little government interference as possible...in most cases. Basically, they support local rule as opposed to assigningg everything to the federal government. And, they tend to cut taxes instead of taxing and spending.

Hope this helps!

[RM. Andersson]

There are a few hardcore libertarians in sweden that think like they lived on a different planet compared to swedish mainstream.
A part of the swedish party "Moderaterna" consists of such people(like myself).
For us all partys except "Moderaterna" and "Krist Demokraterna" are different flavors of socialists.
The term "social-liberal" is used to discribe non-socialists that still support lots of socialist ideas. I also think of them as wannabe socialists(as a joke, of course).

From my own perspective Democrats in the US are a bit "to the left". I would certainly vote for Republicans if I lived in the US.
Of course in sweden compromises are needed. Even if a few members in a future non-socialist swedish government support such ideas(libertarian) they will have to accept that the rest of its members dont support them.

Some conservatives are far to the right but they are not at all "libertarians". They are of the type " God , King and Fatherland". They are moralists and wants lots of rules and laws based on christian and traditional values.

[CosmoKramer]

Yes, it's true that in Sweden there is a (nominally) right-wing party called "Moderaterna" consisting of the old nobility and other wannabees (people who don't vote ideologically but for wanting to belong to a group of perceived succesful people). Sadly this party is the major reason the Social Democrats have been in power for so long - they simply scare off sane people who otherwise are right of center ideologically..

[RM. Andersson]

Perhaps people depending on the state and its welfare get scared when we tell them that a economy with 60%+ total taxes is not very effective.
That we need to get some growth in the economy and make it a good option to work hard for someone that wants a good life.

Perhaps it´s easy to let the state think for you and decide for you. I realize that more freedom scares people like that.

I hope that sooner or later people in Sweden will understand that the economy gets worse compared to other countries every year. That eventually there will no longer be enough money for all that expensive welfare. Regardless how high the taxes are. Because someone must pay for it. And people that don´t want to pay insane taxes will just leave. Or they will stop working hard because there is no point with taxes like that.

Eventually people will have to realize what is sane and what is not.

[Natoma]

Great question! Sometimes we don't stop to think that people might not always know our political terms. Sorry non-USAers :oops:

I'm going to try and put this in a manner that won't offend anyone, but no guarantees :) A liberal belongs to the Democratic political party, or the Independant party (there are smaller factions that really have no politicla pull as well). In terms of political ideals, liberals tend to put social issues above all else. For instance, they tend to focus more on issues like welfare, government support for the arts, and that type of stuff. Also, the "tax now and worry about it later" state of mind sets in in order to pay for all of the social services. Another major defining factor in whether or not someone is considered a liberal is their view on the way the country should be governed. They are all for the government having control over everything.

Conservatives are members of the Republican party, or lesser factions of that (green party, militias, etc). In terms of political ideals, conservatives tend to see the responsibility of social issues as the state, county, or town's responsibility, with as little government interference as possible...in most cases. Basically, they support local rule as opposed to assigningg everything to the federal government. And, they tend to cut taxes instead of taxing and spending.

Hope this helps!

I've bolded what I disagree with. :)

1) I don't know what liberals you've spoken with, but not every liberal agrees that everything should be controlled by the government. If anything, liberals believe that economic issues and helping those less fortunate are things best handled by the government, due to the fact that the government can impose taxes and collect from everyone equally to benefit those less fortunate.

*However* in personal matters such as sex, marriage, et al, the government should keep its grubby hands off.

2) I would certainly disagree that the green party in the US would be considered conservative. Try telling that to the Sierra Club or Ralph Nader. They'd laugh at you. ;)

3) I think you got that half right. Conservatives tend to cut taxes and *increase* spending. At least, conservatives since the "Reagan Revolution" have done so. Which basically leads us to higher and higher deficits as far as the eye can see, and/or recession.

[CosmoKramer]

You'll be surprised to see when you grow up how many Swedish people actually are right of center (as I am) but are scared off by the morons in the moderate party.

Only this past 6 months two events have happended showing the true face behind the rhetoric.

1) During the election campaign many politicians (most of them Moderates) were filmed with a hidden camera while making racist remarks
2) Earlier this month a Moderate MP wanted to outlaw begging since it disturbs his "quality of life".

Go back in history and you'll find more examples like that. You need to realize that these things don't go unnoticed and as long as the Moderates remain the leading right-wing party the Socialists will continue to win the elections.

[RM. Andersson]

Libertarians(Nyliberaler) in "Moderaterna" are among the strongest anti-racists in Sweden.

Racists exist in most swedish partys. Alot of the members in the racist party "Sverige Demokraterna" are former supporters of "Social Demokraterna".
Collectivism can very easy lead to racism. If you think about people as groups with interests there is a big risk.

I think about people as individuals and I think racism is sick and perverted collectivism.

I think you need to grow up, really.

[Sxotty]

a classic quote is

liberals want to control the boardroom,
conservatives want to control the bedroom.

But really no one fits into the mold exactly, I mean I think I am a liberal, but I agree with many conservative ideas.

[CosmoKramer]

Libertarians(Nyliberaler) in "Moderaterna" are among the strongest anti-racists in Sweden.

1) The Moderates do not consist of Nyliberaler only. What do you think the other wing of the Moderate party is (testing your political knowledge ;))
2) Nyliberaler (libertarians) are despicable anyway. From what I understand even most of your heroes - the americans - feel the same way. Ergo we will continue to have socialist governments in this country.
Racists exist in most swedish partys.
That's a rather inane observation. A similar observation is that there are S&M practitoners in all parties as well. That doesn't change the fact that the Moderates more than any other party in the Parliament is associated with racist elements.
http://www.friinformation.com/297/Rasism%20eller%20inte.html
http://www.bankrattsforeningen.org.se/Debatt2/debatt65.html
http://www.hjampis.kiruna.se/~mzac/elev/etik/N3-00/rasism.html

Alot of the members in the racist party "Sverige Demokraterna" are former supporters of "Social Demokraterna".

Define "lot of". Considering the historical ties between racists/nazis and the conservatives (moderates) I doubt it.
http://www.umu.se/histstud/forskning/externt/mellan_konservatism_projektbeskrivning.htm

Collectivism can very easy lead to racism.
It's a little more complex than that. It is true that collectivist ideologies like nationalism can lead to racism, yes. Liberalism can be seen as a collectivist ideology in that it only sees all human beings as one whole (meaning all have equal value and all have the same inviolable rights). Clearly liberals are not racists.

I think about people as individuals and I think racism is sick and perverted collectivism.

Agree 100%. You'll find that most people agree with that statement, so what's your point?

think you need to grow up, really.

Really? ;)

[MrsSkywalker]

1) I don't know what liberals you've spoken with, but not every liberal agrees that everything should be controlled by the government. If anything, liberals believe that economic issues and helping those less fortunate are things best handled by the government, due to the fact that the government can impose taxes and collect from everyone equally to benefit those less fortunate.

I meant as a general all around stance on politics. My parents are EXTREMELY liberal...thank God I rebelled :wink: Liberals believe the federal government knows what's best for the country, while conservatives tend to believe that the local government can best decide.

3) I think you got that half right. Conservatives tend to cut taxes and *increase* spending.

I don't think the overall spending is increased greatly as a general republican policy...the money is just allocated differently. Liberals tend to pump more into social policies, then the republicans slash those programs and put the money in the military. Not saying which side is better, or anything, but that's how I see it.

You're from NYC? I live in New Hampshire, a more republican state you'll be hard pressed to find! Yet, I live on the border of Massachusetts, probably the most liberal state. So, I've grown up all my life sandwiched between the two extremes. Our previous governor ran as a democrat here and won...keep in mind though that NH "democrats" are pro 2nd ammendment, anti abortion, pro local rule, and pro welfare restrictions...and we still couldn't wait to get rid of her! If she ran in any other state she'd be considered a slightly left conervative. So, if my views seem a little extreme on both sides, that's why. :)

Non-USAers: Remember, what you see of our politics is usually the extreme. In any party you get whackos who take it upoin themselves to speak for the party. Anyone in gaming is, I'm sure, familiar with the name Joseph Leiberman...he's a liberal, but a slightly loopy one. And the republican have Jerry Falwell, you know, the guy who said to boycott Teletubbies because the purple one was gay? Um, yeah. So please don't take these news hounds as solid representation of our political parties! :wink:

[MfA]

We have seen "traditional" libertarianism (Randian laissez faire capitalism) in action in history, however much you hate the present situation to think that the middle and lower classes would be any better off in a "traditional" libertarian society is naive (I dont think most libertarians would wish a situation in which 99% of people would be worse off simply to uphold their principles). That said, I recently ran into a webpage on geolibertarianism ... they still suffer a bit from the "it will magically work out right" syndrome, but at least they recognise that the right to property in itself is not enough (or rather, without creating the circumstances in which property can be acquired by those willing to work it is meaningless).

I never quite saw how "traditional" libertarians can justify their beliefs when it can quite easily be shown that any given government is perfectly compatible with libertarianism ... the government is the defacto owner of anything on its lands, what we call property isnt, but even though there is only a single property owner property rights are maintained. This is the implicit contract we enter into for the right to live where we do.

Anyone who owns land is a government in a "traditional" libertarian society.

[RM. Andersson]

CosmoKramer, I dont agree.
I am not a conservative and I´m not the right person to defend their ideology.
I dont think people that I know that are conservative are racists, however.

But it´s true that anyone that thinks the individual and not the collective is important will hate all forms of racism.
I´m not saying that everyone that think of people like members of a collective is a racist. Of course not.
It´s a way of thinking that will make it less difficult for a racist to convince someone like that.

And it is complex. Racist ideologys are in fact in some ways related to socialism. Not only conservatism. They burrowed ideas from both.
Mussolini was in fact a socialist. All the people that founded his party was former socialists. He was among the most important socialists in Italy before he started his own party.
If you look at such partys programs you will find alot of distorted and perverted socialism in them.
They use ideas from everywhere. The use anything to spread the hate.
Alot of socialist ideas can be converted in a way that they can use.
They are more of a anti-ideology than a ideology. What they are saying simply makes no sense from a ideological perspective.

Of course you can instead focus on who votes on them and support them.
In that case you will find that they get supporters from anywhere. It is people that are unhappy with the system and wants to believe the propaganda.
If you look at the practical politics you will find that (some!)large companies will benefit from it. But that is because it is easy for the regime to control a few large companies. Those companies have no power in such a political system. The regime and/or the dictator has the real power.
It´s not a final stage of imperialism like socialists wants people to believe.
That explanation is not valid. It is contestable of course and I dont believe that.

[horvendile]

Thanks for the answers so far.
I believe I'm not completely ignorant of US politics, but to verify that, it's good to get the goods from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

So far, the explanations of the US politics has been mostly on economical issues. However, my impression is that when "liberal" and "leftist" is flinged about here, the issue at hand is often not primarily economical. It would be interesting to hear what the political landscape looks like when it comes to (primarily) non-economical stuff, such as (but not limited to) foreign and environmental policies.

Also, following 9/11, there has been undeniable holes carved in the domestic freedom in the US, at least to the extent of the government's possibilities to monitor the citizens. How does this relate to traditional US political standpoints?

Finally, a quick comment:

I think Sweden's most right-wing politicians would be ultra-far left in the US, and US's ultra-left wing democrats would be considered right-wing fascists in Sweden.

That's probably going a bit far, but there's certainly an element of truth to that.

[MrsSkywalker]

It would be interesting to hear what the political landscape looks like when it comes to (primarily) non-economical stuff, such as (but not limited to) foreign and environmental policies.

:) I can't write about that stuff without injecting opinion. As someone put it in another thread, I am an elephant and happy to be one. The way I see it, liberals tend to believe that getting involved in social and environmental issues is best handled through committees, subcommittees, protests...basically, liberals talk. Their view on foreign affairs is often "let's write up a bull crap peace accord that will do no good and put it on the news so the US can look like the peacemakers of the world". Basically, they are willing to talk, talk, talk, not seeing the point where talk won't work. Now, there are shining examples of liberals who have worked all their lives for what they honestly believe in. For example, Jimmy Carter. He may have been ineffective as a president, but I have tremendous respect for all he has done and tried to do. He's a "good" liberal in my opinion :wink:

Conservatives tend to get involved in social issues as well, but often it's with money instead of talk. They don't tend to view foreign issues the same as liberals, shying away from the BS peace talks and such. I speak of the republicans in military terms because that's how we're viewed, as war hungry savages :wink: In all honesty, the difference in foreign affairs, especially in hostile situtions, is that the conservatives see a clear line of stalemate, a point where the process has stalled, then we take either military or monetary action.

I guess the main difference is that conservatives see EVERYTHING in economical terms, while liberals ignore that money is being spent.

Does that help?

[Captain Chickenpants]

This is a quite interesting site to look at.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/


I was quite close to Ghandi :-) It will be interesting to see where everyone else ends up.

CC

[Natoma]

*cough*

you're late to the party (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4806)

:)

[Captain Chickenpants]

:oops: Doh!

Ah well, it is at least relevant to the topic at hand!

CC

[RM. Andersson]

This is a quite interesting site to look at.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/


I was quite close to Ghandi :-) It will be interesting to see where everyone else ends up.

CC

I tested it. Not very close to anyone. Closest to " Kenneth Clark" 1996. I dont know who he is.(5.12, -3.44)
I guess he must be a wise person that people can trust :twisted:

[Heathen]

Ken Clark? :lol: Oh boy, let's put it this way when he was the governments health minister (UK) he went round smoking in public. Tact ain't his strong suit.

[RM. Andersson]

Ken Clark? :lol: Oh boy, let's put it this way when he was the governments health minister (UK) he went round smoking in public. Tact ain't his strong suit.

He he! That proves it. The test must be flawed. :lol:
Well I was rather close to Friedman too I found out. And I know who he is at least. (I must forget Ken Clark)

[Himself]

Simon Hughes apparently, whoever that is, just a tab more left. :)

[Humus]

I think Sweden's most right-wing politicians would be ultra-far left in the US, and US's ultra-left wing democrats would be considered right-wing fascists in Sweden.

It's not quite that bad, but it's true that the Swedish culture has been very leftist for a long time. I agree with pretty much everything the other Swedes in here have said, Sweden is more leftist than its people really, but the rightist parties are too scary sometimes. It's kinda interesting, we have seven major parties, of which only two are left, four and right and then we have this environment party (or green party) that's floating around not really belonging to either block. We have from left to right:

Left party - Formerly communists, but that changed quite some time ago. I respected their leader, Gudrun Shyman, until she got caught cheating on taxes recently. She made a lot for getting women equal in the society. It's scary however now that she left her position because of that tax scandal you can almost see some of that communistic ideas getting back.

Social democrats - The current government. Left of center. Too much leftists for my liking, but the only party that actually does anything to get rid of that huge national debt we have. They have brought us way too many governmental services through the years though that's bringing the economy down.

Center party - Considered to be on the right block. Pretty much a no-name party. They could probably get more votes if they made more noise during the election periods.

Christ democrats - Conservative christian. The party of the 1800's sort of. They seam so, I don't know, hypocritical. Not living according to their standards, at least that's my feelings.

Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election. Scarily, the went from 10% to 20% most likely because of that.

Moderates - Conservative, far right. Every time you hear a politician propose a really stupid idea you can be pretty sure that it's a moderate. It never fails. The ideas tend to come back later on however in a patched version has fixed the faults that should have been obviuos to everyone with some common sense from the beginning.


Personally, I'm all over the place in my opionions. Which is the reason I didn't vote the last election, there was no party speaking for me. Would I have voted I would probably have voted on the social democrats, at least they do something right, but there's a lot left to fix. We really need more rightist thinking in economics, I'm all for privatising a load of federal services. Something gotta be done about the health-care system too. Sweden with the world strongest worker protection laws is the country with probably the highest rate of work-related early retirement. It's too easy to get an early retirement and live of tax money for the rest of the life. The social democrats however doesn't see this. And noone does anything about integrating the butt-load of immegrants we get into the society. Oh, well ...

[RM. Andersson]

That´s your opinion. Everyone should have one in a democracy. It´s good that you are interested.
Of course it´s not the way I see things.
What you say about "Moderaterna" is certainly nonsense in my opinion.
It´s the only true non-socialist alternative. At least if you use a international definition of socialism and not the swedish definition.
Right of center is still socialism in Sweden.
Half measures and psedu-socialism will not be enough to save the country.
Politics based on thinkers such as Friedman and Rand will be needed. Real change that makes a difference. It´s not stupid ideas. It´s a new future based on a growing economy , freedom and respect for democratic and individual rights.

Just the way I see it....

[horvendile]

Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election.

Though I didn't intend to discuss (as in argue) politics in this thread, especially not Swedish politics, I urge you to read what the Liberals actually said in their proposal. There was nothing of racism in it, and they are really way more immigration-friendly than e.g. the Social Democrats; for example, the Liberals actually want to increase immigration.

During the election campaign, other parties (most notably the Left party, the Social Democrats and the Centre party) not only grotesquely distorted the Liberals' proposal, but occasionally flat out lied about its contents - that, or they didn't bother reading it. It's not strange if the proposal is labeled racist if several other parties do nothing but shout it all the time, but it's nevertheless false. Once again, please, read it!

On a side note: Before this, I hadn't ruled out voting for the Social Democrats. Many faults as they have, they do have a limited but existing knack for pragmatic politics. After this low-water mark of base argumentation however, I have a hard time seeing that happen.

[Humus]

That´s your opinion. Everyone should have one in a democracy. It´s good that you are interested.
Of course it´s not the way I see things.
What you say about "Moderaterna" is certainly nonsense in my opinion.
It´s the only true non-socialist alternative. At least if you use a international definition of socialism and not the swedish definition.
Right of center is still socialism in Sweden.
Half measures and psedu-socialism will not be enough to save the country.
Politics based on thinkers such as Friedman and Rand will be needed. Real change that makes a difference. It´s not stupid ideas. It´s a new future based on a growing economy , freedom and respect for democratic and individual rights.

Just the way I see it....

Well, it was Moderaterna who proposed that we get rid of the whole health care system in favor for an optional health insurance for those interested in health care. An idea that will make less wealthy people decide they don't want the insurance because it's an unnecceary cost if they consider themself healthy. But then when an accident occurs they will be left there without any protection and will be either not get the health care they need or will be left with debts for the rest of the life. You shouldn't allow people to make stupid decisions, it's the same as with why we have a law mandating the use of security belt when driving. The idea came back in a patched form which mandated that people take this insurance.

As for how I would want the health care system, I would like it all being privatized, however, the goverment must still make sure that all people have the right to health care. Competition will make it more economically efficient, and the government can then buy health care services from private hospitals, preferrably people can decide themself what hospital they want to go to for their health care services. People should also have to pay some of the service themself to avoid artifical demand, but the higher the cost the lesser part you need to pay yourself. Also, the government must also arrange inspections or otherwise ensure that competition does not reduce the quality of the service provided. You don't want to get cheaper and worse medicine because the hospital tries to cut corners either.

Personally, I don't think socialism as such is a evil thing, everyone should have the right to education all the way up and through university and everyone should have the right to affordable health care regardless of economical status, but things needs to be balanced. Putting federal service onto third parties who can compete will reduce costs significantly and probably still give the same amount of service.

[Humus]

Liberal party (Folkpartiet) - Had some respect for these guys until they brought rascism into their agenda in the last election.

Though I didn't intend to discuss (as in argue) politics in this thread, especially not Swedish politics, I urge you to read what the Liberals actually said in their proposal. There was nothing of racism in it, and they are really way more immigration-friendly than e.g. the Social Democrats; for example, the Liberals actually want to increase immigration.

During the election campaign, other parties (most notably the Left party, the Social Democrats and the Centre party) not only grotesquely distorted the Liberals' proposal, but occasionally flat out lied about its contents - that, or they didn't bother reading it. It's not strange if the proposal is labeled racist if several other parties do nothing but shout it all the time, but it's nevertheless false. Once again, please, read it!

On a side note: Before this, I hadn't ruled out voting for the Social Democrats. Many faults as they have, they do have a limited but existing knack for pragmatic politics. After this low-water mark of base argumentation however, I have a hard time seeing that happen.

Well, there's probably a lot of truth in that the other parties bastardized what Folkpartiet proposed a lot. Still however, what they said themself during the debates was not quite something that felt good in my ears. Not sure what they wanted to achieve with that Swedish language test. The way it was presented at least it sounded more like something to keep Sweden Swedish, pretty much blocking immigrants from getting into the country. And that's not just people fleeing from wars and so on, but also skilled workers seeking employment. But I'll check their ideas in more depth when I have more time though.

[Sxotty]

No one ever likes what they have, so the government is alway too something for the people.

[horvendile]

But I'll check their ideas in more depth when I have more time though.

Great!
I'm just going to point out an important thing that was missed by most:
The language test was only for citizenship. Nothing such was to be required for permanent residence permit. As far as I know, about the only difference between the two is that a citizenship is required to vote in the riksdag (I looked it up, it's actually called "riksdag" in English!) election. The important thing is that noone's going to get thrown out because they don't know Swedish.

[RM. Andersson]

Humus, I also want good heatlh care and education.
But we need money to pay for it. It´s not free.
A good economy with growth is crucial .

The swedish system is not working "landstingen" are loosing lots of money every day. They are about to break down. They do not have enough money to pay for what they are required to provide.
People have to wait to get help when they are ill. Unless it´s very serious they might have to wait for a very long time.
Thats why we need something new and better(systemskifte).

The healtcare must become better. But it´s important to change the whole system. The swedish economy must be improved. More freedom for individuals and companies and much lower taxes.
It must be a good option to work hard. It must be a good option to start new companies.
Claims and rights on a pice of paper cant pay for anything.
The foundation of a country is the economy. If there are problems with that nothing will help. Higher taxes will only make it worse. More rules and regulations for companies and individuals will also make it worse.
We need to rethink everything. We need a new fresh start. We need to turn around 180 degrees.

Regards!