Before the election, they promised the voters a joint budget. Also, it helps them hang together. During the run-up to the budget vote, the social democrats tried to negotiate with the center-right parties separately, rather than as a joint coalition. To many people this looked a lot less like trying to find a solution and more as effort to break up the Alliance (as the center-right coalition is called), thus securing permanent soc-dem power.

What did the right want? Well, I think they wanted to spite the left, make them look bad, and maintain their internal cohesion with the aim of winning the 2018 election. They had probably not expected the SD to block the soc-dem budget. And more importantly, I'm convinced that in that event, they thought the soc-dems would ask the Speaker to try to form a new government, which either would be a pure soc-dem government (ditch the greens) wich would be far more amendable to negotioations, or it would be an Alliance minority government. Sure, the SD could wreck that government as well, but probably not until next fall, when the Alliance could have called for snap elections themselves.

Now, instead, the soc-dems called for snap elections, which kinda panicked the Alliance. They are showing a brave face now though. What else could they do?

The snap elections can still be called off until December 29, but that is very unlikely unless the SD starts polling consistently above 20 percent, which is very unlikely. At least until next year.

Pretty much this entire exercise has been a classical example of mirror imaging, where the right and left have misunderstood each other
and the SD completely. The right just as they have been saying for months that they would. The soc-dems probably thought they were bluffing and would fold at the last instant. The right expected a reshuffled government if SD struck, but they instead got snap elections.

SD is the only people who seem to have had a robust game plan all along, and seem to have read their opponents correctly as well. Pretty much no matter what happens, they are likely to be winners.

This is really quite dramatic. Sweden has had snap elections three times before, in 1958, 1914 and 1877. With the exception of 1958, those were really decisive events in the history of our democracy. This is really big too.

And there are so many possibilities and so much uncertainty that no one can feel they have a good idea what will come out of it. Too many moving parts. Too many unknown unknowns. Certainly interesting times.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.