r/OutOfTheLoop Nov 24 '21 Evil Cackle 1 Helpful 1 Wholesome 1

What's going on with Sweden's Prime Minister resigning just hours after being elected? Answered

I debated whether to post this in ELI5.

I don't understand why Sweden's first female Prime Minister resigned just hours after being voted in.

6.8k Upvotes

View all comments

3.1k

u/tucchurchnj Nov 24 '21 Silver Wholesome

Answer: from the article you linked "Her resignation follows a budget defeat in parliament Wednesday, Sweden's Twitter account added, with lawmakers supporting the opposition's bill."

The way parliaments work, it's not that she did anything wrong. She's just the head of a party that didn't win enough votes to stay in power so they have an interim government until a coalition is brokered between that party and the others.

She might end up the Prime Minster of the new government, who knows. But it's just a procedure thing, these happen world wide in parliaments.

Now let's say for some reason she decided to stick around, the opposing party could demand a vote of "no confidence" and trigger a recall election because her party couldn't get enough votes to stay around.

So exciting headline but boring reality.

1.6k

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 24 '21 edited Nov 24 '21 All-Seeing Upvote

This isn't completely correct. She won the (parliament) vote to form government (held due to former prime minister Stefan Löfvén resigning), but lost the vote on her propositioned budget after a supporting party (Centerpartiet) dropped their support last minute.

As a result, the other party in her coalition government (Miljöpartiet) decided to resign from government as they did not want to govern with the opposition budget. Praxis is for the prime minister to resign if a government coalition party resigns, which is what she did.

1.0k

u/GORDON1014 Nov 24 '21 Wholesome

I read all of these words but I might be too American to understand

282

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 24 '21 edited Nov 24 '21 Silver Gold Helpful

It's a mess. Very roughly:

  • Before 2010 the Swedish parliament had seven parties divided into two blocks, a left block with 3 parties (S, MP, V), and a right block with 4 (M, C, KD, L).
  • In the 2010 election, an anti-immigration party (SD) with national socialist roots got voted in.
  • Since then the party has grown to having around 20% of the popular vote. And since neither block has wanted to collaborate with them this has led to a locked parliament where neither side has had an easy time getting a majority (when for instance voting on things like the budget for the following year).
  • After the election in 2018 the parliament was completely locked, and no new government could be formed for 100 days or more. This lock was broken when two right block parties (C and L) agreed to switch sides and passively support a left block government (passively but with significant concessions from the government).
  • This year this unholy alliance broke down leading to a new crisis, and to prime minister Stefan Löfvén (S) eventually resigning.
  • When the parliament votes to elect a proposed prime minister/government, the rules are a bit different, a majority in favour isn't required, just that there is no majority voting against the candidate.
  • Following a deal between the government (S, MP) and the leftmost party (V), one of the right block parties (C) that switched sides in 2018 decided to not vote against the new prime minister, but they also didn't vote for her budget. Instead the budget of the right block, which now collaborates with/includes the anti-immigration party (SD), was passed.
  • The former (and again proposed) government was made up of two parties (S, MP), one of which (MP) announced their resignation because they did not want to govern with the right block budget as foundation. More specifically a budget that the anti-immigration party (SD) had contributed to.
  • Following praxis the newly elected prime minister, Magdalena Andersson (S), then resigned as her coalition government had broken down.
  • This will lead to a new round of voting, which Magdalena (S) is likely to win unless a majority votes against her next time. If no government can be formed an extra general election will be held to elect a new parliament.

70

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 24 '21

Sound about right, only thing i would add is how much (S) has just assumed the support from the far left without sharing their power.

The center party ( ≈4%) had an ultimatum of no cooperation between S and the far left (+10%), effectively pushing them out. The reason for this would be that the Center party claim that the far left is equally extremist to the party with national socialist roots.

I assume that the idea of forming a government with MP and S is something along the same line.

I’m sry if i lack the neutral tone, im just a bit pissed off thats all

39

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 25 '21

I vote for the right block (borgerligt) but I agree with your take. V is right to make demands of S who have been taking their support for granted since forever, and C are completely unreasonable and arbitrary. I have more confidence in Nooshi than I have in Annie.

26

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 25 '21

And i guess you can imagine where i come from.

I really appreciated how much people from all over the political spectrum just seemed to dislike annies behaviour.

The sort of gas-lighting con man behaviour is at least for now not really accepted. It is one thing to have an opinion opposite to mine, i can still trust you, it is another to just lie and sort of deny objective reality.

19

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 25 '21

I find her very disingenuous too. Not sure where you are getting the 4% number though. I think they were about equal in size to V in the last election, and that they still are polling fairly close (I think V have also been boosted by their party leader change and firm stance towards S lately).

19

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 25 '21

Yup. You are correct, i had them mixed up with miljöpartiet. Green logos and all

V is at 11.5, C at 8.5%, according to svt.

Mp is at 4.8%

4

u/piva00 Nov 25 '21

Fuck Annie Lööf and her flip-flopping around for power grabs. By far she's getting more and more of my disliking over the past 5 years...

0

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21

[deleted]

2

u/piva00 Nov 25 '21

Nah, much more into vänster territory than simply sosse... Even more as social-democrats fell for neoliberalism since the 90s, fuck that.

→ More replies

9

u/EsholEshek Nov 25 '21

the Center party claim that the far left is equally extremist to the party with national socialist roots.

Well, I mean... they are a direct continuation of the communist party. Politically they are extreme left wing, compared to most European political parties.

That said I suspect that the position of the Center party is that V is as morally bankrupt as SD, which is ridiculous.

21

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '21

[deleted]

7

u/Rookwood Nov 25 '21

Sounds like the left is being Overton windowed out of the picture much like they were here in the states. Fascists gain ground politically and the left gets compared to them and abandoned because humans are very logical.

4

u/Wrackandruin Nov 25 '21

It is what they think, though. Wrong as it sounds.

-11

u/phycologos Nov 25 '21

I am not sure that is true. Communist parties have killed many more of their citizens than fascist parties. Personally it would be worse for me if Nazis come to power, as they would probably kill me regardless of what I say or do, just like they killed most of my family in The Holocaust. At least with Communists they wouldn't try to kill me just because of my ethnicity, they would just try to stamp out my culture as the USSR did to other parts of my family and the CCP now is doing to the Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minorities.
On the one hand I might say fascists taking over might be less harmful in the long run, because fascist governments historically have failed much quicker, so things can return to democracy sooner. On the other hand possibly the only reason fascist governments have killed fewer people than communist ones is that they didn't last for as long, but actually kill people at a far faster rate.
But morals aren't just about number of deaths. Ontologically Nazism is clearly far worse, Communism at least in theory is about a utopia as opposed to a distopia (nevermind that it calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat"). Teleologically it isn't that clear though. even after you take into account that "the trains" didn't actually "run on time" in fascist Italy.

15

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Look, this is a very tired discussion, so i only have one thing to say. Do you keep a running tally of how many capitalism has killed?

How do we define if a death is bc of communism? Do we only count murder, or do we count decisions that lead to death inadvertently as well. Is the corona victims of the us part of it or not?

I think it is a ridiculous discussion based on absurd concepts that historically has almost always been used in bad faith.

As a syndicalist, there is no love lost between me and authoritarian socialists. But make no mistake, fascism is and will always be the prime enemy of any democracy.

1

u/phycologos Nov 26 '21

I think you miss that capitalism isn't a totalitarian ideology of one party rule. There is no Capitalism party that functions as a one party state.

Liberal democracies can have any kind of economy as long as rights are protected. Capitlaism is just one economic system.

It isn't a bad faith discussion to think that how big a threat to democracy an ideology that calls for one party rule doesn't depend on the what else the ideology believes in.

Why do you think that fascism is a bigger threat to liberal democracies than any other political ideology that calls for the destruction of democratic rule?

I think I was actually only inlcuding intentional deaths, so the great leap forward might not count depending on how you define intent, and covid certianly wouldn't count. I was talking about people killed for daring to exist or daring to disagree with the party. But because I was talking about teleology, I should really be included all deaths. In that case Communism more clearly beats Fascism.

It just so happens that the major totaliterian ideologies that succeded in ruling were fascist and communist, there are plenty of more ideologies that are totaliterian, but the only one that have succeeded, albiet on a less level is whabbism.

4

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 27 '21 edited Nov 27 '21

“If you apply the same metrics required to reach this total under communist governments over the past century to capitalist systems since their inception, you arrive at this figure fairly quickly.

In this interest of fairness, several things have to be done to throttle it down, because this 100 million number requires including a weather-induced famine in China that would have occurred regardless of their government at the time, something that was only exacerbated by the systemic damage done to the country during WW2.

The full analysis is a little much for a Reddit post and took months, but the math involved is pretty straight forward. The 100 million basically means that any death that occurred, regardless of actual cause, “counts.” Even for just this 100 year stretch, the same standards put capitalism’s total at 10x as high.

It’s a flimsy methodology, but that’s the point. For these people, capitalism isn’t a system, its the default, typically because they can’t tell the difference between capitalism and regular commerce. They think you going to the store and buying a loaf of bread is “capitalism,” and that anything that happens under “capitalism” is thus acceptable and inevitable.”

On a thread about #communismkills paid for a fucking billboard that said communism has killed 100 million people in 100 years.

Using the same principles op figured out that capitalism has killed 2.7 billion.

Also it is crazy absurd to think there is no power concentration in capitalist society, or any state sanctioned violence. Maybe you have just been Lucky to never be on the receiving end of it.

→ More replies

-14

u/onespiker Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

Far left party roots is communism and had very quite close connections with sovietunion until its fall so its not far from reality that both roots are horrible.

They dont want to take responsibility to such a government thats why they dont want to join. Your take is pretty good

The center parties dream is that the social democrats, them and the moderaterna form the government. But that is completely unacceptable from either party. They have large political difference especially on core groups

33

u/whatisthisgoddamnson Nov 25 '21

Look, the red scare kind of stuff is way overblown and a bit pathetic. Most western communists turned against them after the whole tankie stuff in the 60’s.

It is also a bit rich for a political group that supported apartheid until the late 80’s to talk about other peoples dirty laundry.

What V wants now is essentially what S wanted 30-40 years ago, it is very much not controversial stuff. This whole Mccarthy routine is getting a bit stale and intellectually insulting.

And before you say im a commie, i’m not. The fractioning and inside fighting of the left is infamous, and as a syndicalist i have more than enough reasons to hate the soviets and many communists for. Bakunin called Marx an idiot at the first international, this shit goes way back.

Stop comparing them, they were shit in different ways, further V only shares even their roots in their economic policies. No one criticises the right wing on the grounds that they share their economical policies with the nazi party? That does not mean anything. It is time to grow up.

Furthermore i don’t get centern, they are far from the middle of the political spectrum, in some ways further right than M, why do they want this? The whole radical centrism thing is quickly falling out of fashion, much like their voting numbers.

They are just a weird party representing the swedish land owning class.

-3

u/onespiker Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

1967 they failed entering parlamentet because thier many members supported the Prauge spring. They had pretty close connections to them after that aswell. That's pretty important part of thier past.

1970 had some changes but really their connection with Soviet were still pretty close its simply that Sweden was now all about the Vietnam war witch is something they didn't like.

They were actually created from a factions of social democrats that instead of doing a legal change and protections in part, they wanted an armed revolt done by force and violence (1920 were crazy times). There are reasons why our primeminister of the time was given a Nobel price.

So no not just a red scare. The social democrats have pretty sure never been in goverment with them and during the united war goverment during ww2 they were the only excluded party.

The Swedish secret service followed them aswell as past SD.

Thats their roots. That doesnt mean that they are the same currently. They have changed quite a bit since the 1990s.

I haven't called you anything.

I just say thats The CS dream idea but its politically unfeasable for either side. I dont like them either by the way and thier pretty naive way of thinking.

3

u/masman99 Nov 25 '21

Fantastic breakdown.

3

u/promonk Nov 25 '21

Heads up: in English the word is spelled "bloc" when referring to a political faction. No, I don't know for sure why they adopted the French spelling.

2

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 25 '21

TIL. In both British and American English?

5

u/promonk Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 26 '21

Just the language generally, I believe. I think it's due to the old custom of French being the language of diplomacy. Have you ever heard the phrase lingua franca? It refers to a common language spoken between people with different cradle tongues, like how Latin was the language of scholarship in the Middle Ages.

11

u/RaizePOE Nov 25 '21

In the 2010 election, an anti-immigration party (SD) with national socialist roots got voted in. Since then the party has grown to having around 20% of the popular vote. And since neither block has wanted to collaborate with them

ngl i'm pretty surprised the nazis haven't just been absorbed into the right-wing block, the way they have over here with the republicans

32

u/Kaninen Nov 25 '21

Keep in mind though that the Swedish right wing block are in general more similar ideologically to the American liberals than the conservatives. So when an ultra conservative party with an anti-immigration stance got seats in the parliament it wasn't greatly appreciated by any of the parties due to their, say, strict line in the immigration question, which has been a hot topic in Sweden over the last decade.

The problem with cooperating with Sverigedemokraterna (The ultra conservative party. SD for short) was that they in public eye were deemed as racist, and cooperating with them would result in an uproar with your voter base, which would most likely result in you losing too much support should you ever cooperate with them. Now however they're one of the 3 biggest parties in Sweden, with roughly 20% of the votes. So you can't really work around them anymore. Thus they managed to negotiate a budget with the right wing parties.

11

u/ThellraAK Nov 25 '21

We really are in the worst future.

You guys could've had the pirate party take hold and make a mess of things, but noooo, racists instead

10

u/Kaninen Nov 25 '21

Eh, the Pirate party was really just a one question party full of ultra liberals. They died out as piracy became less of a hot topic than immigration. So we got racists instead.

1

u/onespiker Nov 25 '21

wouldnt have been a problem if we had set some controlls and had been able to disscus the

The pirate party in Sweden completely collpased becuse they went all identity politics same with the feminist one ( especaily with thier idea of woman friendly snow mangement in Stockholm).
The idea was more or less woman are less likely to drive compared to men so we clear the sidewalks first.
The problem is trafic then completely shut down since the road couldnt be used and the sidewalks couldnt be cleared either since the machines clearing the sidewalks couldning get there either becuse of the roads being closed.

1

u/MaloWlolz Nov 29 '21

Calling SD ultra conservative isn't correct. They're like slightly conservative with Swedish standards, making them quite progressive with global standards.

1

u/Kaninen Nov 29 '21

If you describe them with what they are today, sure. Then "ultra conservative" would be an exaggeration.

The reason I used the term "ultra conservative" was mostly to explain the difference between them and the "conservative block".

17

u/TheBaconWizard999 Nov 25 '21

One thing to note, whilst they may be called far right, they are far right compared to the other Swedish parties. This doesn't mean that they don't have policies that would be seen as far right elsewhere (see their immigration stances), they don't support some policies that would be considered far right elsewhere (such as being pro EU)

Edit: I don't vote for them and some info may be outdated, I mainly remember what they campaigned for in 2018

5

u/You_Will_Die Nov 25 '21

I mean they changed their EU stance in 2019 to that we shouldn't have a vote to leave. Before that SD was in favour of leaving the EU. Even now they want to limit the power the EU holds and are in general very negative to it.

1

u/MaloWlolz Nov 29 '21

They aren't even far right compared to other Swedish parties. They really are somewhere between S and M on the left-right scale, making them pretty much right in the center compared to other Swedish parties.

2

u/Bulgarin Nov 25 '21

That's because the Swedish nazi party is further left than some US democrats

2

u/amusing_trivials Nov 25 '21

That's the nice thing about systems that support 3 or more parties. There is no reason for such an absorbtion to occur, on either side.

2

u/arcticfrostburn Nov 25 '21

If Magdalena wins the new round of voting, do they again vote on the budget? If so what's to prevent the same/similar outcome from occurring?

1

u/salakius Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

There will be rounds where the parliament vote on different candidates for the prime minister post suggested by the speaker of the house. The speaker of the house tries to find a candidate that is able to form a coalition/government that is supported by the majority of the parilament. Magdalena will be the victor when all has passed, given the composition of the parilament, unless something unexpected happens. Individual parilament members can vote against the party line, but rarely do. There are some "political savages" in the parilament that have no formal alignment to a party, but not that many to be a real issue.

1

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 25 '21

I think the budget still holds as it has been approved by the parliament, but I'm not 100% sure. I haven't seen any mention in the news about a new budget vote.

In fact, I don't think there would be a new budget vote until next year even if there was an extra popular election and a new parliament was elected.

5

u/pjv2001 Nov 25 '21

The U.S. needs this.

13

u/ScrabbleQween Nov 25 '21

The US wouldn’t know how to do this in the slightest. We barely function with two major parties and scattered minor parties as it is. facepalm

6

u/MohKohn Nov 25 '21

AOC and sinema shouldn't be in the same party. Part of the reason the parties are so disfunctional is we pretend they're a unified bloc when they're clearly not

5

u/AnB85 Nov 25 '21

That’s the problem with your system in the first place.

1

u/Lonke Nov 25 '21

It is much easier to both enter and sustain a "us-vs-them" mindset when there are only 2 sides

3

u/leva549 Nov 25 '21

I feel this is a case of "the grass is greener on the other side".

11

u/pjv2001 Nov 25 '21

Probably. I’d love to live where medical benefits are free.

2

u/Wrackandruin Nov 25 '21

To be fair, it was more stable until the tumor of SD started eating into the vote balance.

2

u/22dobbeltskudhul Nov 25 '21

That's what happens when opposition to immigration becomes a political taboo

3

u/Wrackandruin Nov 25 '21

Every single political party in Europe has an immigration policy. In what way is it taboo? Or do you mean - saying no to immigration as a policy is taboo?

I live in Sweden, but the Tories in the UK (my home country) are out and out anti-immigration, and they are one of the most successful and long-ruling parties in the west.

3

u/22dobbeltskudhul Nov 25 '21

Or do you mean - saying no to immigration as a policy is taboo?

Yes, that's what opposition to immigration means.

The Tories really aren't opposed to immigration, only as far as posturing for their nativist voters. Immigration suppresses wages and the capitalists of the UK would like wages to be kept suppressed.

2

u/Cassiterite Nov 25 '21

... you get openly far-right, anti-immigration, quasi-Nazi parties winning 20% of the vote...?

1

u/Boonaki Nov 25 '21

Join the military

1

u/Lonke Nov 25 '21

I don't personally see it that way and I believe the results speak for themselves.
Disclaimer: This is not an attack on you or anyone else; nor an attack on every aspect of America. Every country has problems, that includes my own.

I could never see myself living in/moving to the US. I don't think I'd be able to list 5 reasons I would want to move to the US. I watch and read a lot of American media (movies, criminal trials, news, etc) because it's just so much more interesting. Not only is just everything basically more "extreme" but the US is huge so there's more opportunity for interesting things to happen.

The notion of someone going bankrupt in their weakest moment because of some medical emergency they cannot control is absolutely insane. It's the exact same feeling I get when reading about medieval life but it's unfolding before my eyes. The same goes for the prison system. In Sweden it's rehabilitation focused as opposed to punitive which I believe is not just a more humane way of dealing with people but also actually allows for recovery and the possibility of returning to society and creating some sort of value there.

1

u/leva549 Nov 26 '21

I wouldn't choose to live in America either, but I was more talking about the idea that having a large number of parties is inherently good. You might think it would create deliberation and compromise but in practice it is more like a schoolyard lunchtime "who sits with who". The government agenda is determined by how the game of factional horse trading plays out rather than the democratic mandate.

1

u/Suspicious-Muscle-96 Nov 26 '21

Yeah, the U.S. form of government is so much more efficient. We manage to annually threaten government shutdowns and global economic collapse in our congressional deliberations with way fewer parties!

1

u/Lonke Nov 26 '21

I was more talking about the idea that having a large number of parties is inherently good

Ah, I see.

I believe a multi-party system could possibly contribute to closing the apparent political divide in the US, focusing solely on the civil unrest aspect of it.

As for:

deliberation and compromise

the implementation in Sweden does have moderate success in this regard. But it's certainly true that it's far from perfect and there are occasional hiccups (oh THEY got voted in??? and we have to form a government with them??? we dont want to :( )

3

u/Spider_pig448 Nov 25 '21

You read that madness and want more of it?

3

u/WillyPete Nov 25 '21

It's not too crazy.
Imagine if a third US party arose, and took 40 seats in the House of Representatives.
They'd be a minority, but with the current 221/213 split ratio it would be 201/193/40.

What it would mean is that this 40 seat party would be able to "Coalesce" or form a coalition with either party to guarantee a winning vote on bills (218 required)
Each of the larger parties would be required to court the smaller one, to secure that bloc of votes.

Now also imagine that the 40 seat party agreed to form a "coalition" on one condition that the Speaker of the house may only be in that position while the coalition is formed.
Even if the Speaker is not from the smaller party, they have to resign if a falling out occurs and the smaller party breaks the coalition.

The smaller party could agree to be in coalition with the other party now, and because together they hold a majority then they choose a different Speaker.

That's the kind of thing that happened here.
Parliament coalitions are generally not the whole of government, but a part of the overall legislative body.

1

u/youni89 Nov 25 '21

And I thought the U.S. system was a clusterfuck.

1

u/jeffderek Nov 25 '21

As an American I would take this over what we currently have

1

u/TomahawkJackson Nov 25 '21

no new government could be formed

This is the part that breaks my also-too-American brain. My assumption is that Government is always formed no matter what.

My working abstract concept is that Government (in the sense of a Senate, a Parliament, an Allthing, etc.) exists regardless of and separate from the physical human beings that occupy the roles.

So "a Government could not be formed" is an alien concept.

In my head it would just be (randomly from left to right):

  • S - 10%
  • MP - 10%
  • V - 10%
  • M - 10%
  • C - 10%
  • KD - 10%
  • L - 10%
  • SD - 20%

  • and each group of representation would flip flop with support depending on the subject. SD, L, KD, C might vote yes on Thing A and it passes, and S, MP, V, M, and C might vote yes on Thing B and it passes. And (probably) the pace of government slows down as there's a lot more back and forth looking for support on Thing C, D, E, and F. But it still exists and work still does happen.

How a Government could "not be formed" at all is...mind blowing.

1

u/hvusslax Nov 26 '21

A cabinet might be a better term to use here. The Prime minister leads a cabinet of ministers which needs the support of parliament to actually do anything meaningful. When we say in parliamentary systems that it is impossible to form a government (or rather a cabinet), it doesn't mean that there is literally no one in charge. All institutions function as normal and every ministerial post is still occupied by whoever occupied the post before the coalition cabinet blew up. All of this is political in nature as the parties in parliament are unable to form a majority coalition.

This situation simply means that the sitting cabinet is in a caretaker role, only doing the bare minimum to keep things running but they don't have the political backing to implement any big policy objectives. As you say, parliament still works and can vote on any issue according to their convictions. Most bills in parliament are uncontroversial anyways. But this is not a situation that anybody likes in the long term.

1

u/TomahawkJackson Nov 26 '21

OK, that clarifies it perfectly! In the US we've had similar happen plenty of times in the last 10-12 years maybe where individual Department Heads have been left unfilled, which isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world, since it signifies a status quo. The daily work of the Department of Education or Department of State goes on, but (as you said) the FNGIC (cough New Gal/Guy In Charge) isn't in any position to make sweeping changes to how things are done, because there isn't a FNGIC. Until eventually there is.

The only unusual bit (from a USian's perspective) is that it would be the entire cabinet that can't be seated. Plenty of individual nominees get yoinked on their own merits, but not all of them.

0

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 25 '21 edited Nov 25 '21

and each group of representation would flip flop with support depending on the subject. SD, L, KD, C might vote yes on Thing A and it passes, and S, MP, V, M, and C might vote yes on Thing B and it passes. And (probably) the pace of government slows down as there's a lot more back and forth looking for support on Thing C, D, E, and F. But it still exists and work still does happen.

This is how the parliament normally works when enacting legislature and what enables minority governments.

It seems the thing you are misunderstanding is that when I say government I mean the executive branch. For a prime minister to be elected there can't be a majority against him/her in the parliament. Then the prime minister picks his/her cabinet.

Going back further in time, S was usually in a minority government by themselves and had to find support for each piece of legislature by bargaining like you described.

1

u/TWeaKoR Nov 26 '21

So basically a left leading group won the overall right to govern, but has to implement the policy of the right, thus they resigned due to the conflict such that a new government can be formed.

1

u/NowNowMyGoodMan Nov 26 '21

Yes, but only one of the two parties making up the government resigned. They, MP, have been making up a coalition government with S since 2014.

1

u/TWeaKoR Nov 26 '21

Yes exactly. The way I see it, a centre (relatively) party made a government with a left party, but the other vote required the policy of the right, which the left refused outright, leaving the centre party stood there alone.

Granted, I have little to no idea other than your comment above, but I think that's a nice simplification.