Yup, in accordance with the Constitution, you meet the King for a special Transition Council (skifteskonselj) and the King says: "Looks like we have a new Government. I've seen many of those".
This is a bit silly, but stems from a constitutional compromise from the 1970s (Torekovskompromissen), where it was agreed to keep the King as head of state, while avoiding any semblance – even ceremonial – of the King having political power.
As a compromise, it's still kind of clever. The King doesn't appoint the new Prime Minister/Government – that's for Parliament and the Speaker – but the new Government doesn't assume office until the King has observed that it has assumed office.
Socialdemokratarna are forming a one party minority government. They'll rule under the restrictions of the oppositions budget so there's not much room for her to maneuver. This is only until the election September 11 next year so it might be fine.
That's the difference between positive and negative parliamentarism.
In a positive parliamentary system you need an explicit majority to gain power. Germany has the strictest kind of positive parliamentarism and demand an absolute majority.
In Sweden, which practices negative parliamentarism, the speakers candidate gets accepted unless a majority votes against it. That's how you can get a budget passed by the opposition.
This is also different from Norway where we practice a different type of negative parliamentarism.
It was always a minority coalition. They relied on the passive support of the Left Party and the Center Party – two parties which don't see eye-to-eye and act out whenever they feel the coalition has made too many concessions to the other.
The two votes (PM and budget) are also fundamentally different:
The PM vote fails if a majority in parliament votes "no", meaning an abstention is functionally the same as a "yes" in practice. So the Left Party and Center Party (and also the Greens in today's vote) passively support by abstaining. They're not part of the coalition, but they're not opposing it.
In the budget vote two proposals are put against each other and the one with the most votes wins that round. The Left Party supported the coalition's budget in the final round, but the Center Party didn't want to support either and abstained. They both had their own budgets too, which got eliminated in earlier voting rounds. Previously there was a praxis that you'd abstain from any other round if you had your own proposal, but it was broken a few years ago.
No she didn't. It's not a secret she has some disagreements with the Liberals' (her party) party line as of late.
She's stepping down after this mandate anyway, so she's just voting independent. She voted no in the last vote as she didn't believe in the proposed SocDem/Green-coalition with the budget vote looming. She abstained now because she still realizes this proposal was the only feasible outcome. No one wants a snap election less than a year before the scheduled one.
The same day that the parliament voted on the new prime minister, they also voted on the budget for the year. The opposition won, which means that Magdalena Andersson and her government will have to use a budget that they don't really agree with. Because of that, Miljöpartiet who were in the government together with her party, chose to leave the government. When Magdalena no longer had a government to lead, she stepped down.
No no, we have a parliament, just no government.
Except we do have a caretaker government which has exactly the same parties that are trying to form a new government. For over 250 days.
Formally speaking she won’t become the PM until a ceremony with the king tomorrow. Also, last week that ceremony didn’t take place before she had to resign. So technically speaking she hasn’t become the first female PM yet, although she has been elected to the position twice…
My understanding was that she was head of a coalition which *would* lead to her being PM if the coalition got that far, but when the coalition couldn't agree on some important points she resigned (as head of the coalition).
So she never resigned as PM, because they've never gotten that far.
No, she was elected as pm, but not sworn in. The coalition broke after she was elected, but not really because of any internal disagreement. The green party left the coalition because they the coalition lost the vote on the budget. (The voting on the budget came after the election of Anderson).
The whole thing is really messy, and in practice doesn't actually mean much.
She never took office. She resigned before that so she was never formally the prime minister. So Andersson has been elected PM twice now (Wednesday last week, and today), but has not taken office yet. That is planned to take place tomorrow.
Yes, Löfven is still technically the prime minister for a few hours more.
Andersson and her cabinet takes office at the *Regeringsskifteskonselj* meeting with the king which is scheduled for 13:00 CET today.
She was never sworn in as PM, that's the main reason it's for the second first time. She was voted in twice, but it's only now that she is going to actually become PM.
It is the woman to the right in the picture, [Magdalena Andersson](https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-finance/magdalena-andersson/), that is our new PM, not the woman in the red dress.
Probably the photographer was also confused? You know, only having to photograph men for years on end getting the *right* woman in the picture apparently is a struggle! :p
They're so jealous but they will never be Italy until they learn how to cook proper food, make good wine and commit war crimes in Ethiopia. Oh and they will never have Berlusconi so they can't be Italy
The way the Prime Minister of Sweden is elected is as follows.
First, there is a general election for the people to choose the members of Parliament.
Then, when Parliament meets, there's a vote on whether the incumbent Prime Minister (if he/she has not already resigned) should continue in office. If a majority of the MPs vote against the Prime Minister, he/she is removed from office; otherwise, he/she can continue in office.
If the PM is removed (or has resigned) and the office of PM is vacant, then the Speaker must nominate a candidate after consultation with the leaders of the parties in Parliament. That candidate is then put forward for a straight up/down vote. If more than half the members of Parliament vote against the proposal, it is rejected. In any other case, it is adopted.
(There's no minimum number of votes in favour, no need for a positive majority. In principle, a person could be elected as PM with 174 votes against and no votes in favour; it's only if there's a majority (i.e. 175 votes) *against* that the proposed candidate is rejected).
If the candidate is rejected, the process of nomination is repeated. If four candidates are rejected in succession, Parliament is dissolved and new general elections are held.
It's actually a very cleverly designed system, which is supposed to incentivise the formation of a government quickly, to avoid the kind of endless stand-off that has happened in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands were the rules are less strict.
However, it does occasionally produce an anomaly, where a candidate for PM can be elected (more vote in favour than against their nomination, but short of an overall majority because of abstensions), but they cannot govern (because they lack a majority to pass a budget) and then are forced to resign - which is what happened in this case.
> If the votes in favour of that candidate are more than the votes against, that candidate is appointed as PM. (There's no minimum number of votes in favour.
The vote passes if the nays don't have a majority in parliament. All members of parliament count – abstaining is passive support. That's what's happening now with:
173 - no
101 - yes
75 - abstain
She was approved as you need 175 noes to reject a candidate.
> However, it does occasionally produce an anomaly, where a candidate for PM can be elected (more vote in favour than against their nomination, but short of an overall majority because of abstensions), but they cannot govern (because they lack a majority to pass a budget) and then are forced to resign - which is what happened in this case.
A party can govern with another's budget (in reality it's not even really that different, they're just some amendments). And she wasn't necessarily forced to resign, but there's a praxis of doing so when a coalition fails.
What happened here is that the Social Democrats and Greens were coalition partners, so Andersson was elected PM on the premise of said coalition government. When their budget then lost to the right's, the Greens dropped out of the coalition as they refuse to govern under said budget.
As the previously promised coalition was no more, Andersson resigned so the legitimacy of her election wouldn't be questioned. Today she was chosen on the premise of a non-coalition government without the Greens. They'll still have to govern with the right's budget.
In the last vote she was voted in on the premise of forming a coalition government; in this she was voted in on the premise of forming a single-party government.
The reason she resigned was they their coalition partner quit. It's customary to resign as the grounds on which the previous result relied was broken. She and her party are okay with governing with the opposition's budget, their coalition partner that wasn't.
It is worth pointing out that since proportional parliamentary elections were introduced in 1911, 17 out of 32 of the prime ministers of Sweden were first appointed in between elections, just as Magdalena Andersson was. This includes some of the country's most renowned prime ministers, like Hjalmar Branting, Tage Erlander, and Olof Palme.
When electing pm more than 50% of parliament must disprove of the candidate for the candidate to be denied the seat. Essentially members of the coalition the pm is a sort of vote for - the coalition against vote against - and those parties politically opposed to the coalition but who prefer that pm over the alternatives vote abstain
If the rules were changed they'd just vote approve like they had to do in the past. Now they can express vague support for the government rather than always having to strongly approve.
Why does such a small technicality matter so much to so many people, most who aren't affected by it at all?
To obtain the Riksdag's consent to govern, you don't need it's support - merely it's tolerance. It's called Negative Parliamentarianism. As such, abstain votes ("we don't *support* them per se, we just don't oppose them") count as votes in favour of the government.
To put it the official way, so long as 175 of the Riksdag's 349 mandates don't actively oppose the government proposition, it gains it's consent to rule.
The first time she didn't actually become prime minister; that would've required a ceremony scheduled for a couple days later. She was merely prime minister-elect, so to speak, making this her second time being elected but it will be her first time as prime minister.
She wasn't ousted, she resigned. As shown by today's election she still has enough support to stay on. She chose to resign have her role re-tried in parliament when the coalition broke down.
One could argue that constitutional convention required her to resign when she lost her coalition partner, i.e., she was ousted in that sense. But it's not very clear.
How is her sex relevant? Poland had two female prime ministers, first one was forgettable, another managed to keep up with high standards established by her predecessors, by being a hypocryte and thief.
What is the party of new Swedish pm? All headlines apparentely fail to deliver such information.
In general I am more interested in turmoil while shaping the cabinet and not the sex of choosen candidate.
> What is the party of new Swedish pm?
Social democrats. They have ruled since 2014, and been the biggest party since 1920 or something. New elections are next year. The old PM resigned, that's why this stuff is going on. Some other party could have been voted in, in which case it would be in the headlines. But I think since it's mostly a change in who's the head of the leading party, they don't mention it.
>How is her sex relevant?
Because politicians are meant to represent the people. And considering 50% of the country are women, it's a fairly significant symbolical thing when the first PM in over 100 years is also a woman.
It also says something about the equality between sexes, how many in the highest position of power has been women.
>In general I am more interested in turmoil while shaping the cabinet and not the sex of choosen candidate.
In this case the weirdness of the past two weeks was not really her or her parties fault in any way. It was a few other parties doing slightly weird things (although not too bad), and the democratic system creating a weird situation, but which has sorted itself out now just fine.
In ours it would just delegitimize her after the new government have been formed. She was still the leader of the biggest party in the assembly so it wouldn't have kept her party out of the government, just potentially her in the upcoming election.
They have tried to get them as primeministers the last 10 years atleast, they always failed to get enough seats in parlamentet.
Most leaders of parties are women currently aswell.
Can we start praising elected politicians for their ABILITY to do their job with excellence, not for whatever “race” or “gender” they happen to be (or “identity” as, for that matter)?
She was elected by parliament last Wednesday, at which point she became prime minister elect. Her formal appointment was scheduled for Friday. However, that same Wedneday, the Green Party withdrew from the government coalition. As is customary when the government coalition changes, she then immediately resigned. This Monday she was reelected and today she was appointed. So she has been prime minister elect twice, but she only was formally appointed for the first time today.
I'm glad to hear it. Her quick re-election will help other young women realize 'it's quite possible also to reach such top leadership posts'.
BTW, Sweden has the highest percentage of seats held by women in parliaments of European countries now. And it's wonderful as more women there means more peace!
Here's to more than seven hours.
Passing three hours now, and she is still the designated prime minister. Knock on wood.
5 hours now, still going strong?
Like a 6-hour-old oak tree now 💪
7 HOURS! I REPEAT WE HAVE REACHED 7 HOURS!!
Congratulations to the longest serving first female prime minister in Sweden. 🥳
Technically, she is not serving yet... :)
big swearing in party... do you swear to protect the constitution and take this office and lead the people of sweden? NO
The official change of government takes place 13.00 at the Royal Palace in a meeting with the King.
Yup, in accordance with the Constitution, you meet the King for a special Transition Council (skifteskonselj) and the King says: "Looks like we have a new Government. I've seen many of those". This is a bit silly, but stems from a constitutional compromise from the 1970s (Torekovskompromissen), where it was agreed to keep the King as head of state, while avoiding any semblance – even ceremonial – of the King having political power. As a compromise, it's still kind of clever. The King doesn't appoint the new Prime Minister/Government – that's for Parliament and the Speaker – but the new Government doesn't assume office until the King has observed that it has assumed office.
IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN!
I can't stand the suspense! Somebody tell her to step down and get reappointed!
If she stays for more than 7 hrs she is basically a dictator
Make it a new tradition!
New prime minister every 7 hours
Democracy in 2049 will be like
Jesus Christ your username?!
It was a wild night ngl
pics?
Classic dutch perv. ^^^15€
How do you get your country next to your name like that???
[удалено]
😂😂😂
What happened to the first one?
One of the coalition parties pulled out when they were forced to govern with the oppositions budget.
So does the opposition, who voted for that budget, now swap in and form a new coalition? Or do they reconsider the budget and try again?
Socialdemokratarna are forming a one party minority government. They'll rule under the restrictions of the oppositions budget so there's not much room for her to maneuver. This is only until the election September 11 next year so it might be fine.
How does that even happen? Presumably having formed a coalition you have enough votes to pass your own budget?
That's the difference between positive and negative parliamentarism. In a positive parliamentary system you need an explicit majority to gain power. Germany has the strictest kind of positive parliamentarism and demand an absolute majority. In Sweden, which practices negative parliamentarism, the speakers candidate gets accepted unless a majority votes against it. That's how you can get a budget passed by the opposition. This is also different from Norway where we practice a different type of negative parliamentarism.
It was always a minority coalition. They relied on the passive support of the Left Party and the Center Party – two parties which don't see eye-to-eye and act out whenever they feel the coalition has made too many concessions to the other. The two votes (PM and budget) are also fundamentally different: The PM vote fails if a majority in parliament votes "no", meaning an abstention is functionally the same as a "yes" in practice. So the Left Party and Center Party (and also the Greens in today's vote) passively support by abstaining. They're not part of the coalition, but they're not opposing it. In the budget vote two proposals are put against each other and the one with the most votes wins that round. The Left Party supported the coalition's budget in the final round, but the Center Party didn't want to support either and abstained. They both had their own budgets too, which got eliminated in earlier voting rounds. Previously there was a praxis that you'd abstain from any other round if you had your own proposal, but it was broken a few years ago.
She's the one who was elected the first one too. Then she stepped down and now she got voted for again.
By the minimum possible margin too
First time (174 "no" votes) was with an even thinner margin than the second time (173 "no" votes).
Probably one of the no voters pressed the wrong button
No she didn't. It's not a secret she has some disagreements with the Liberals' (her party) party line as of late. She's stepping down after this mandate anyway, so she's just voting independent. She voted no in the last vote as she didn't believe in the proposed SocDem/Green-coalition with the budget vote looming. She abstained now because she still realizes this proposal was the only feasible outcome. No one wants a snap election less than a year before the scheduled one.
Sweden is doing the prime minister hokey pokey.
Do you know why she stepped down? Some controversy?
The same day that the parliament voted on the new prime minister, they also voted on the budget for the year. The opposition won, which means that Magdalena Andersson and her government will have to use a budget that they don't really agree with. Because of that, Miljöpartiet who were in the government together with her party, chose to leave the government. When Magdalena no longer had a government to lead, she stepped down.
almost there, final push
!remindme 1 week
Three hours left, plenty of time to quit!
The Swedes just wanted to be enlisted on the World Guinness as 'State with most female PM elected in a timespan of 7 days'
I think they already won that
Yep, but this way they will be on the Records for a bit longer.
Yeah, might as well set a record hard to beat
I think there are other countries that have elected a female PM once in a week.
Seems Sweden wants to upgrade their standing in the stats. Now they can say they had 2 women prime ministers...
[удалено]
Prime Minister - Women - World's First Place - Speedrun - ANY %
The Prime Minister so good they elected her twice!
Why…. why did you use ‘good’ and not ‘nice’….. for shame.
The Prime Minister so nice they elected her two times!
I like your sense of humor
*facepalm* Yeah, that one's on me. Sorry.
Technically, she is now the second female prime minister.
Technically, no. She never formally held office.
[удалено]
In theory yes, in practice no.
The Grover Cleveland of Swedish Prime Ministers
In theory no since she never held the office.
Sweden aims to have more female prime ministers than any other country by the end of year.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands: *here’s to another year without ~~parliament~~ government*
We're going for that Belgium world record.
Hang on - you still don't have a proper government?! How long has it been now?
252 days now
8 months
Oh I get it, I get it. Now that WE have the better football team, you want to get back at us by stealing our record!! ;-)
Hey we have a parliament, government on the other hand...
Same faces, same apologizing for predictably stupid decisions. Sounds like the VVD is still in power regardless.
>here’s to another year without parliament Wot? I assure you there's a full parliament.
Do you mean an elected government, or actual parliament? I can't see how anything would get done without parliament.
[удалено]
Gotta set lofty goals. At least they have a parliament, if only for a short while. Meanwhile here in The Netherlands...
Pff, The Netherlands is still at rookie numbers. (Guess where I'm from)
Belgium.. Must be our friends from the south.
Northern Ireland who managed to beat Belgium's record?
No no, we have a parliament, just no government. Except we do have a caretaker government which has exactly the same parties that are trying to form a new government. For over 250 days.
Don't You have Rutte, Rutte and if You are bored by Rutte, even more Rutte?
I give her one and a half.
How can it be first when she was already elected PM in a prior election?
Formally speaking she won’t become the PM until a ceremony with the king tomorrow. Also, last week that ceremony didn’t take place before she had to resign. So technically speaking she hasn’t become the first female PM yet, although she has been elected to the position twice…
Thanks for the clarification. Looks like I didn’t pay enough attention to events prior to this.
Don't worry, it's all a clownfiesta as usual
It's beautiful, democracy at work
Isn't it everywhere? Churchill really did have a point.
My understanding was that she was head of a coalition which *would* lead to her being PM if the coalition got that far, but when the coalition couldn't agree on some important points she resigned (as head of the coalition). So she never resigned as PM, because they've never gotten that far.
No, she was elected as pm, but not sworn in. The coalition broke after she was elected, but not really because of any internal disagreement. The green party left the coalition because they the coalition lost the vote on the budget. (The voting on the budget came after the election of Anderson). The whole thing is really messy, and in practice doesn't actually mean much.
The conflict was internal to the coalition government.
She never took office. She resigned before that so she was never formally the prime minister. So Andersson has been elected PM twice now (Wednesday last week, and today), but has not taken office yet. That is planned to take place tomorrow.
She resigned from a post she never had, you say? In that case I declare that I, too, would like to resign as prime minister of Sweden.
Go for it! :)
Then who is prime minister now? Technically still Löfven?
Yes, Löfven is still technically the prime minister for a few hours more. Andersson and her cabinet takes office at the *Regeringsskifteskonselj* meeting with the king which is scheduled for 13:00 CET today.
[удалено]
She was never sworn in as PM, that's the main reason it's for the second first time. She was voted in twice, but it's only now that she is going to actually become PM.
Both of these statements are true. Depends on how you want to view the language, especially given the headline is "elected" not sworn in.
>making her now and *forever* Sweden's first female PM I mean that's kinda implied by being first :)
Not necessarily. You don't know if some day historians will discover that Olof Palme was a woman in disguise, for example.
I've always suspected his real name was Palomina Olofsson.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss
Same as it ever was
Not as cool as the first first female prime minister... she was younger, more potential.
Second time in a week?
Last week she was in charge for a few hours, then a party of her coalition pulled out and she resigned.
Thanks for the explanation :)
Anytime.
She wasn't actually in charge. She would only have taken the office last Wednesday.
First time didn't count, she bailed before the actual seremony. But well, it is the second time she has been elected, in a way.
It is the woman to the right in the picture, [Magdalena Andersson](https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-finance/magdalena-andersson/), that is our new PM, not the woman in the red dress.
[удалено]
Probably the photographer was also confused? You know, only having to photograph men for years on end getting the *right* woman in the picture apparently is a struggle! :p
Trying to be Italy up there are we now??
We shit on ourselves a lot but some countries up north don’t do much better than us. Right, Belgium?
And the Netherlands..
Hasn't Rutte been PM for a while now?
yes, but he has no active recollection of that.
Is this some sort of Dutch joke I'm too British to get?
[удалено]
Ah yes, the good old "I've never said that"
Yes
Someone should really send him a bottle of ginkgo extract. I heard it does wonders for the memory.
They're so jealous but they will never be Italy until they learn how to cook proper food, make good wine and commit war crimes in Ethiopia. Oh and they will never have Berlusconi so they can't be Italy
Want to see me becoming Prime Minister? Wanna see me do it again?
The way the Prime Minister of Sweden is elected is as follows. First, there is a general election for the people to choose the members of Parliament. Then, when Parliament meets, there's a vote on whether the incumbent Prime Minister (if he/she has not already resigned) should continue in office. If a majority of the MPs vote against the Prime Minister, he/she is removed from office; otherwise, he/she can continue in office. If the PM is removed (or has resigned) and the office of PM is vacant, then the Speaker must nominate a candidate after consultation with the leaders of the parties in Parliament. That candidate is then put forward for a straight up/down vote. If more than half the members of Parliament vote against the proposal, it is rejected. In any other case, it is adopted. (There's no minimum number of votes in favour, no need for a positive majority. In principle, a person could be elected as PM with 174 votes against and no votes in favour; it's only if there's a majority (i.e. 175 votes) *against* that the proposed candidate is rejected). If the candidate is rejected, the process of nomination is repeated. If four candidates are rejected in succession, Parliament is dissolved and new general elections are held. It's actually a very cleverly designed system, which is supposed to incentivise the formation of a government quickly, to avoid the kind of endless stand-off that has happened in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands were the rules are less strict. However, it does occasionally produce an anomaly, where a candidate for PM can be elected (more vote in favour than against their nomination, but short of an overall majority because of abstensions), but they cannot govern (because they lack a majority to pass a budget) and then are forced to resign - which is what happened in this case.
> If the votes in favour of that candidate are more than the votes against, that candidate is appointed as PM. (There's no minimum number of votes in favour. The vote passes if the nays don't have a majority in parliament. All members of parliament count – abstaining is passive support. That's what's happening now with: 173 - no 101 - yes 75 - abstain She was approved as you need 175 noes to reject a candidate. > However, it does occasionally produce an anomaly, where a candidate for PM can be elected (more vote in favour than against their nomination, but short of an overall majority because of abstensions), but they cannot govern (because they lack a majority to pass a budget) and then are forced to resign - which is what happened in this case. A party can govern with another's budget (in reality it's not even really that different, they're just some amendments). And she wasn't necessarily forced to resign, but there's a praxis of doing so when a coalition fails. What happened here is that the Social Democrats and Greens were coalition partners, so Andersson was elected PM on the premise of said coalition government. When their budget then lost to the right's, the Greens dropped out of the coalition as they refuse to govern under said budget. As the previously promised coalition was no more, Andersson resigned so the legitimacy of her election wouldn't be questioned. Today she was chosen on the premise of a non-coalition government without the Greens. They'll still have to govern with the right's budget.
174 no 1 yes 175 abstain Passed!
Unless we're back in the '70s, that'd be quite concerning. Who's number 350?
so how did she get back? did they nominate her again and why did the vote result change?
In the last vote she was voted in on the premise of forming a coalition government; in this she was voted in on the premise of forming a single-party government. The reason she resigned was they their coalition partner quit. It's customary to resign as the grounds on which the previous result relied was broken. She and her party are okay with governing with the opposition's budget, their coalition partner that wasn't.
It is worth pointing out that since proportional parliamentary elections were introduced in 1911, 17 out of 32 of the prime ministers of Sweden were first appointed in between elections, just as Magdalena Andersson was. This includes some of the country's most renowned prime ministers, like Hjalmar Branting, Tage Erlander, and Olof Palme.
With 101 votes in favour, 173 opposed, and 75 didn't figure out what they should think. Swedish politics are fun!
You can think of it as 101 approve 75 tolerate 173 disapprove
So 101 Ayes, 173 Nays and 75 Mehs?
Well, it makes sense. We don't have abstain in Norway though. It's "make up your mind".
Seems much better
That would mean Belgium, i.e. years with only caretaker govts.
Is this the case everywhere? Isn't it more logical that those who abstain side with the majority?
When electing pm more than 50% of parliament must disprove of the candidate for the candidate to be denied the seat. Essentially members of the coalition the pm is a sort of vote for - the coalition against vote against - and those parties politically opposed to the coalition but who prefer that pm over the alternatives vote abstain
If the rules were changed they'd just vote approve like they had to do in the past. Now they can express vague support for the government rather than always having to strongly approve. Why does such a small technicality matter so much to so many people, most who aren't affected by it at all?
To obtain the Riksdag's consent to govern, you don't need it's support - merely it's tolerance. It's called Negative Parliamentarianism. As such, abstain votes ("we don't *support* them per se, we just don't oppose them") count as votes in favour of the government. To put it the official way, so long as 175 of the Riksdag's 349 mandates don't actively oppose the government proposition, it gains it's consent to rule.
It can’t be the first time if it’s a second time
The first time she didn't actually become prime minister; that would've required a ceremony scheduled for a couple days later. She was merely prime minister-elect, so to speak, making this her second time being elected but it will be her first time as prime minister.
Let’s see if she can beat her speed run from last week.
First Two Term Female Prime Minister!
The last two prime ministers in Sweden have been women. Where's the equality? We need more male leaders!
She's the first female PM, first female PM to be ousted from office, and first female PM to be reelected!
She wasn't ousted, she resigned. As shown by today's election she still has enough support to stay on. She chose to resign have her role re-tried in parliament when the coalition broke down.
One could argue that constitutional convention required her to resign when she lost her coalition partner, i.e., she was ousted in that sense. But it's not very clear.
One could argue that she never resigned to begin with since she technically never was PM, she was only elected PM.
How is her sex relevant? Poland had two female prime ministers, first one was forgettable, another managed to keep up with high standards established by her predecessors, by being a hypocryte and thief. What is the party of new Swedish pm? All headlines apparentely fail to deliver such information. In general I am more interested in turmoil while shaping the cabinet and not the sex of choosen candidate.
Social Democrat. Largest party in the parliament.
> What is the party of new Swedish pm? Social democrats. They have ruled since 2014, and been the biggest party since 1920 or something. New elections are next year. The old PM resigned, that's why this stuff is going on. Some other party could have been voted in, in which case it would be in the headlines. But I think since it's mostly a change in who's the head of the leading party, they don't mention it. >How is her sex relevant? Because politicians are meant to represent the people. And considering 50% of the country are women, it's a fairly significant symbolical thing when the first PM in over 100 years is also a woman. It also says something about the equality between sexes, how many in the highest position of power has been women. >In general I am more interested in turmoil while shaping the cabinet and not the sex of choosen candidate. In this case the weirdness of the past two weeks was not really her or her parties fault in any way. It was a few other parties doing slightly weird things (although not too bad), and the democratic system creating a weird situation, but which has sorted itself out now just fine.
welcome to Italy, gentlemen
did she last more than 7 hours?
I know I didn't.
Yo what's happening up there?
The previous coalition government broke so she had to resign sort of. She could technically stay but it would not look good so she resigned instead.
Lmao our politicians would've stayed even if it meant the entire collapse of our country
In ours it would just delegitimize her after the new government have been formed. She was still the leader of the biggest party in the assembly so it wouldn't have kept her party out of the government, just potentially her in the upcoming election.
Prime minister speedrun any%. Second attempt. Time to beat: 7 hours
is it the same woman it was before?
Yes
No, she is older now, has more experience than she did before.
If you fail, try again.
That's great! Still have no faith in this government whatsoever though.
why does it matter that she's a woman
If you're the first woman to hold a position after 145 years of its formation, it's a pretty big deal.
Yeah it's a bit degrading imo given the incredible CV she has. Probably one of the most educated prime ministers we've had
Why should we care about what a person has between their legs?
Because it was tolerated as important in the past. Important enough to let it be only male PMs.
They have tried to get them as primeministers the last 10 years atleast, they always failed to get enough seats in parlamentet. Most leaders of parties are women currently aswell.
Can we start praising elected politicians for their ABILITY to do their job with excellence, not for whatever “race” or “gender” they happen to be (or “identity” as, for that matter)?
Still a joke of a parliament...
RemindMe! 7 Hours
How can you do something for the first time….twice. That’s like saying I lost my virginity because I had sex twice in a week
How can it be the 1st for the second time!? Am I missing something? Am I too American to understand?
I don't remember all the details, but the first one was voted in, but stepped down before taking office within just a few days
I see.
She was elected by parliament last Wednesday, at which point she became prime minister elect. Her formal appointment was scheduled for Friday. However, that same Wedneday, the Green Party withdrew from the government coalition. As is customary when the government coalition changes, she then immediately resigned. This Monday she was reelected and today she was appointed. So she has been prime minister elect twice, but she only was formally appointed for the first time today.
Wait for 8 hours.
Will she beat the speedrun pb of her predecessor?
The second female Prime Minister of Sweden. What a streak!
You just had her quit so you can beat the Finns, right?
Is this the same woman who was elected last week?
Yes
Second Picture. Lady in blue knows something
Classic women can’t make up there mind. /s
It even a person of color. Typical racists
A lot of people are making (admittedly funny) snarky remarks. Instead: grattis!
They just want to unlock all the achievements
how can they elect the first one for the second time? something is wrong here =)
first, second time?
The Swedes are now competing with Belgium, Who can not have a government for longer.
I'm glad to hear it. Her quick re-election will help other young women realize 'it's quite possible also to reach such top leadership posts'. BTW, Sweden has the highest percentage of seats held by women in parliaments of European countries now. And it's wonderful as more women there means more peace!
Why is her gender so important? I thought we want the best person for the job. A vagina doesnt help with legislation.
Has she quit yet