Official preliminary final results for today’s election of the German Bundestag, excluding the electoral district 160 in Dresden where a by-election will be held in two weeks, have just been released.
With 299 out of 300 districts reporting, the SPD gained 34.3% of the vote, CDU/CSU 35.2%, the Greens 8.1%, the F.D.P. 9.8%, and the Linkspartei.PDS 8.7%. This led to the following final preliminary projection by Forschungsgruppe Wahlen for the next Bundestag: 613 members (13 overhang seats, majority 307), 225 members for the CDU/CSU, 221 for the SPD, 61 for the F.D.P., 54 for the Linkspartei.PDS, 51 for the Greens.
41 Responses
Feed: A Fistful of Euros
September 19th, 2005 at 6:11 am
un-believable.
0.9%??
that’s amazing
well, i guess he was right to call the snap election!!
September 19th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Any reflections on the implications of the election results for the policy reforms that Schröder started?
These look the most interesting links in Monday’s press in Britain:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8210-1786944,00.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/602eba2c-28a9-11da-97c7-00000e2511c8.html
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/352bba0e-28aa-11da-97c7-00000e2511c8.html
It seems the early reactions from business in Germany are very gloomy.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Well, is it even that reasonable to react much before the new government is in place?
September 19th, 2005 at 9:39 am
“Any reflections on the implications of the election results for the policy reforms that Schröder started?”
I think Aidan is right that this is very much a wait and see situation. However some things are clear.
I think the ‘market participants’ were in over their heads about the probabilities of a majority Merkel government producing a rapid ‘rejuvenation’ of the German economy. So I think some sort of correction is now on the cards (the euro does seem to be falling a little). I think this would have come anyway.
Germany has what Jimmy Cliff once called a ‘hard road to travel’.
I don’t know if there was such a thing as an Afoe ‘line’ on all this, but I sense we had some sort of consensus that Germany needs reform (and needs above all to get to believe in itself again), but that Angela Merkel - who may well have been welcome as a new face - wasn’t at the end of the day going to be all that radical, and indeed Scröder may well have been much more reforming than he has been given credit for.
Certainly a lot of the international press commentary was just plain naieve. Dave at MacroBlog quotes the Sunday Herald as saying:
“Schroeder has clung on to Germany’s “social market” model, with its high levels of state spending and social protection.”
This seems to be just plain stupid. Schröder was really battling with his left wing who *were* trying to maintain the status quo, and with a CDU dominated upper house who kept putting spanners in the works. At the same time (and regardless of whatever it is they mean by the ’social market’ model), Merkel was never proposing to reduce the levels of state spending - just distribute and fund it, differently - and she certainly wasn’t proposing to abolish social protection.
One result of the election is the arrival of the Linke, and in some ways this may make Schröder’s job easier in the SPD, as it takes some wind from the sails of the left wing.
I think we need to wait and see what the coalition will actually be, but I think ‘facts on the ground’ will continue to drive reform.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:02 am
You might want to note, that the majority of the red-green coalition was lost on the *left* side, not on the right.
There just is no majority for neo-liberal/neoconservative ideas in Germany. “Reform” is one thing. Redistribution from bottom to top is simply not acceptable.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:24 am
The CDU/CSU will have to rethink. A flat tax is now definitely out. Deregulation of the labor market is harder now.
And quite possibly, heads have to roll.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:35 am
“You might want to note, that the majority of the red-green coalition was lost on the *left* side”
Yes, I think that is the point I am making, so this clears ground in the centre. I think this makes the reform job easier, the new coalition, whatever it is will be more firmly rooted in the centre and less dependent on a left-oriented clientele. Sorry if you’re on the left :).
As you may have noticed (Mrs T at length) here at Afoe we have no idea what “neo-liberal” means, and you’re surely not suggesting that the CDU is in the grips of the ‘neocons’. By reform I mean getting structural changes in the labour market that seriously bring down the level of unemployment, raising the participation rates of the over 50s by playing round with the marginal tax and benefit system, child-friendly policies that help nudge up the birth rate, and more open immigration policies to try and ‘flesh out’ the pyramid a bit.
All good Lisbon-agenda stuff really.
I don’t live in Germany, but if I did I probably wouldn’t mind seeing some serious changes in the shopping hours.
September 19th, 2005 at 11:13 am
If there is such a thing as an AFOE line, in the run-up to the election it was that the CDU were going to blow it and that the election would be VERY close - and damn it, we were right..
September 19th, 2005 at 11:43 am
“the CDU were going to blow it”
Oh yes, that too :).
Actually Bavarian in Exile Euractiv this morning makes more or less the same point as you do:
German voters have expressed a clear ‘no’ to a neo-liberal competitiveness agenda as proposed by the Conservatives and Liberals and favoured by industry. Although the Schröder government had started a set of economic reforms, the opposition promised to go much further on the path towards liberalisation and labour reforms. With the left winning a majority of the votes overall (including the anti-reform ultra-left Linkspartei), German voters have put a definite stop to further reaching reforms, thereby disappointing those who were hoping for strong German leadership in implementing a neo-liberal form of the Lisbon agenda.
I suppose I’m questioning this approach. The ‘facts on the ground’ I have in mind are the unemployment level, the impact on growth of the energy ’shock’ (really yet to be felt), the government deficit issues, the EU level Lisbon agenda push, and the fact that come 2008 the arrival of the big baby boomer labour-force issues will be getting perilously close. So I think you will see more, not less, reform.
Insofar as the ‘late-decider’ voters probably thought they were ensuring Merkel with Schröder (or the SPD) in partnership, I think you could interpret the results as a vote for reform with a solid anchor, rather than ‘daring’ experiments. Maybe that’s not so silly.
On de-regulation and the so-called neo-liberals, maybe this paper makes an interesting read (discovered during my policy wonk-in yesterday):
It’s entitled “The Nordic Model: A Recipe For European Success?”
Given that Barroso is reported to be holding a related seminar tomorrow and that the October 28/29 summit will be devoted largely to the topics it raises, it may give a good indication of the way thinking is moving.
In particular those who think de-regulation is equivalent to “insecurity” may like to read Hans Jensen and Jørn Neergaard Larsen piece on the Danish idea of ‘flexicurity’. This seems to be becoming a buzz word.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Müntefering has just spoken. He questioned the legitimacy of the union of CDU and CSU. The Union cannot let that stand. This is a declaration of war to the knife.
I predict new elections for Dec.11
September 19th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Actually The Linke party has gone from 2 seats in the last Bundestag,to more than 50 in the new one. They represent a quite substantial grouping in Germany. There are over 60 mayors in German cities large and small elected by them,and they are in coalition in two Lande and in Berlin. I think they repesent a new force in German politics.Before Hitler and Stalin destroyed the old German Communist Party,they were a major force on the left,and a challenge to the SDFP. History sometimes has a habit of reverting to past forms.I suspect that the Linke Party can only grow from here,and will held to bar the way to neo-liberal policies in Germany,and to any plans for closer links with the USA.
September 19th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I suspect that the Linke Party can only grow from here
If that happens the very existance of the SPD is at stake.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
The most interesting results were for the Linke and for FDP. But actually this may be the time to accept that a nationwide left party may have been born. Remains to see whether Lafontaine and Gysi will stick around for long.
I agree with Edward that this probably takes the pressure off the SPD. Anyway, the time for big people’s parties may be over in countries with this number of coalitions in the parliament.
Many people I talked to the last weeks were undecided until the last. The results seem to reflect an atmosphere of perplexity among voters. I think this mirrors the internal power fights within SPD and CDU/CSU above all, the fact that Merkel threw in the wild card Kirchhof, and Schröder suddenly became cosy with union leaders and essentially fought against his own reforms in CDU disguise in his campaign. Something is crumbling here and it will take a few years before we see the new political answers IMO. These elections could never possibly solve all the open questions with one stroke, they’re merely the beginning of a transition into something we don’t quite see yet. Hence the confusion.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
“Merkel was never proposing to reduce the levels of state spending”
She has said often that this was what she believed in. She also set rather aggressive targets in the past (I won´t go check now but she discussed the matter in terms of percentage points of GDP once, and the numbers she talked about were quite ambitious.)
BTW, her ratings tanked for the first time last year, when the CDU formulated a health-care reform project that basically consisted of transferring a large chunk of health-care costs from the health-care insurance system to the state - an objective that was inconsistent with the earlier announcements by Merkel.
Model calculations put about at the time showed what a gigantic amount Mr. Ackermann of Deutsche Bank would have to contribute to health care in the future if Merkel´s scheme were implemented. Then, right before the election, she hit upon Kirchhof - and we were back to a single mother of three working at MacDonald´s owing as much to the state in taxes as a percentage of income as Mr. Ackermann. How is this not more - rather than less - radical than anything any successful politician subsumed under the label of neoliberalism (Thatcher and Reagan among them, I´d assume) ever got passed in parliament? Yes, there´d have been a threshold. The electorate did notice, though, that they were being asked to underwrite a blank cheque. That approach usually works well only in elective monarchies and the parallel universe of central banking.
The last Nobel in economics was awarded to two economists who discussed currency policy under the heading of time inconsistency.
Germany´s voters applied the same principle to the welfare state. Reducing the vote share of both Schröder and Merkel, sending Lafontaine/Gysi to the Bundestag and strengthening the FDP (who had actually managed to present a more equitable tax proposal than Kirchhof) in comparison to the CDU were the exact same decisions every economics textbook reader should have expected Germany´s voters to make. Judging by the air of surprise pollsters and pundits are putting on they didn´t ever belong to the textbook-reading crowd.
P.S.: Edward has just posted yet another factually inaccurate statement.
I can´t provide corrections as fast as the need for them arises, so I won´t. I could certainly handle one misinformation per week without feeling a need to hint at a lack of quality control, but two in a day comes close to inverting signal and noise.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
“I don’t live in Germany, but if I did I probably wouldn’t mind seeing some serious changes in the shopping hours.”
This is marginally off-topic, but illustrates perfectly the common error of many business-friendly commentators of confusing what’s good for a single company (or person) with what’s good for the economy.
When a single shop opens outside standard hours, their sales improve significantly, as customers can buy at a tiem they prefer. When all other shops open at those times, too, their total sales does not go up by the same margin. After all, customers do not really have more money to spend.
This happened in Germany a few years ago when they changed their shopping time limits to more generous hours. Big improvements to the economy were predicted by the proponents.
Measurable economic effect: close to zero.
Other effects: more convenient shopping times for customers, worse conditions for store employees.
Similarly, many of the proposed reforms are nice from a single-company perspective, but of dubious use for teh economy.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
‘late-decider’ voters probably thought they were ensuring Merkel with Schröder (or the SPD) in partnership
Ensuring Merkel & Schroeder by voting for the FDP ? Strange Logic.
Or who do you think were the ‘Late Deciders’ ? Compared to the most recent opinion polls, the big surprise was the good performance of the FDP and the CDU losses.
The SPD had been improving for weeks in the polls. They still did better than expected, but not by a large margin.
September 19th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Something is crumbling here and it will take a few years before we see the new political answers IMO. These elections could never possibly solve all the open questions with one stroke, they’re merely the beginning of a transition into something we don’t quite see yet.
Unfortunately there has to be a government. And not only after some transition process has run its course but soon. And the question which government that will be, will influence that process.
As it looks now, there will be elections in december or january. Who will run? Müller or Wulff vs. Schröder?
September 19th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
@ Khr
“When a single shop opens outside standard hours, their sales improve significantly, as customers can buy at a time they prefer.”
Don’t you make two points here, not one, Karl Heinz?
The individual shop gains *and* the individual consumer gains.
So:
“When all other shops open at those times, too, their total sales does not go up by the same margin”
is a non-sequitur since it only addresses part of the issue. Shouldn’t you have said:
“When all other shops open outside standard hours, their total sales do not go up by the same margin, but all customers can now buy at a time they prefer.”
Thus CONSUMER welfare increases enormously.
“the common error of many business-friendly commentators”
But you didn’t consider the fact that I may have been writing as a consumer friendly commentator. In this case the consumer in question was me :). Here in Barcelona there used to be quite strict laws about opening hours and the majority of small grocery shops were tight closed from 14:00 to 17:00 hours. This was just great for all the working mums (who may have worked in shops or offices) who came home to make lunch to find they couldn’t buy the ingredient they’d forgotten.
Then came the Pakistani immigrants, they ignored the rules (this is Spain) and now you can buy groceries and many other things all day long (including between 21:00 and 23:00 when again all those coming back from work might like to pick-up something for supper). Now - at least here in Barcelona - the rules are changing to allow all small shops to stay open longer.
Shopping hour flexibility favours working mums, that’s my argument.
As you suggest the extra hours might favour sales slightly and be employment positive, but that wasn’t my main argument.
This kind of de-regulation, and the sort of flexibility in employment they seem to have in Denmark shouldn’t be life-threatening to anyone.
Incidentally, you also miss another point, which is that having large hyper-stores open at times when people who work complicated hours themselves can get there (or don’t we need hospital workers and public transport workers) is a productivity/cost of living argument. Basically here in Spain pressure against this comes from small shopkeepers, who obviously don’t want to lose business. But they are more expensive, and therefore they need to play to convenience, and let the large outlets help keep prices down, make wages better value for money, and make the economy generally more productive.
If Germany just voted against these kind of changes this is rather more worrying.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
It’s still far too early to be sure about a new government or new elections.
First moves try for a CDU/FDP/Green coalition. See remarks mentioned on the Spiegel News-ticker
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,375314,00.html
Künast (Greens), Stoiber(CSU) and Solms(FDP) don’t say ‘No’ too loudly or are actually in favour and Schily(SPD) is warning against it. Of course, there also opposing voices in all involved parties.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Of course they’ll try.
The question is, will they succeed? I am very sceptical. It seems to me that most of what has been said today cannot be taken back. At the same time killing off Merkel is a bad move for the SPD. The alternatives would pull more votes.
Also note that 30 days is not enough to have two consecutive sets of negotiations. If Jamaica is tried and fails, there’ll be no coaltion and open voting in the new Bundestag.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
Don’t you make two points here, not one, Karl Heinz?
The individual shop gains *and* the individual consumer gains.
I think you have misread me seriously there when you say I wrote something substantially different from what you are writing (though maybe I shoudl have explained myself better).
A single shop gains if it expands opening hours while others keep shut. If all shops follow suit, the resulting profit for each single shop is low.
“When all other shops open outside standard hours, their total sales do not go up by the same margin, but all customers can now buy at a time they prefer.”
And I did say that customers have more convenient hours, didn’t I ? Of course how much you value more flexible shopping hours is very much down to your personal situation
My point really was a different one: The gain in convenience (personal welfare, as you call it) is almost totally in non-monetary terms and rather hard to measure.
The economic benefits in hard cash or jobs of that change, on the other hand, are quite small, and much less than the proponents argued at the time. Certainly that was the result in Germany.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
@ Joerg
“Merkel was never proposing to reduce the levels of state spending” - “She has said often that this was what she believed in”.
“She also set rather aggressive targets in the past”
So we agree then Joerg, Merkel, likes lots of politicians, believes in a whole variety of things (many Christians believe in eternal life), but in this election she wasn’t proposing to reduce the levels of state spending, just reduce wage costs and increase consumer taxes.
Of course all of them (I mean all contenders for Chancellor) will do something to reduce *benefit levels* since with more elderly people simply *maintaining* the levels of state spending implies this.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
Top SPDers are pushing the Ampelkoalition hard today…but Claudia Roth (one of the Greens’ many leaders) sez “wenn Frau Merkel mit uns reden will, das können wir gerne machen”. And Renate Künast is pushing the old “wertkonservativ” thang…”dass die Grünen mit der Union vielleicht das Traditionelle und Bewahrende in den Ursprüngen des Umweltschutzes verbindet”.
Which is frankly ridiculous, seeing as the CDU want more nuclear power stations AND to effectively kill the wind and solar programs.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
If that’s all, for two years they could agree on the status quo. There are harder problems. They at least have to demonstrate that they are trying. Sitting back and doing nothing cannot be sold to the voters.
September 19th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
@ khr
“I think you have misread me seriously there when you say I wrote something substantially different from what you are writing”
Ok, i readily accept :). Anyway I hope the discussion was in some way fruitful, even if it was based on a misunderstanding.
“The economic benefits in hard cash or jobs of that change, on the other hand, are quite small, and much less than the proponents argued at the time. Certainly that was the result in Germany.”
I wouldn’t really argue about that either, and indeed I don’t think that the problems about access to WalMart type centres in the EU are anything like so grave as US productivity economists like Robert Gordon or Marty Feldstein seem at times to suggest. I think to know that though you have to live here.
Also maybe we have more public transport related externalities in our cities.
Incidentally I note from his posts that Brad DeLong likes to shop in these places, I tend to go to the pay a little more, have a chat while you’re there, local convenience shops (I just like them to have more flexible hours): so I guess a lot of this is down to preferences.
Incidentally, while I’m here:
“late-decider’ voters probably thought they were ensuring Merkel with Schröder (or the SPD) in partnership”
I was referring to this: “Of those 10 million voters ’undecided’ as the campaign drew to a close, 30% broke for the Union, but 33% for SPD” from Mrs T, which seems to suggest that the SPD maintained share while the CDU lost it as the deadline came. This seems to imply that while they might have expected Merkel to win (I think everyone was surprised - except maybe Joerg - by just how low the CDU dropped), - they were probably voting with the expectation of a 40-42% CDU outcome - so many might have voted as they did because they wanted to ensure SPD influence in the government.
In other words you need to interpret the voting behaviour in terms of what expectations people acdtually held on Saturday night, and not do a re-interpretation in the light of what happened next.
But all this is only guesswork, and other readings are, of course, possible.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
@ khr, Oliver, Alex
“First moves try for a CDU/FDP/Green coalition”
khr.
“Of course they’ll try. The question is, will they succeed?”
Oliver
“wenn Frau Merkel mit uns reden will, das können wir gerne machen”. “Which is frankly ridiculous”
Alex
but then I go back to this thought Mrs T put in my head:
“One wonders whether he already had a deal sewn up with Guido.”
So how about this reading. The FDP can’t just walk away from trying to make a Jamaican cocktail, they can’t damage long term relations with the CDU in this way, or sell it to the voters but, the SDP can offer them much more than Angela can offer the Greens. Also too many CDU barons might not want power on the basis of cuddling-up to the greens. (The people with the strong hand in these negotiations are the greens). So…. we have a ritual farce.The only difficulty seems to be:
“Also note that 30 days is not enough to have two consecutive sets of negotiations.”
If this is right this would stymie Schröder, if it isn’t, my guess is we might get some brand-spanking-new traffic lights.
But it is a guess. I think I’m also working backwards from the idea that the grand coalition really suits no-one.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
they can’t damage long term relations with the CDU in this way, or sell it to the voters but, the SDP can offer them much more than Angela can offer the Greens
Absolutely no. That would mean the FDP is very flexible and stupid. They are the former, but not the latter.
They would take a lot of damage merely by flipping. That alone would not deter them. 4 years is a long time. But the traffic light does not have very good chances to go beyond negotiations nor is it likely that that coalition would be very stable against a hostile upper house. And as negotiations would take time, failure means likely a second dissolution meaning they’d have to face up immediately to some very angry voters.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Oliver, sitting back and doing nothing is what Germany needs at this moment in time.
Traffic light (with the CDU in the background) will rule for the next 2 to 3 years and wont change anything major on economic but will do so on social
September 19th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
If the FDP wanted traffic light, Westerwelle wouldn’t have said what he said today. It simply is inflicting needless damage to himself. What is the advantage the FDP has for ruling two years?
Doing nothing is impossible in light of the budget. Something needs to be done.
September 19th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
In fact. I’ll be blunt. They all want new elections. They just don’t dare admit it. If you want my prediction for the coming turn of events:
1. Jamaica is negotiated
2. The negotiations fail
3. Open vote in the new Bundestag
4. Schröder polls a plurality, but no majority
5. Köhler dissolves
6. new elections around Dec.11
September 19th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
In politics you have to say what you have to say, not what you want to say or what is the truth. Besides claiming that you don’t want something makes negotiations much easier
September 19th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
@Edward
“Merkel, like lots of politicians, believes in a whole variety of things”
Variety is always welcomed, “time inconsistency” and cognitive dissonance aren´t. Economists suffer as much from a lack of insight into the size and temporal distribution of feedback effects as politicians do - in fact, there are quite a few cases where the failure of politicians can be traced to the inherently contradictory economic advice they relied on.
I think Truman misdiagnosed the economics profession when he expressed his yearning for a one-armed economist. The majority of economists is, in fact, one-armed - however, under the influence of phantom sensations they just keep forgetting their true condition. I am still waiting for proof that you don´t belong to that group.
September 19th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
In politics you have to say what you have to say, not what you want to say or what is the truth.
He didn’t have to say it. He could have said something statesman like on the need of all democratic parties to be able to form coalitions and about his deep concern about ensuring a viable government, yadda, yadda, yadda …
Besides claiming that you don’t want something makes negotiations much easier
But why would he want to form a government now? He would score major points in new elections. Besides for something that new the problem is making it work at all, not improving his position.
September 20th, 2005 at 2:04 am
Not a day after the elections. Two months from now it sounds stateman-like to say something like “i didn’t want it but this country needs this sacrifice from the party” . Now it only sounds calcultated and as lying to your electorate. Also the negotiations for the next goverment will take some time, but much less that the time they will take.
FDP doesn’t want new elections because they will get the blame.
They are at this moment in time kingmaker. It is unlikely that there will be a FDP/CDU majority anytime soon with the Linke in parlement. SPD will also be smaller than the CDU because it also has the greens eating part of its votes so many people will vote FDP for tacticly reasons.(CDU will give the prime minister in any goverment it is part of but a FDP/SPD/something will still be reasonable influenced by the right).
Also FDP can claim any succes but can claim that any failure is because the left parties didn’t want to do what was right. In short after a Dutch formation you will get a green/SPD/FDP goverment
September 20th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
FDP doesn’t want new elections because they will get the blame.
That assumes that new elections are unpopular. In principle they are not. People like to be asked their oppinion. What you need to avoid is the impression that you are willing to disregard a result you don’t like. Therefore there are Jamaica negotiations. The FDP can always say that the result called for a grand coalition and Schröder’s hybris is to blame. The excuse is good. Not perfect, but good enough.
It is unlikely that there will be a FDP/CDU majority anytime soon with the Linke in parlement.
35,2 + 9,8 = 45,0
3% or so away from the limit. And that with an inept candidate at the helm. Nor did red/green fare that badly. 41% is not a desaster. Grounds for a rematch on both sides.
R/Y/G would govern against the upper house. R/G didn’t make it over the full 4 years. The Liberals would be very close to mad to risk that.
September 20th, 2005 at 3:10 pm
38% would be a disastery bad result for red/green. So i don’t see how a FDP/CDU goverment can rule
September 20th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
This is marginally off-topic, but illustrates perfectly the common error of many business-friendly commentators of confusing what’s good for a single company (or person) with what’s good for the economy.
Guess I’ll have to ask the fundamental question: Why in the world is the state even in the business of telling people when they can sell a loaf of bread, a pen, a battery, a bottle of whater, and when they can’t? What is Leviathan doing here?
In its essence, this is a remnant of the medieval approaches of European monarchies and has no business existing in an Enlightenment republic. In this particular case, iirc, it is the direct result of post-1933 laws designed to favor “Aryan” small-shopkeepers over the non-”Aryan” owners of large stores. It is thus doubly repugnant and should be done away with immediately.
September 20th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Why in the world is the state even in the business of telling people when they can sell a loaf of bread, a pen, a battery, a bottle of whater, and when they can’t?
Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort of fundamental question that it occurs to far too few Germans (whether black or red) to ask.
What is Leviathan doing here?
Why, the bidding of (i) the unions, (ii) small shopowners and (iii) the churches, of course.
In this particular case, iirc, it is the direct result of post-1933 laws designed to favor “Aryan” small-shopkeepers over the non-”Aryan” owners of large stores.
Could be, but I’m not sure. After all, other post-1933 German laws enabled ‘Aryans’ to become the owners of those formerly ‘non-Aryan’ stores. There are plausible (i.e., IMO quite bad, but at least clearly non-völkische) justifications for the shop-closing laws. Even if there was once a nazi element to them, that would be today at most a matter of minor symbolism. And on that front, it would have been preferable post-WWII had the Germans taken more substantive action to undo the damage of Arisierung; for example, by expropriating firms like Neckermann and holding their assets in trust for the dispossessed.
Also, in fairness we should note that (though this in no way answers Doug’s fundamental question) shop hours have got much better in Germany. With the exception of Sundays, my guess is that the legally permitted opening hours are now pretty much what most shops would keep anyway if they were allowed to open 24/7. (NB: though many shopkeepers might choose to close by 8 pm anyway, they should of course be free to choose to stay open past that if they like; just as shoppers should be free to choose to pay the premium shopkeepers are likely to charge for the convenience of later opening hours, or else to say, ah no, I’ll just wait till the morning then.) Shop hours in Germany are now, at worst, a minor inconvenience. Not all that long ago, they were a very major inconvenience. More than that, they were in my view a tool for social engineering. And this was a tool liked by both the SPD (because it reduced competition for workers’ jobs) and the Union (because it kept women where they belonged).
September 20th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
38% would be a disastery bad result for red/green. So i don’t see how a FDP/CDU goverment can rule
How do you arrive at 38%?
38% + 48% = 86%. That would imply about 10% for the Linkspartei. If we postulate not implausible 7% for the Linkspartei and 4% others we arrive at 41% for SPD/Green that is within 1.5% of the current result. So it seems certainly plausible that a new election could lead to B/Y. By no means certain, but definitely plausible. Larger shifts have been seen in the last election.
September 20th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
You said:”3% or so away from the limit.”
I found 3% also to low but i followed you as i don’t know what percentage of votes are lost
September 20th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
48% is about the lower limit to govern. The small parties get about 3% to 4% and some overhanging seats can push them over the edge.
6 overhanging seats are about 1% of parliament.