They aren’t desperate yet. That it would require. But the radicals would come due to failure of both parties. The SPD has had its shot and the CDU would have failed, too.
The time for radical solutions would have come.
The SPD cannout out-PDS the PDS.

Well obviously I agree. But sometimes simply hope isn’t enough.

“That would mean a national unity government and the NPD in the lower house”.

Well this is what I am saying about a pact between the SPD and the CDU, but I really don’t see it. You are right though: if the main parties went for consensus this would obviously carry the risk of fuelling the extremes.

But another scenario is the possible radicalisation of the SPD. I have no idea which is more probable.

That would mean a national unity government and the NPD in the lower house. The excrement would hit the ventilation device. “Economy ?ber alles”. The consequences are scary. I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

“Currently M?ntefering is doing the Blairite option. He lets Merkel do the hatchet job and opens the “kinder, gentler” approach to the next generation. He already opened the discussion.”

Yes, this certainly makes sense.

“Thirdly, anybody in office in 2009 should be able to point out that he turned the economy around. The alternative I dare not explore.”

Yes, well I wouldn’t be banking on this. I think we are headed for distinctly choppy waters, but I won’t re-open this debate here.

For now, no. They are forced to give battle under Schr?der’s banner. He’ll either lead them to triumph, making his platform unassailable, or much likelier, to doom. In the latter case his corpse will be dismembered politically.
(I’ll stop reading lord of the rings)

After that the current generation of leaders will be removed in a summary action including M?ntefering, Schr?der, Clement and Eichel. After that they’ll have years to reform and as they’ll have states to defend they cannot go to never-never land. If you look at the election calender you’ll notice that until 2008 mainly either safe CDU states or the remaining SPD states are at stake.

Leading to the next point. Until 2008 a CDU government is mathematically implausible to lose its majority in the upper house. It may be retained the full four years.
Her position will be stronger than Kohl’s. She may become unpopular, but she’ll be decisive having no choice. She has to hope that reforms work lacking other options. Plus, people like a strong leader. Her majority in the upper house being as large as it is, she can afford to sacrifice states as the states’ PMs can’t rebel as a defection wouldn’t be effective.

Secondly, the loss of all states save one effectively has interrupted recruitment. The normal path to the chancellorship is a state’s prime ministership. There are five PMs. Two govern with the PDS. They are tainted. One is an old guy, leaving two. That’s too little.

Thirdly, anybody in office in 2009 should be able to point out that he turned the economy around. The alternative I dare not explore.
When I said they care about 2009 I did not mean that winning that election is likely. Any government has been reelected at least once against all expectations. The likelier option is doing to the CDU in 2009 what was done to them in 2002. The likely date for a new SPD chancellor is 2013.

Currently M?ntefering is doing the Blairite option. He lets Merkel do the hatchet job and opens the “kinder, gentler” approach to the next generation. He already opened the discussion.

This is really the argument that has been worrying me. Whither the SPD in opposition. You need even more statesmanship to avoid the follies of being dragged along by the cheap ‘anti’ vote.

My feeling is that any incoming CDU government will rapidly follow the SPD down the road of becoming hugely unpopular – not because it is the CDU, but because what any responsible government in Germany now needs to do is going to be hugely unpopular. The easiest thing then is to campaign against.

Actually what Germany needs is a ‘pact’ (similar to the PSOE-PP anti terrorism pact here in Spain) to take the reform process out of the zone of direct political conflict. But then this is impossible.

When you say patriot Tobias, you might also say statesman. It could be that someone does this because they think it is good for the society, that Germany seriously needs a more important reform process, and that a weakened SPD isn’t in any position to be able to carry this through. But the sooner you start the better. Also the longer an unpopular government continues carrying out unpopular reforms, the worse it is for democracy, the problem of the far right etc etc.

Politicians used to do this kind of thing, we’ve grown used to the idea that they don’t any more. Are we just too cynical? From outside Germany I really can’t form an impression.

But there are more possibilities. We are all writing off the SPD in the autumn, but maybe we are doing this too quickly. Most of the vote in recent elections could be seen as a protest vote. The reforms are unpopular, so the government takes a hit. But the opposition party wants even more reform, it isn’t necessarily a foregone conclusion that when push comes to shove the electorate put their vote where their mouth has been. You need to look at participation rates in the elections, things like that.

It could be that Schr?der is not optimistic, but thinks there may be a chance. Certainly I think the SPD will do better than most commentators are imagining. Remember Hans Werner Sinn’s point: 40% of Germans receive payments from the Federal State in one form or another: that’s one hell of a potential ‘clientele’ vote. On this view, Schr?der would simply want to get the election out of the way so as to be in the position of really getting down to business on the reform programme.

Another theory: maybe they think (understandably) that the reforms will prove hugely unpopular, so why not hand the batton to the opposition. Advancing the elections one year advances the time you have the next shot at getting into government by one year (at least: we don’t know that the CDU would last the term either, remember soon they will be the ones who are being pelted with eggs).

Also you have to look at the panorama in Europe. Maybe he is already ceding to the ‘no’ vote in France. Clearly a government without popular support would not be well placed to front the difficult environment which could present itself after next Sunday, and the possible consequneces for the euro. This would take us back to the statesman argument.

Obviously then there is the Merkel/Stoiber argument. Having the election early may favour Merkel, and she may not be so different from Scr?der in reality.

Finally there is the point that I think it is *way too* optimistic to expect any sustained improvement in the economic situation by 2006. Obviously, like in the first three months of this year, you can get a good quarter. But sustained and ongoing growth. In the short term this is very difficult. So next year was always going to be pretty painful politically.

Interesting times.

The SPD had two options:

1. Regular elections in 2006.
- No realistic choice of winning (even the unlikely event of Germany winning the World Cup would have been unlikely to save Schr?der).
- Power greatly reduced to do any more major legislation until then
- Risk of splitting the party in the process: the split between the “realo” reform-wing and the “fundi” locust-hating-wing already became apparent. It would have widended. As Schr?der’s parliamentary majority is very slim, he would even have faced a realistic threat of losing power in the very humiliating way of being stabbed by his own men (the Helmut Schmidt scenario).

2. Early elections in 2005
- Chance for the chancellor to go down in style (and preserving a legacy as the man who began the necessary reforms in Germany).
- Chance to reunite the party (the platform is likely to be much more M?ntefering than Schr?der I am afraid).
- No real loss in real power: the election is lost either way. And during his last year in power Schr?der would have been crippled anyway.

The way I judge Schr?der, patriotism probably wasn’t the driving factor.
Though I have to admit that this was probably the most patriotic decision Schr?der ever took.

Exactly. If they don’t, you’re toast. For a long time. And probably they are insufficient. That the SPD might have the political capital and resolve to do more is unlikely.

or will this go down as the moment the SPD declared it was really “non-governmental” material

It is. They debate must be had. In a way a governing party cannot.
Mr. M?ntefering’s locust are now much easier to explain.