• “Kursen var mycket trevlig, lärorik, användbar och viktig…”

    – Ulrike Frank, Sr. Scientific Officer, Swedish Chemical Agency


  • “Ruben is a highly skilled and insightful negotiator, who understands the fabric and dynamics of negotiations.”

    – Rasmus Clausen, Head of Section, Danish Ministry of Defence.

  • “StIPS tailored it’s lectures to our audience of dynamic, young professionals with murderous time constraints. We couldn’t be happier with the results. ”

    Boris Ajeganov, Public relations officer, Stockholm Association of International Affairs

  • “This knowledge helped me to give several successful presentations and I will use these skills throughout my whole life.Thank you.”

    – Rebecca Demonkos, CEMS Graduate Handelshögskolan / SSE

  • “You get very practical tools that you can use in your everyday life. I recommend this lecture to everyone that has to hold a meeting or a presentation.” 

    – Elisa Magnusson, Utbildningsledare Folkuniversitetet Stockholm

Borg – Andersson debate analysis

On the 19th of January the current Minister of Finance Anders Borg (M) took on his challenger Magdalena Andersson (S). This was the second in a series of pre-election debates and this time it was ‘about the economy, stupid’. We call Magdalena Andersson as the winner of this debate.  

Watch out with spontaneous questions
Borg starts the debate with some general remarks on the relatively positive state of the Swedish economy. He reminds the viewers that there is an international crisis and that Sweden has done well compared to comparable countries such as Germany.  Andersson takes over with a direct attack saying that for Borg tax reductions are a goal by themselves in stead of a means to enhance welfare. She on the other hand stands for better schools, care and welfare. A clear distinction! She does however slip up at the end of her intervention by asking Borg why this would be the time to lower taxes. This gives him an opportunity to elaborate on his first point. A risky strategy.

Make it specific
Borg continues to talk about fiscal responsibility and the need to justify every kronor. His abstract approach to the matter gives Andersson the possibility to keep on repeating her mantra of kids, schools, unemployment and welfare. She even manages to make this difference between the cold economical approach of Borg and her own social commitment explicitly clear as she makes it the big choice in the upcoming elections. When she challenges Borg by saying that his party did not deliver on the promise it had made to the voters, all he does is saying that the promise was stabile finances.

Create a clear difference
In the end the viewer cannot help but agree with Magdalene Andersson that the choice is clear. Although both debaters are in favor of a stable economy Borg’s mantra is stable finances as a goal in itself while she wants a better economy to strengthen schools and enhance welfare. Which do you think is the better argument?

* Make it concrete.
* Don’t rely on numbers and statistics but make the audience feel it.
* Don’t focus on the ‘what’, focus on the ‘why’.
* If people understand the reason behind your logic they will follow your reasoning.
* Create a clear difference, present a choice.

Because Magdalena Andersson managed to make these things clear she is our winner of the second debate.


Click here to see our analysis of Lööf vs Sjöstedt.