Why Sweden Is So Much Better Off Than Britain

Visiting Sweden from Britain is like entering a Topsy-Turvy world. The country’s recent election unleashed anarchy in its parliament. Yet it is undaunted in addressing its most pressing problems. The UK government has enjoyed a substantial majority for two years. Yet it continues to dither and delay.

Sweden’s Sept. 13th election injected maximum doubt into an already uncertainty-prone multi-party system. There were 176 seats for the left block and 173 for the governing right block. The winning left group has so far failed to form a working majority, and negotiations could drag on or end up creating a flimsy administration.

Yet beneath this confusion there is a remarkable degree of consensus across the main parties about Sweden’s future: consensus that extends to once divisive issues such as immigration and school choice.

The main parties are all in agreement on Sweden’s new hard line on immigration, which has turned one of Europe’s most welcoming countries into one of the most forbidding. The nation’s intake declined by 95% between 2015, when it threw open its doors to refugees, and 2025. Last year it had less than half the European average for asylum applications on a per capita basis.

During the election campaign, the Social Democrats, the largest left-of-center party, criticized the government for being unduly harsh in individual cases, particularly sending teenagers who grew up in Sweden back to their parents’ countries of origin. But it accepted policies that were once anathema. These include restricting citizenship based on length of residence, mastery of the language, civic knowledge, employment status and good conduct. And other tougher measures now have mainstream support, such as deporting non-citizens who are convicted of crimes or non-payment of debts, and providing financial incentives for immigrants to return home.

The same political unity applies to law and order more broadly. Sweden answered gang warfare in migrant-heavy suburbs with shock and awe. It doubled spending on law enforcers, encouraged much more hands-on-policing and broke taboos on criminalizing young adults (who’d been used by gangs for serious crime, including shooting). This is all now seen as common sense.

The last government took an equally tough line on defense, joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2024, increasing military spending by 18% in 2024-5 and issuing a pamphlet for citizens, In Case of Crisis or War. There was no pushback from any serious left-leaning party. More than six out of 10 Swedes support NATO membership, up from about three in 10 before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Young people compete to do military service, viewed as a pathway into the elite. The vote share for the far-right Sweden Democrats fell for the first time after a scandal over alleged Russian infiltration.

Even neoliberal reforms to the heart of the welfare state have prevailed. The Social Democrats made hostile noises about private equity companies making money out of the public sector. But all mainstream parties accept arrangements that Kemi Badenoch’s UK Tories would hesitate to support. Parents use public money, in the form of vouchers, to send their children to independent schools. Private firms deliver a sizable portion of primary and specialized healthcare, including hospitals and ambulance operations, and Swedes have to pay a small payment when they visit the doctor to encourage cost-conscious usage.

The state continues to function regardless of the political paralysis. The main reason is that it offers something for everybody. The old left wing gets high public spending, the neoliberals get an internal market within the welfare state, and the harder right gets control of immigration and law-and-order. The Social Democrats do not indulge in grand talk of undoing 40 years of economic liberalism any more than Moderates speak of scrapping the welfare state.

Another reason for the status quo holding is that there is money to spend. Sweden has one of the lowest levels of public debt in the rich world, at just 35.1% of gross domestic product compared with 93.8% in Britain. The pension system is solid, with the retirement age rising in line with life expectancy and 100% of employees enrolled in workplace retirement schemes.

The contrast with Britain is striking after two years of Labour rule that have produced little but dither and delay. Keir Starmer signed his prime ministerial death warrant in the summer of 2025 when he abandoned modest welfare reforms after his own lawmakers rebelled. His defense secretary later resigned because his department was being shortchanged. No British home secretary has come close to immigration reforms as tough as Sweden’s. The one who has come nearest, Shabana Mahmood, is diluting her policies in the face of angry backbench revolts.

The new PM Andy Burnham is a far better politician than his lackluster predecessor. Unfortunately, he’s equally lightweight on substance. He scatters promises around like confetti without a thought for cost. He talks about working across party boundaries while demonizing the opposition.

In his brief reign, Burnham has repeatedly used the same tactics: delay and diversion. He promises to tackle urgent issues such as costly state pensions but only after the next election. The country’s first lifelong Catholic prime minister is clearly influenced by St. Augustine’s prayer, “Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.”

He diverts attention by brandishing big structural reforms such as proportional representation for the voting system. This distracts attention from more vital subjects that provoke strong disagreement in Labour ranks such as asylum and immigration, sickness benefits, defense and economic growth. He is all sizzle and no steak, as the Americans put it.

Sweden’s current political agonies could be prolonged. In 2018, the country took 134 days to form a new government. Police investigations into potential electoral fraud raise the possibility that the electoral arithmetic may change. Despite all this confusion and uncertainty there is little doubt that Sweden will keep doing a better job of fixing its problems than Burnham’s Britain.