The Berlin coalition argues a bit? Good thing!

Olaf Scholz, vice-chancellor of the SPD, even said that he wants something different in the pension policy than the Union. Hubertus Heil, the Minister of Labor of the SPD, said that the Union had a difficult relationship with social security. Last time in the big coalition? Is there a threat of a conflict in the Berlin government alliance – this time around social policy?

You can see it like that. But for the time being it could be much looser: the SPD is trying to restore the old distance to the Union. And that is good – good for citizens who really want to vote during the elections. The SPD does not reinvent itself, but rather returns to its old brand core, which is now emphatically social. Maybe you like this, you do not like this. But you know where you are.

"Sozen can not handle money"

Then a social minister can sometimes breathe a bit about the relationship of the Union with the social network, as vice versa with CDU and CSU the saying "De Sozen can not make money" is a winged word.

As a reminder, this coalition only came under great pressure. If the protagonists occasionally remember that it is an emergency community, this is not only understandable, but it also serves credibility. The two have found each other, but certainly not sought. Anyone who looks at the answers of the Union and the EPD to the housing shortage notes that there are two partners who work in very different ways. Some – the Social Democrats – mainly try to reduce rent. The others – CDU and CSU – try to increase the offer via the market. Their joint plans are a mix of both. So that both parties name such differences is completely normal.

It threatens: beaten, hyper-correct unit politicians

An audience that constantly censors politicians with all the words and at the slightest political tantrum rushes on the sender, will ultimately get exactly what it deserves: beaten, hyper-correct trade union politicians. Perfectly adapted, infinitely boring. The often hysterical public reactions and profiled politicians are two sides of the same coin.

More and more politicians have made their appearances in the public a kind of autocorrection mode, which all their judgments all difficult, all sort idiosyncratic grades. No corners, no edges – no one can take offense. Nothing.

Nahles & Co notice differences

To avoid misunderstandings: the dispute about how the leaders of the CDU and CSU delivered it in the early summer was not, of course, an example of a lively political culture. Here, an insignificant detail of the refugee policy was maximized to clarify a political question of power. For weeks, a country was virtually taken hostage for an unworthy dispute.

The standard also in the current battle between the SPD and the Union: the good functioning of the public sector is at the forefront. The core of trust must be good. As long as Andrea Nahles and her ministers also determine their own position in terms of the guaranteed pension, the conditions for younger Hartz IV recipients or Turkey assistance and make clear differences with the CDU and CSU, this is legitimate. Such signals only become problematic if they obstruct the processes of the ministry or if the coalition parties are so intrigued that they block each other.

Alternatives – in Germany also exist in the plural

It is therefore not only in the interest of the SPD, but it would also be a big plus for the political fabric as a whole, if the Union and the SPD could be more clearly distinguished. The makers of sentiment from the political ranks, whose protagonists are constantly trying to give the impression that the rulers are all the same, had had a much harder time. And: Those of you who present themselves as the only real alternative can be demonstrated: there are alternatives in the plural in Germany.

Source link

Leave a Reply