The debate clearly showed the explosiveness of the migration issue in the government

Several heavy social democrats have recently publicly expressed the view that Sweden should receive fewer refugees. Stefan Löfven is one of them.

The problem for Löfven and for the Social Democrats, however, is that the other government party, the Environment Party, is not at all prepared to tighten asylum policy.

And judging by Sunday's party leadership debate, the Center Party is also unlikely to support a more restrictive migration policy. If Stefan Löfven wants to push through such a policy, then he is forced to turn to his political opponents, and he does not learn to be prepared to do so. In that case, his government dossier is at risk.

Therefore, in Sunday's party leadership debate, the prime minister tried to navigate cautiously. Sure, he admitted that he actually wants Sweden to receive fewer refugees, but he at the same time declared himself behind the government's policy.

And while several of the opposition parties called for clear messages from the prime minister and criticized the government for pursuing an overly generous refugee policy, Stefan Löfven was also attacked from the left for economic policy. An inevitable consequence of the new government's first budget bill, which includes, among other things, the controversial proposal to cut the tax on taxes. The left-wing party leader Jonas Sjöstedt attacked Stefan Löfven severely for this and accused the prime minister of being behind the municipalities' faltering economy.

A red thread in this part of the debate is that there is clearly broad support in the Riksdag to further increase the state grants to the country's municipalities. It may be possible to calm some of the municipal councils that are currently struggling with red numbers in their economic calculations.

But Sunday night's debate was also about other issues. The debate started with the climate, which quickly became a debate that largely revolved around nuclear power. This is something of a Swedish classic that has been widely debated since the late 1970s. Here, there are still clear contradictions between the political alternatives, which makes it a grateful debate topic.

Several components make the nuclear issue once again relevant. This concerns, among other things, the climate aspect, ie that nuclear power does not generate any greenhouse gases. For Swedish, it is also a matter of the fact that two more reactors are about to be shut down while the need for electricity is increasing.

Moderate leader Ulf Kristersson warned of a shortage of electricity in Sweden when the nuclear power was discontinued, which the Prime Minister however categorically denied.

The gasoline tax also got into the climate debate. Two of the parliamentary parties, the Moderates and the Swedish Democrats, want to lower the petrol tax with reference to those who live in the countryside. However, how lowering the tax on fossil fuels can be reconciled with the climate targets was not revealed.

At the end of the debate, the very topical issue of the increasingly serious crime and the many deaths were then dealt with. The debate became a clear illustration of why the party talks broke down recently.

The opposition on the right accused the government of not being prepared to take sufficiently resolute measures to counter gang violence. This question, too, will for the foreseeable future remain as an important issue of conflict between the political alternatives.

How did it go for the two debutants, Per Bolund (MP) and Nyamko Sabuni (L)? Both had difficulty getting into the debate and were noticeably pale. The biggest concern is that of Nyamko Sabuni, who is not sitting in Parliament. Thus, this is her only chance to debate with other party leaders. It is now until May next year before she gets the chance again.

For other parties, the next party leader debate is already awaiting Wednesday when they meet in Parliament's plenary.