DEBATE • Swedes love to get involved in other countries’ internal political struggles. The UK is one such example. We follow opinion polls and discuss Farage versus Lowe as if our opinions on X could tip the balance, as if our posts could really determine who will win the next election. But the truth is that it has very little significance for British politics which party we Swedes support. Whether Nigel Farage wins or loses is not affected by what we write back home. Restore Britain does not gain more seats because we like their platform. British politics is decided by British voters—not by us.

On X, Arvid Hallén, program manager at the think tank Oikos, calls those who support Restore Britain “the dumb right” and points out Reform UK as the only realistic option. He describes Restore as a micro-party with no chance, and Reform as a force that can actually make an impact. But is it really dumb for a Swede to prefer Restore?

When we choose to highlight Restore, we do so to signal the direction we want to see in Sweden: a policy that refuses to compromise with mass immigration, that distances itself from Islamisation, that pushes for remigration, and refuses to hide behind liberal clichés where an ethnic group is reduced to having a job, knowing the language, and being present in the country.

Hallén’s post was met with responses that highlighted why many see Restore as the better choice. Several pointed out that Farage has repeatedly said things that undermine his credibility: that moderate Muslims are to be won over and included, and that Reform does not pursue mass deportations but is satisfied with “control” of the borders.

Restore stands for a firmer line: strict immigration stop, preservation of British culture, and no concessions to multiculturalism. To prefer their policy is to say that we are not satisfied with half measures. It is not about winning elections in Britain, but about showing which stances matter in Sweden as well.

The think tank Oikos, which Arvid Hallén represents, defines itself as conservative and claims to “want to turn the destructive course our country has been set on.” They also state that they believe in “a stronger national cohesion, belonging, and identity.” Yet, they regard principled nationalism as “the dumb right” and compromises as the only reasonable choice. This raises the question: how serious are their ambitions really to change the current social-liberal system that has enabled mass immigration?

This illustrates the great weakness of conservatism: it wants to preserve the current system rather than do what is actually necessary. It is content with merely slowing down development, with “controlling” the borders instead of closing them, and “winning over” Muslims instead of stopping Islamisation. To solve the problems of mass immigration, conservative half-measures are not enough—it requires progressive remigration proposals that actually ensure that the Swedish people retain control over Sweden and the ability to decide their own future. To label such proposals as “the dumb right” is to reveal a preference for defending ideological principles rather than working for what is best for the Swedes.

Andreas Feymark
Heimr Think Tank