The Financial Times compare the Sweden Democrats that just won 5.7% of the popular vote in the Swedish election with the British National Party in the UK and the National Front Party in France. The BNP won 1.9% in the 2010 election but got 5.2% in the London Mayoral election 2008. They got 0.7% in the 2005 election. In the 2007 presidential election Jean-Marie LePen of the NF got 11% of the vote.
If it is like it seems in Sweden right now, that no one wants to talk to the SD in the Riksdag, perhaps we should change the election system to that of Britain and the US, the first past-the-post system that effectively selects against a third party with a battle between the Moderates and the Social Democrats. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power in a proportional election system.
The proportional election systems of Continental Europe has given rise to the participation of nationalist parties in many countries most notably the Netherlands, The Party for Freedom, and Hungary, Jobbik. The Liberal Democrats in Britain, that just participate in a ruling coalition, however, wants to change the election system to a proportional one in order to get more influence with their 22% of the popular vote.
The Danish People's Party, Dansk Folkeparti, with 14% of the vote, however, was treated as the Sweden Democrats initially due to their alienation towards foreigners, but have since become incorporated as a support party although they do not yet participate on the ministerial level according to the Swedish radio program Studio Ett.
Today's editorial on DN.se believes that 15% of the vote might be a maximum of how large the parties alienated against foreigners could grow. Perhaps, but in this respect it might be reasonable to ask how many people of a population that for some reason think it was better earlier on. These people are displeased with the current situation and do not want to experiment not realizing that things have changed so much that the road backwards is closed. Like lemmings they march towards and unknown that will cause the pension systems of Europe to crumble if immigration is resisted.
The welfare model is dear to Europeans. One would hope that it is dear enough to allow for immigration that will change Europe to a more multicultural environment. Some people think that the reason for the success of Europe in driving the scientific and industrial revolutions depended on this multiculturality which then was imitated in the US, although with a single language. A multifocal environment that lacked a centralized dogma ruling it. A non-federal EU might just be the best stabilizer available. The remaining discussion is then at which speed the immigration is going to take place.
What in reality should be discussed is the low birth rates in Europe. In Japan the birth rates are low and immigration almost non-existent. Germany seems to head for a lowering of their population as well. Can our societies be sustained with shrinking populations? The US plan to increase their population but they are not so densely populated. Britain is increasing as well and will by 2050 have passed Germany as the most populous country in Europe. Sweden is increasing by immigration. This is a wise choice.