A motion of censure is intended as the ultimate guarantee of parliamentarianism. But the Riksdag's sharpest weapon has increasingly come to be used as an expression of discontent rather than an accountability.
This is the development that the Social Democrats say they want to highlight when they abstain from voting. If, like the Social Democrats in government, you have attacked the use of the weapon of no confidence for political reasons, it will be difficult to abandon those principles in opposition. If nothing else, it would have opened the door to accusations of hypocrisy.
"Nothing speaks for felling"
It is likely that the party would have acted differently if they thought that the no-confidence motion would go through. But there is nothing to suggest that C and MP would have managed to scrape together the 175 yes votes required even if S had been on board.
The Social Democrats probably also know that if they had chosen to go along with the small parties' demands, the opponents would immediately have tried to make a point of the fact that it is C and MP who hold the baton, not S. Pointing to MP's influence over a possible S-led government is seen by the Tidö parties as one of its strongest cards.
On the other side of the scale, the cohesion of the Social Democrats lies in their own government base. When they speak out against using a vote of no confidence to show that they dislike politics, it is at the same time an implicit criticism of C and MP.
In addition, the abstentions can be interpreted as S, if not supporting, at least tolerating the climate and environment minister.
"The motives of the parties vary"
C and MP reason differently. They believe that Romina Pourmokhtari is violating the climate law by increasing emissions. The fact that the climate action plan lacks concrete measures to compensate in the short term for reduced reduction obligations and reduced fuel tax became an opportunity to promote the criticism. But the motives vary:
C: Has both lost confidence in the climate issue and ended up in the shadows. Initiating a vote of no confidence provided an opportunity to be seen in one of the party's most important profile issues.
MP: Former spokesman Per Bolund rejected the Center Party's initiative, arguing that such a manoeuvre would rather strengthen the government. But the parliamentary group protested. Allowing C to appear as the government's sharpest critic was considered a greater risk for a party that wants to retain its position of strength on the environmental and climate issue.
V: Immediately supported C and MP's motions and the explanation is simple. On the question of whether the Riksdag has confidence in the minister, it is impossible for the party to answer anything other than no.
"Difficult accusations to defend against"
A fundamental objection is that the government is collectively responsible for the policy pursued. Thus, the vote of no confidence should rather be directed at the Prime Minister. But bringing it against Ulf Kristersson (M) was never an option. Such a manoeuvre would have opened the door to accusations of irresponsibility in a difficult security policy situation, accusations that C and MP would have found difficult to defend themselves against.
The question is whether the Social Democrats' decision means that there will be fewer no-confidence motions in the future. There is much to be said for this, at least as long as the Tidö cooperation is intact and the government has a majority.
In any case, it is clear that Romina Pourmokhtari can clearly demonstrate that she has the support of the Riksdag for her policy with tomorrow's exercise.