What's at stake: How the municipal sector's financing is secured in the long run affects municipalities' and regions' ability to plan welfare services — schools, healthcare and social care — especially in a downturn or crisis, and it also touches on how well municipalities can manage investments linked to the green transition.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether the state should guarantee the municipal sector's long-term financing through new measures — such as an inflation-indexed funding floor for grants and a dedicated crisis-guarantee model — or whether Parliament should await the government's ongoing work in this area.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee rejects the motions on the municipal sector's long-term financing, citing ongoing work, and points to the government's efforts to get more people into jobs, improve the business climate, increase efficiency in the municipal sector, its strategy for reindustrialization and societal transformation, and regulatory simplifications to handle major industrial establishments and the green transition; the committee sees no reason for further action at this time.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 3 (S)
The reservation holds that the economic situation and the government's unwillingness to prioritize welfare are hitting services hard, and wants the state to introduce a funding floor that raises grants to municipalities and regions annually with inflation, investigate a model to protect the value of grants against cost-driving factors, develop a guarantee model to safeguard welfare during crises and downturns, and introduce a growth package to support fast-growing municipalities ahead of the green transition.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 3 by S.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Abstain 0/0/15/7
Sown reservation
–
No 0/93/0/13
MP
–
Abstain 0/0/16/2
C
–
Abstain 0/1/20/3
L
–
Yes 10/0/0/6
KD
–
Yes 17/0/0/2
M
–
Yes 60/0/0/8
SD
–
Yes 62/0/0/9
Broke with the party line
CCatarina Deremar(C, Uppsala län)
No — party line: Abstain
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motions
2025/26:322 by Ida Gabrielsson et al. (V) amendment 3,
2025/26:916 by Fredrik Lundh Sammeli et al. (S) amendments 1 and 2,
2025/26:928 by Serkan Köse (S),
2025/26:1422 by Åsa Karlsson and Helén Pettersson (both S),
2025/26:2298 by Zara Leghissa et al. (S),
2025/26:3185 by Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist et al. (C) amendment 3,
2025/26:3282 by Katarina Luhr et al. (MP) amendment 10,
2025/26:3481 by Patrik Karlson (L),
2025/26:3522 by Janine Alm Ericson et al. (MP) amendment 2,
2025/26:3556 by Peter Hultqvist et al. (S) amendment 76,
2025/26:3560 by Mikael Damberg et al. (S) amendments 2, 6 and 13,
2025/26:3582 by Rickard Nordin et al. (C) amendment 124,
2025/26:3584 by Mattias Vepsä et al. (S) amendment 2 and
2025/26:3586 by Teresa Carvalho et al. (S) amendment 6.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna
2025/26:322 av Ida Gabrielsson m.fl. (V) yrkande 3,
2025/26:916 av Fredrik Lundh Sammeli m.fl. (S) yrkandena 1 och 2,
2025/26:928 av Serkan Köse (S),
2025/26:1422 av Åsa Karlsson och Helén Pettersson (båda S),
2025/26:2298 av Zara Leghissa m.fl. (S),
2025/26:3185 av Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist m.fl. (C) yrkande 3,
2025/26:3282 av Katarina Luhr m.fl. (MP) yrkande 10,
2025/26:3481 av Patrik Karlson (L),
2025/26:3522 av Janine Alm Ericson m.fl. (MP) yrkande 2,
2025/26:3556 av Peter Hultqvist m.fl. (S) yrkande 76,
2025/26:3560 av Mikael Damberg m.fl. (S) yrkandena 2, 6 och 13,
2025/26:3582 av Rickard Nordin m.fl. (C) yrkande 124,
2025/26:3584 av Mattias Vepsä m.fl. (S) yrkande 2 och
2025/26:3586 av Teresa Carvalho m.fl. (S) yrkande 6.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected 69 proposals on municipal issues. All but one proposal was submitted during the general motion period 2025 and address, among other things, the municipal financial equalization system, targeted state grants, profits in welfare services, and social dumping.
The Riksdag refers to existing legislation, ongoing investigations, and work within the areas raised by the proposers.
The Riksdag has also considered a statement from the government concerning the National Audit Office's report on general state grants. The National Audit Office has examined whether the government designed the temporarily increased state grants during the COVID-19 pandemic in an efficient manner. The National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the economic stimulus measures could have been designed more efficiently as an economic stabilization instrument.
The government agrees to some extent with the National Audit Office's criticism but points out that it always strives to design appropriate measures during crises. The Riksdag recently placed a government statement on the financial policy framework on record. In the statement, the government develops the principles for fiscal economic stabilization.
Based on the government's assessment of the National Audit Office's observations, the Riksdag does not at present see a need for any further action. The Riksdag placed the statement on record and rejected the motion raised concerning the statement, which means that the matter is concluded.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants to ensure that municipalities receive sufficient state financing for welfare. (S) — Reservation 3