• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's move to the left again! (Germany too?)

German guy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
5,187
Reaction score
4,255
Location
Berlin, Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The recent success of further left-leaning politicians in different countries -- Sanders in the US, Corbyn in the UK, Syriza and Podemos in Greece and Spain -- seems to be a new trend. Especially after several decades of Thatcher/Reagan "neoliberal" policies have massively increased the gap between rich and poor people, and right-wing populists are florishing on the resulting frustration.

It looks like even among the political elites, frightened by the new authoritarian challenge, there seems to be a growing consciousness for making society more socially fair again. Even the IMF recently declared austerity and privatization no longer is the best course of action.


In Germany, chairman of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, apparently has the plan to campaign on a more left-leaning platform, too -- federal elections will take place September 2017:
wide

Sigmar Gabriel, center-left SPD chairman since 2009 and Vice Chancellor and Minister for Economy since 2013

In recent interviews and on a SPD party convention, Gabriel declared that the SPD has to "become more radical" again, because "the situation is radicalizing". The moderate left needs "radical answers on right-wing seducers".

Among other things, he proposed the re-introduction of a property tax, approaching the position of the socialist Left Party. He complained that abusing tax loop holes by "super rich" people is "radically anti-social", and stressed that 150 billion per year are lost for general welfare due to this problem. He asked for tax transparency and harsh punishments for tax evaders and their accomplices. There shall be more state investments in infrastructure, research and education -- "schools shall become our new cathedrals". "When you have no gold in your soil, you have to take care there is gold in the heads".
Until autumn, a new retirement pension concept shall be created. And: "Labor shall not be taxed higher than stock profits", which is why Gabriel proposed high taxes on capital gains.

And finally, Gabriel now supports a financial transaction tax, again approaching the position of the far-left Left Party.
He also said that social democratic and new leftist movements all over Europe shall gather and find ways to "make globalization profitable for everybody" -- remarkable is the fact he explicitly includes far-left parties such as Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain.

SPD-Parteikonvent: Ein bisschen tiefer rot | ZEIT ONLINE
Sigmar Gabriel: "Die SPD muss radikaler werden" | ZEIT ONLINE

Gabriel's center-left SPD is currently in an extreme low point in polls: It reaches between 19% and 21% of the votes in polls, which would be the worst result ever since 1949, and about as bad as in 1932.
Between 1953 and 2005, the SPD had constantly reached more than 30% of the votes, sometimes even well above 40% -- but when SPD Chancellor Schröder (1998-2005) took the SPD on a pro-business "Third Way" course, reformed the unemployment support system, flexibilized the labor market and the banking sector, many traditional social democrats felt betrayed, and the SPD has never recovered so far (imagine a Republican President in America banned all guns and legalized abortions, and you get an idea what Schröder's reforms meant for the voters of his own party).

In the 2009 election, the SPD collapsed down to 23% of the votes, and in 2013, it scored only marginally better with 25.7%.

Sigmar Gabriel took over the SPD chair in 2009, as opposition leader (after he had been federal Minister for the Environment 2005-09). In 2013, the SPD once again became junior partner of Merkel's center-right CDU/CSU. Although the SPD got a minimum wage through in this "grand coalition", as well as a restriction on rental prices, former SPD voters were not convinced to return to this party. Gabriel has been Vice Chancellor and Minister for the Economy since then.
 
Another problem the SPD has to deal with, is a fracturing on the left side of the party spectrum: Next to the old SPD, there also is the Green Party, and ever since Schröder's unpopular reforms in 2003/04, the far-left socialist Left Party. But due to the German proportional representation system, the SPD cannot take over the government in a left-wing coalition, without a coalition with these two other left-leaning parties.

In 2005 and 2013, there was mathematically a majority for a SPD/Green/Left Party coalition, but the SPD considered the Left Party too radical and uncompromising for a cooperation (and in turn, parts of the Left Party explicitly refuse to "affirm the system by compromise") -- so the SPD instead joined Merkel's CDU/CSU as junior partners.
This new course by Gabriel's SPD might be a sign that the SPD is going to approach the Left Party, in hope for a true left-wing coalition after the 2017 election.

It's doubtful, though, that Sigmar Gabriel is the right candidate to represent an SPD that moves further to the left again -- his track record as Minister for the Economy is rather "Third Way-ish" and too pro-business for true leftists. And Gabriel is not popular enough to win against Merkel -- in polls, Merkel is even leading against him among SPD supporters. He has the image of being a "flip-flopper" too, and too often masking his pro-business course with mere social fig leaves.

There still is some time until the SPD has to nominate a candidate for Chancellor -- the election is not likely going to be before September 2017. Maybe Gabriel doesn't even intend to run, but just wants to bring his party back on course, for someone else to take over later.

Personally, I'd love to see the prospect of a true left-wing coalition -- of SPD/Greens/Left Party. It just sucks that it doesn't matter which party you vote for, you'll get a "grand coalition" anyway. I also feel that such a true alternative would be a welcome change, in the face of rising right-wing populism. Many people, who currently feel voting doesn't matter, because "they are all the same", might return to the voting booth (or away from the right-wing populist AFD).
 
Maybe they think they need to be a bit more populist to take votes from the Greens and "Die Linke" to bolster up their own vote.

But let us be honest, the next new government will most likely will again be CDU/CSU and SPD because I am not sure Die Linke is government material and I doubt both the greens and the Free democrats can take the CDU/CSU over the top of more than 50% of the seats of the German congress. Because I am not sure many parties will be willing to work with Alternative for Germany.
 
When did the west ever move right? Reagan was a liberal most of his life and while he talked of conservative values and views at the time of him becoming president his actions as president didn't back it up.

If people really think the west moved away from social democratic policies and views since lets say the early 20th century then I have no idea what they are looking at.
 
Hm, I don't know that I'd say Bernie is any kind of success story... he's not going to be the nominee.
 
Forget US labels of what's right and left, this is Germany being talked about. Where even the local conservatives (not counting the right wing populists of AfD) would always have been considered left of Obama of today.

All of that notwithstanding, the equality gap is increasing there as it is everywhere else in the West.

The issue is not really moving more to whichever side of the aisle, it's addressing an economic system that has replaced capitalism or, better said, is breaking it.

Something the current German coalition government prefers not to even think about, let alone address. A failing in which it is not alone in the Western world.
 
Last edited:
Maybe they think they need to be a bit more populist to take votes from the Greens and "Die Linke" to bolster up their own vote.

But let us be honest, the next new government will most likely will again be CDU/CSU and SPD because I am not sure Die Linke is government material and I doubt both the greens and the Free democrats can take the CDU/CSU over the top of more than 50% of the seats of the German congress. Because I am not sure many parties will be willing to work with Alternative for Germany.

You are right, the other parties will not cooperate with the AFD. The CDU/CSU might at some point, but not as long as Merkel is still at the top.

But you cannot know what the election result will look like in September 2017. Yes, I'd place my bets on the AFD entering the parliament, but it's absolutely not certain they will be as strong as in polls today. Way too many parties have seen booms and crashes in the past decade. Only 4 years ago, the Pirate Party was polled at 12% on federal level, for example, and they're extinct now. And five years ago, the Greens were above 20% in polls for a while, only to fall back to 8% in 2013.

So it's well possible there is a mathematical majority for CDU/CSU/Greens. Or for SPD/Greens/FDP. Or for CDU/CSU/FDP/Greens. Or even SPD/Greens/Left Party. You never know.

But yeah, could also be the AFD further rises, and even CDU/CSU/SPD won't have a majority anymore.
 
When did the west ever move right? Reagan was a liberal most of his life and while he talked of conservative values and views at the time of him becoming president his actions as president didn't back it up.

If people really think the west moved away from social democratic policies and views since lets say the early 20th century then I have no idea what they are looking at.

Well, the Friedman-like dogma of free trade, globalization, privatization and liberalization (especially of the banking sector) has been dominant since the 80s. Thanks to that, the famous 1% saw a huge rise of their assets, while wages and salaries stagnated or even decreased. Never before, the gap between rich and poor increased as heavily as it did since the 80s.

I guess Reagan and Thatcher only look "social democratic" from a perspective that's even to the economic right of Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek. ;)
 
Hm, I don't know that I'd say Bernie is any kind of success story... he's not going to be the nominee.

Good point.

But it looks like many people are now looking for a substitute for the dominant dogma of "more liberalization, more free trade, more privatization", that has massively increased the gap between rich and poor in the past few decades. Trump and Sanders are perhaps symptoms for this change alike, both of them are "anti-establishment" insofar they pander to those people frustrated by this "neoliberal" dogma.

And so do the right-wing populists in Europe. Many on the left apparently feel they have to be radical again too, if they want to stand a chance against all the anti-establishment right-wingers, like Trump, AFD in Germany, Le Pen in France or Hofer in Austria.
 
Well, the Friedman-like dogma of free trade, globalization, privatization and liberalization (especially of the banking sector) has been dominant since the 80s. Thanks to that, the famous 1% saw a huge rise of their assets, while wages and salaries stagnated or even decreased. Never before, the gap between rich and poor increased as heavily as it did since the 80s.

Wages have been stagnating since the the early 1960's, a good twenty years before Reagan or Thatcher were in office. Free trade and globalization has actually increased the amount of jobs and GDP in not only the third world, but also the west. Overall since the 1980's there has been more efforts to nationalize then there has been to privatize, so proving current developments are the fault of privatization would require some effort.

I guess Reagan and Thatcher only look "social democratic" from a perspective that's even to the economic right of Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek. ;)

Milton Friedman supported many left wing economic outlooks, be that income taxation, the federal reserve, the current monetary policy of the US, or the negative income tax. Friedrich Hayek wasn't much different in this regard and supported such things as the guaranteed income. which for some odd reason he didn't think was a welfare program.
 
SPD chairman Sigmar Gabriel now once again hinted at a cooperation with the Left Party:

"Germany now needs an alliance of all progressive forces", he said. "All center-left parties shall be capable of an alliance and capable of taking responsibility in the government together". He also asked for "more readiness to fight" from the "democratic left", facing "the aggressive challenge of our open, democratic republic" by right-wing populism.

Gabriel furthermore partly blamed Merkel's center-right CDU/CSU for the rise of the far-right populist AFD: "It was one of the greatest historical achievements of the CDU/CSU to give many old Nazis and German-Nationalist people a new home in the young new Federal Republic [shortly after 1949]". He accused Merkel of "removing the political core" from her CDU/CSU so that her party "lost the attractiveness for these groups".

Sigmar Gabriel wirft Angela Merkel "Entkernung der Union" vor - SPIEGEL ONLINE



Green Party co-floor leader in the federal parliament, Anton Hofreiter, apparently likes the idea of an alliance of all "progressive forces" in Germany too, but he's teasing SPD's Gabriel: "I'm not sure the SPD is truly moving to the left. For the time being, that's not more than an announcement by Sigmar Gabriel". "Sigmar Gabriel made many zig-zag movements in the past 25 years, so I'm not sure if this move to the left will still be official tomorrow". To be credible, Hofreiter says, Gabriel shall "finally start serious talks with the Left Party, instead of being comfortable in a coalition with [Merkel's center-right] CDU/CSU".

Asked if Hofreiter supports a left-wing alliance of SPD, Greens and Left Party, he said: "I want that this option is available on election night. Democracy is thriving on alternatives."

Anton Hofreiter: "Die SPD müsste endlich mit der Linkspartei reden" | ZEIT ONLINE



So it looks like the only party that still has to give a clear sign, is the far-left socialist Left Party. This party has both a compromising, pragmatic wing, as well as an ideological, "fundamentalist" left wing. The left wing of the Left Party has so far denied a cooperation with other left-leaning parties, as they feel "the system" is so evil, it cannot be appeased or affirmed by accepting it, and they reject any kind of compromise.

I really hope the sane people within the Left Party get the upper hand.





The situation -- the left is divided in Germany. Here the seats in the current federal parliament (since 2013):

sitzverteilung_18_xl.jpg

GREEN (Green Party), RED (center-left SPD) and PINK (socialist Left Party) --

they together hold a majority of seats necessary for forming a coalition, but due to internal division (especially between far-left Left Party on one side, and the two others on the other), they were not capable of forming a government coalition.

Instead, the center-left SPD (red) joined the center-right CDU/CSU (black) as junior partners.



During two of Merkel's three terms, 2005-09 and since 2013, Merkel's party relies on a left-wing junior partner. Both times, there was mathematically a left-wing majority that could have pushed Merkel out of power.

Current polls, however, see no left-wing majority but a stalemate, due to a relatively strong right-wing populist AFD (polled between 11%-14% of the votes): SPD/Greens/Left Party combined are polled at 44% of the votes, the center-right camp of CDU/CSU and libertarian FDP at 38%-39%.

In order to be able to form a coalition, an alliance of parties needs a majority of the seats, which means they need more seats than all other parties combined (even when these other parties are hostile against each other).
 
Would have thought the AFD would have at least a few seats, or am i missing something?
current seat distribution shown.

After 2017 AfD's seats will be known, right now they have none.
 
:doh seemed to be true,
Come again?

What's shown is the actual composition of the Federal parliament of Germany right now. Nothing seems, it is.

Of course the graph doesn't represent the current opinion poll figures (ratings) of anyone when CDU/CSU and SPD have massively lost support since the last election. Not to mention AfD having massively gained (they simply played no role in 2013).
 
Would have thought the AFD would have at least a few seats, or am i missing something?

As Chagos said, no, the AFD currently has NO seats in the federal parliament. In the 2013 election, the AFD missed the 5%-hurdle narrowly (4.7% of the votes) and thus didn't enter.

But the AFD has entered 8 out of 16 state parliaments since then, though, and also sent a couple of MPs to the European Parliament. So they have seats, but not in the federal parliament (yet).

The AFD's chairwoman Frauke Petry, for example, is that party's parliamentary floor leader in the state of Saxony, her deputy Alexander Gauland in the state of Brandenburg. You probably also heard from Björn Höcke (Thuringia) and Andre Poggenburg (Saxony-Anhalt).

Via the federal state parliaments, the AFD will also be represented in the Federal Assembly that's going to elect a new Federal President next year.
 
Would have thought the AFD would have at least a few seats, or am i missing something?

Naw they never were popular til now, and one has to question how popular they actually are.
 
Naw they never were popular til now, and one has to question how popular they actually are.

To answer that question:

When the old AFD leadership around Bernd Lucke was still in power, it focused on anti-euro stances, but avoided shrill right-wing populism (such as anti-Islam or anti-immigrant stances) and on that basis won a success d'estime in the 2013 federal election with 4.7% of the votes, which is much by the standards of a small newcoming splinter party, but not enough to enter parliament.

During Lucke's rule, the AFD won 7.0% in the election to the European Parliament and sent a couple of MPs, and entered three (east German) state parliaments with around 10% of the votes. They also narrowly entered two western states, Hamburg and Bremen, with 5%-6% of the votes.

Then, the party's right wing took over the party and pushed Lucke out of office; Frauke Petry became chairwoman. That was in spring 2015, IIRC. Soon after, the refugee situation escalated.

In March 2016, the now clearly anti-refugee, anti-immigrant and anti-Islam AFD entered three more state parliaments: Baden-Württemberg with ca. 15% of the votes, Rhineland-Palatinate with ca. 12% (both western states) and the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt with spectacular 24% of the votes (as party #2 behind Merkel's CDU, which reached 31%).


Ever since the end of 2015, the AFD is polled at between 10% and 15% on federal level (when the pollsters ask "whom would you vote for, if there were federal elections next sunday?").

Current polls see the AFD between 11% and 14%:

Sonntagsfrage ? Wahlumfragen zur Bundestagswahl (Wahlumfrage, Umfragen)

This level has been constant for half a year or so.

As Germany has a proportional representation system, that means they'd clearly enter the parliament. But one should keep in mind that support for the AFD is relative; if Germany had a majority system like the UK or US, the AFD would be virtually non-existent in the parliaments.

However, no other newcoming party in the Federal Republic of Germany has ever risen so considerably over such a short period of time; when the Greens started in 1980, it took them three years to rise above the 5% hurdle, and they have hardly ever reached results above 10% of the votes (mostly around 8%). And when the PDS merged with the WASG in 2004 to form the Left Party, it doubled the PDS's support from ca. 4% to 8%, but is stuck on that level ever since.


However, since ca. 2010, the German party spectrum is rather volatile; there are "hypes" that come quickly, but quickly go again, too: In early 2011, the Green Party was polled at above 20% of the votes on federal level for a couple of months, on par with the SPD, and accordingly won two state elections that took place during that time, but after a couple of months, the Greens slowly fell back to their usual level (and only won 8.4% in the 2013 election). This rise was not (originally) due to the Fukushima disaster; the Greens had already been at almost 20% in polls shortly before the reactors exploded, but it certainly helped them.

Likewise, there was the newcoming Pirate Party that surprisingly entered the Berlin state parliament with 8% of the votes in September 2011 -- suddenly, that party was hyped a lot, they appeared in a lot of talkshows and got a lot of attention. The party climbed above 10% support on federal level, and entered three more state parliaments with 7%-9% of the votes. But this hype too evaporated after a couple of months. Half a year later, the Pirate Party was no longer visible in polls, and were down again to 1%-2% of the votes in later elections (2.0% in the 2013 federal election).


Well possible that the AFD is just another such hype, and their support will shrink considerably again over the course of the next year, before the next federal elections take place in September 2017.

However, my educated guess is that the AFD's prospects are better than those of other parties, such as the Pirates: Germany has always had a considerable far-right potential (depending on how you define and measure it, ca. 15%-20% of the voters). So far, these voters just had no party to represent them; they either abstained from elections, or voted one of the other parties for whatever reasons (mostly CDU/CSU, SPD and in east Germany, the Left Party).

But the AFD seems to have successfully mobilized this segment of voters and they now strongly identify with the AFD. In the recent state elections, turnout increased considerably, mostly due to former absentees now voting for the AFD.

So is the AFD is just a hype and will fall below 5% again? I'd say no, as they're filling a vaccuum that existed for a long time. Though they may very well decrease in support again ... I'd just say it's unlikely they will fall so deep they'll end up below 5% again.
 
Last edited:
Hm, I don't know that I'd say Bernie is any kind of success story... he's not going to be the nominee.

He has gone form a senator form Vermont to the symbol of the centre-left in the US, I would call that a success. He gave a voice to a part of American society that was previously not really represented.
 
Forget US labels of what's right and left, this is Germany being talked about. Where even the local conservatives (not counting the right wing populists of AfD) would always have been considered left of Obama of today.

All of that notwithstanding, the equality gap is increasing there as it is everywhere else in the West.

The issue is not really moving more to whichever side of the aisle, it's addressing an economic system that has replaced capitalism or, better said, is breaking it.

Something the current German coalition government prefers not to even think about, let alone address. A failing in which it is not alone in the Western world.

Germany just created 1,000,000 new residents who can complain of 'inequality' in 2015, I'm sure many already are doing just that. The majority of these 1 million people have been granted the right to stay. This is a disaster in the making.

Germany's poverty level stands at roughly 13%. Any significant shift in the economy that creates added unemployment could swing Germany to the right. History will repeat itself, IMO.
 
Germany just created 1,000,000 new residents who can complain of 'inequality' in 2015, I'm sure many already are doing just that. The majority of these 1 million people have been granted the right to stay. This is a disaster in the making.

Germany's poverty level stands at roughly 13%. Any significant shift in the economy that creates added unemployment could swing Germany to the right. History will repeat itself, IMO.

Well then the poverty rate decreased considering it was 15% in 2010 according to this website and stayed there till at least 2013. You also have to take into account the East-West divide is still a thing.
 
I assume poverty in this context is relative anyway, as it's measured in comparison to the median or average. So if the median or average increases, it may well happen the percentage of poor people increases too, even when none of them has less than before in total numbers.

Not saying that's what necessarily happening here, just questioning the explanatory power of an abstract poverty number.
 
Germany just created 1,000,000 new residents who can complain of 'inequality' in 2015, I'm sure many already are doing just that. The majority of these 1 million people have been granted the right to stay. This is a disaster in the making.

Germany's poverty level stands at roughly 13%. Any significant shift in the economy that creates added unemployment could swing Germany to the right. History will repeat itself, IMO.

I'm not saying 1 mio refugees aren't creating problems or risks, but 1mio isn't all that much on a population of 80 mio.

Unemployment is on a relatively low level (ca. 2.5 mio IIRC), so even if that number rises by 1 million, it's still nowhere near the level it used to be last decade (when unemployment was as high as 5.5 mio).

Even the financial costs of supporting the refugees is not a huge problem, it's peanuts compared to the bailouts for banks and Greece/euro crisis countries. Germany can afford it. In the worst case by making new debts, and it says something that this is even the worst case.
 
I assume poverty in this context is relative anyway, as it's measured in comparison to the median or average. So if the median or average increases, it may well happen the percentage of poor people increases too, even when none of them has less than before in total numbers.

Not saying that's what necessarily happening here, just questioning the explanatory power of an abstract poverty number.

If I correctly remember, the number of persons living below the poverty line is smaller in Albania than in Germany. That about says it all.
 
Back
Top Bottom