The work of the Riksdag is built around the fact that the government is expected to have a majority in order to be able to enforce its decisions.

Otherwise, permanent voting defeats threaten.

And every defeat for the government is a loss of prestige and a success for the opposition.

A government without a functioning majority also finds it difficult to pursue a consistent political agenda.

Instead, coincidences can determine what decisions are made.

That is why Swedish minority governments have always sought a majority.

Minority governments have often built more or less fixed collaborations in the Riksdag to create a majority.

However, the changing political landscape of the last decade has made it more difficult to build functioning majorities in the Riksdag.

The current S government is a clear example of this.

Conflict can mobilize voters

Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson is admittedly tolerated by a majority in the Riksdag, but lacks the collaborations that provide a secure majority in the House.

That is the main reason why we ended up where we are today.

After a spring where the war in Ukraine and its consequences contributed to domestic politics coming to a standstill, there is also a strong interest among the parties to raise the political temperature.

A proper political riot can speed up the election debate, but also mobilize its own voters.

The pension issue became the triggering factor.

Although all parties want to increase pensions for especially weak groups, before a parliamentary election, the parties are reluctant to talk about similarities, rather about the differences that exist.

Of course, there are differences between the alternatives that are now to be tested against each other.

The right-wing opposition, for example, accuses the government of raising pensions the most for those who have not worked.

But there are also similarities between the proposals.

Reaching a common line, however, is not always in the nature of politics.

Sometimes it is more important for the parties to disagree than to agree.

The political battle engages its own sympathizers at the same time as conflict surfaces become clear to the voters, important not least when an election movement is approaching.

The parties' basic drive to win a vote also becomes clear.

Like the will to inflict a tangible defeat on the political opponent.

The opposition also wants to show voters that the current government is weak.

May reduce confidence

At the same time, the parties are playing loud right now.

After the no-confidence motion last week, it was not long before the next political quarrel broke out.

The accusations have hailed.

The government side has accused the opposition of section riding, while the opposition has accused the government of lacking support in the Riksdag.

Voters tend to dislike what they perceive as political play and right now the political game seems to be reaching new heights.

What is happening right now can thus contribute to reduced confidence in politicians and parties.

This suggests that the issue will be finally decided next week.

But the outcome is uncertain.

The question is whether the government manages to get the political savage Amineh Kakabaveh on its side.

She has made new demands to support the government, demands that will be difficult for the government to meet.

Should Amineh Kakabaveh abstain, an equilibrium situation could arise in the Riksdag.

In such a situation, drawing lots can determine this infected battle.

Then it will be the lottery that decides whether the government's or the opposition's budget goes through.

Maybe not the resolution of the drama that those involved have been set on.

Javascript is disabled

Javascript must be turned on to play video

Read more about browser support

That means today's vote - hear SVT's domestic policy commentator explain