Latest news with #GrandCoalition
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Grand Coalition between SNP and Labour may become inevitable
'Brandmauer' though, I can tell you, is German for 'firewall', and in political terms it is shorthand for the Grand Coalition between the centre-left SPD and the centre-right CDU/CSU. We have seen this Grand Coalition between Germany's main parties three times now – twice under Angela Merkel, and now again under new Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The purpose of the Brandmauer is to lock out a force considered by the mainstream parties to be so undesirable that the political nuclear button must be pressed. In 2005, under Ms Merkel, the imperative was to neuter the PDS – the successor to the Communist rulers of East Germany. Now, two decades on, the Brandmauer protects against Alice Weidel's AFD. The Grand Coalition under Angela Merkel continued under new Chancellor Friedrich Merz The Grand Coalition is now so normal in Germany that it has its own portmanteau – the Groko (Große Koalition). Before it happened, though, it would generally have been considered unthinkable. Not worth writing about, talking about or thinking about. Closer to home, we have seen a similar situation in Ireland. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael may be ideologically similar, but as the parties on opposite sides of the Irish Civil War, the antipathy from that island's troubled history runs deep. The very notion of a Grand Coalition was ridiculous until a force so ostensibly menacing, in the form of Sinn Féin, became so strong that a momentous response was required. The 2020 and 2024 general elections, both three horse races, resulted in an Irish firewall to lock out Sinn Féin. This is the new normal in Ireland. Here in Scotland, don't bother asking a politician from our two established mainstream parties – the SNP and Labour – about a Grand Coalition. At least, not in public, where you'll be laughed out of court. But discuss it with some of them in private, as I have on several occasions over the last six-or-so months, and they will offer a much more open and thoughtful retort. They can read opinion polls just like anyone else. For much of the time since Labour's Westminster election victory, as its support has plummeted, the party looked so weak, and the SNP looked so comparatively strong, that the latter would not require the former, finding an adequate partner instead in the Liberal Democrats or its ex-spouse, the Greens. Read more from Andy Maciver Last week's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, though, has shone a different light on the range of possible outcomes after May 2026's election. Labour, after its victory, is understandably buoyant. Much as Labour types will tell you that they knew they would win and it was the result of a master strategy unbeknownst to anyone, the reality is that this was a wafer-thin win in a genuine three-way fight. We should not underplay it; Labour significantly outperformed its national poll rating and clearly ran an impressive ground campaign. However, nor should we overplay it, since the party lost two per cent of its vote share from the previous election, in 2021. This point was made by our national polling guru, Sir John Curtice, as he simultaneously dampened Labour's spirits and rubbed salt in the SNP's wounds (the nationalists shipped a whopping 17 per cent of its 2021 vote share, and underperformed its already diminished national polling share). In Sir John's view, clearly, Labour won the battle but Reform may justifiably feel it is winning the war. Illustrating the point, Sir John crunched some numbers based on what pollsters term 'uniform swing' – in other words, if all the parties had risen and fallen across the country by the same proportion as they did in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, what would the outcome be? The answer? A composition of seats in the Scottish Parliament which would constitute the most explosive and chaotic result in the history of Holyrood. The SNP would win the election handsomely, but only after the loss of a quarter of its MSPs, returning 48. Reform would come a clear second, with 32 seats. In third would be Labour, down from its current 24 to 18, based on the loss of vote share despite its by-election triumph. The Tories would be next on 16, with the Greens on 10 and the Liberal Democrats on five. In order to function in an orderly way with a Parliamentary majority, a government needs at least 65 seats – 17 seats more than the SNP would have. Many might consider the Greens to be First Minister John Swinney's most natural ally, but with 10 seats they would remain well short. Even adding five from the Lib Dems, another party with whom Mr Swinney has a productive and comfortable relationship, would be insufficient. On the other side of the Parliamentary chamber sit two parties with whom the SNP would not, under any circumstances, be prepared to enter an agreement, formal or informal. With 48 seats between them, the Conservatives and Reform UK would be considered 'uncoalitionable'. Read more from Andy Maciver: That leaves Labour. With its 18 seats, together with the SNP's 48, a 66-seat government carries a majority of one in the Holyrood chamber. There is much water to flow under the bridge, and too many caveats to mention. This was a by-election, and therefore a poor predictor of behaviour at a general election. We are still nearly a year from the election, and much can, and probably will, change during that time. Moreover, the Scottish territory is, if anything, more complex than those which existed in Germany and Ireland, because of the lingering independence debate, on either side of which sit the SNP and the Labour Party. However, the most important similarity is the one which may be present; the perceived need to place a firewall around a political party considered to be beyond the pale. In a parliament composed similarly to the one we have today, a grand coalition is unthinkable. In one which includes a relatively small number of Reform MSPs it is improbable. But in a parliament of the sort extrapolated by Sir John last week, a grand coalition is neither unthinkable nor improbable. It is inevitable. Andy Maciver is Founding Director of Message Matters, and co-host of the Holyrood Sources podcast.
News.com.au
06-05-2025
- Business
- News.com.au
Blow for Germany's Merz as he loses first-round vote for chancellor
Germany's conservative leader Friedrich Merz suffered a serious blow on Tuesday when he failed to win a parliamentary majority in the first round of voting to become the next chancellor. The unexpected setback -- a first in German post-war history -- prolongs the half-year of political paralysis in Berlin since the collapse of the coalition government of Olaf Scholz, which sparked elections in February. Hoping to become modern Germany's 10th chancellor, election winner Merz has vowed to revive the ailing economy and strengthen Berlin's role in Europe as it responds to heightened geopolitical turbulence since US President Donald Trump returned to power. But Tuesday's parliament vote, which had been widely seen as a formality, sparked fresh turmoil and pointed to dissent within the ranks of the two-party coalition hoping to rule Germany. To take over as chancellor, Merz needed an absolute majority of 316 of the 630 lower house votes in the secret ballot. But he only won the backing of 310 MPs, with 307 voting against him. His CDU urged a second round vote as early as Tuesday but no new date had been set. Other parliamentary factions would have to agree to hold a fresh vote before Friday. According to the constitution a second round of voting has to take place within 14 days. If that fails, then a third phase would take place in which a simple majority of lawmakers -- with yes votes outnumbering no votes -- would suffice to see Merz elected. "Merz will most likely still be elected as chancellor in the end," wrote analyst Holger Schmieding of Berenberg Bank. "But even so, the unprecedented failure to be elected in the first round would still be a bad start for him. It shows that he cannot fully rely on his two coalition parties. "That will sow some doubts about his ability to fully pursue his agenda, damaging his domestic and international authority at least initially." - Far-right cheers - Capital Economics analyst Franziska Palmas also argued that Merz's setback "will probably not prevent him and the Grand Coalition from taking power in the coming days or weeks. "However, it does leave Merz severely weakened and suggests that hopes for more stability in German politics may be disappointed and that the government may struggle to push through its economic policy agenda." Merz had relied on unified backing of a coalition of his CDU/CSU alliance, which won February's general elections, and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) of Scholz, who together have 328 seats. Of the 630 MPs in the lower house, three lawmakers abstained, nine were absent and there was one invalid ballot paper. The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) -- the largest opposition party, which scored a record result of over 20 percent in the election -- cheered the surprise result. "Merz should step aside and the way should be cleared for a general election," said AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, calling the result a "good day for Germany". The result keeps Scholz in the post of caretaker chancellor for now and has upended the political calendar in Berlin. President Frank-Walter Steinmeier had been due to swear in the new cabinet and Merz had planned visits to Paris and Warsaw on Wednesday. Bodo Ramelow of the far-left opposition party Die Linke said he was "angry" that Merz and his designated vice chancellor Lars Klingbeil of the SPD "allowed such a situation" to come about. - 'Profound upheaval' - Germany's political drama has come at a time when Trump has upended long-standing transatlantic security and trade ties and rattled allies by reaching out directly to Russia to end the Ukraine war. Trump has heaped pressure on European allies, complaining that they spend too little on NATO. He has also accused them of taking advantage of the United States by running trade surpluses and has imposed tariffs, a move especially painful to export power Germany. Merz, who boasts a strong business background but has never held a government leadership post, said on Monday: "We live in times of profound change, of profound upheaval... and of great uncertainty. "And that is why we know that it is our historic obligation to lead this coalition to success," he said. Expecting to take power, the coalition has already secured hundreds of billions of euros (dollars) in fiscal firepower under a spending "bazooka" passed by the outgoing parliament. Their stated aim is to rebuild crumbling infrastructure and the long-underfunded military, while boosting an economy which has shrunk for the past two years. The head of the Council of Economic Experts that advises the government, Monika Schnitzer, urged a quick solution, saying that "any form of uncertainty is poison for the economy".
Scoop
24-04-2025
- Business
- Scoop
On The Trump Upside, And Peters Persecution Of Trans People
A recurring aspect of the Trump tariff coverage is that it normalises – or even sanctifies – a status quo that in many respects has been a disaster for working class families. No doubt, Donald Trump is an uncertainty machine that is tanking the stock market and the growth prospects of the global economy. Just as surely, New Zealand will suffer collateral damage, especially if China's economy goes south. But hold on. If the new normal is chaos, the old normal wasn't that great, either. We have had over 30 years of economic policies that have – deliberately, as a point of policy principle – sacrificed secure well-paying jobs and replaced them with low paying insecure ones, relentlessly prioritised shareholder profits over the social good, deferred investment in people, technology and infrastructure, sacrificed environment wellbeing on the altar of economic growth, offloaded costs from central government onto local ratepayers and so on and on. Subsequently, when the people displaced and the communities ravaged by these policies turned to drugs and crime, successive governments have spent money on locking them up so that the public can then 'feel safe.' There is so much chatter about how divided we now are, as a nation. Yet for the past 30-40 years, our two major parties have been remarkably unified in their indifference to the social repercussions of the economic settings. For years, Labour and National have broadly agreed on the 'need' to increase defence spending, widened the powers of the security agencies, allowed an unelected central bank to set monetary policy, accepted the wisdom of unfettered free trade, and embraced opening up this country to foreign investment and ownership. Labour and National have also agreed on (not) splitting up the supermarket duopoly, on (not) addressing the obscene level of bank profits, on (not) having a wealth tax or a capital gains tax, on abetting the underfunding and creeping privatisation of public health, on perpetuating inadequate benefit levels, on (not) borrowing in order to end child poverty etc etc. In short, New Zealand has been governed for decades by a neo-liberal Grand Coalition, and it has proved to be a social disaster. Yes, by all means berate Trump and his fascist ways and means. Yet the monetary settings and the trade and investment policies that he is up-ending, have never been benign. So spare us the media pearl-clutching about what Donald Trump is doing to the natural order of things. Perhaps instead, we need to treat Trump II as a pandemic/climate change scale of convulsion that offers as much of an opportunity as it does a threat. If we don't take that come Election 2026, the best that the centre-left can hope for (and work for) will be the goal of returning Labour to power. Good grief. The last time around on that carousel, voters gave Labour a golden chance to radically transform our socio-economic settings – but the Ardern/Hipkins administration ran in terror from the prospect. Let's not waste time on that again. Peters pandering So the UK now has a legal definition of a 'woman' based on their biology, and Winston Peters wants Parliament to decree likewise here. The goal being to marginalise trans and non-binary people (even more than they are already) from social life in general and from the nation's sports fields and public restrooms in particular. What Peters appears to want is for trans people – and anyone experiencing gender dysphoria – to be defined out of having a visible social presence. Otherwise they will be at risk of facing mandatory testing if they should ever walk in future into a single-sex defined space, or tried to compete in a single-sex defined sport. You have to wonder how many trans people Winston Peters has ever met. Likewise, how many of the people supposedly worried sick about the threat that trans people allegedly pose to cis-genedred society have ever had a conversation with such a person? Not many, one can safely bet. In the meantime, and as we wait to see if Peters' bill gets drawn from the members' ballot, trans people will continue to be a vanishingly minor presence on the sports field or in public restrooms or anywhere else where the people who fear and resent them tend to gather. While Peters struts and poses, trans people will continue to have a lower life expectancy than almost any other group in society, while also being at more risk of physical violence, intimidation and self harm. As this Waikato Univerrsity-led research report found in February: Over the past four years, 19% of participants received threats of physical violence due to being trans and non-binary. More than two in five reported attempted or forced sexual intercourse, over double the general population rate, including more often than women overall. Discrimination also remained widespread, exacerbated by hostile social media environments. And furthermore: 'Participants feared discrimination or violence at school, work, while playing sports, and in many public spaces, simply for being trans or non-binary,' said Jack Byrne, co-principaliInvestigator and honorary research fellow at the University of Waikato. More than half felt unsafe using public transportation at night - more than double the rate of women in the general population, and 43% frequently avoided public bathrooms, up from 33% in 2018. The Waikato report reveals a worsening social climate for trans and non-binary people over the past five years. The extensive Counting Ourselves report in 2022 contained findings (pages 120-122) on – for example – the extensive bullying at secondary school of trans and non-binary students. Some schools, the report acknowledges, are better than others at promoting a safe and inclusive environment. Some are not so good: ...Schools that ignore trans and non-binary young people, discriminate against them, or treat them poorly, can cause stress and harm students' wellbeing, attendance, and achievement. For some young people, these harmful and abusive school environments can have lifelong negative effects. Point being, Winston Peters is making political gains out of stoking fear and resentment against what is already the most vulnerable community in our society – and doing so, ostensibly, in the name of women. Yet as Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick said on RNZ this morning, if that was Peters' true motivation, he would be out there campaigning for better funding for women's healthcare and refuge needs, and in support of a myriad other more pressing issues that are actually being faced by women in the real world. Three-time winner? On another track...A few weeks before the IMF revised downwards its growth projections for the global economy, Donald Trump was already talking about the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House. At the time, Werewolf claimed this would be 'unconstitutional.' Well, not so. Ever since President Franklin served two terms and died before completing a third, it has been commonly understood that a subsequent amendment to the US Constitution has limited US Presidents to only two terms in office. Yet... that's not quite what the 22nd Amendment says. The 22nd Amendment says instead: ' No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...' The key word there is ' elected.' If, in election year 2028, Trump ran as Vice-President, and the person heading the ticket then stood aside, Trump could lawfully succeed to the presidency, right? Not so fast. Elsewhere, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution winds up by saying that 'No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.' Phew. That would seem to rule out the 'J.D. Vance as Trojan Horse for Trump in 2028' election gambit. Yet that safeguard doesn't apply further down the succession line. If in early 2029, Trump was elected Speaker of the House, and then both the elected President and elected Vice-President stood aside, then Trump as House Speaker would be next in the line of succession. Sure, this would violate the spirit of the Constitution. Good luck with that as a defence against Trump becoming President for Life. The House Speaker route to power would put Trump back in the White House for a third term without him violating the wording of America's founding document. Not saying it will happen. But it could. By the end of his third term, Donald Trump would be 86 years old. Secret Springsteen A few weeks ago, Bruce Springsteen released a box set of seven full length albums consisting in total of 74 previously unheard songs (and 8 previously unheard alternative versions) recorded between 1983 and 2018. Not only does this trove of music revise a few commonly held perceptions about the creative arc of his career. More to the point, it includes a lot of new music that precedes his decline into bombast and over-singing, not to mention his sometimes hammy, working class 'son of the soil' phase. Instead of all that, many of these tracks are simply arranged and (crucially) they're well sung. Like this one: On a more familiar epic scale, there's 'Rain In The River.' The video does juxtapose Old Bruce with some shadowy age-inappropriate women, but I guess these are just an old man's memories and regrets, rather than any creepy May/December sort of thing:
Muscat Daily
08-04-2025
- Business
- Muscat Daily
Could France's Macron be the new leader of Europe?
Berlin, Germany – For years, Germany had been seen as the leading light of Europe – both politically and economically powerful, and with a figurehead in the form of Angela Merkel who was instantly recognisable on the continent and internationally. Her retirement, a comparatively unstable successor government led by the centre-left's Olaf Scholz, and the difficult passage through the economic turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic, saw Germany's European star dull. Across the border, Emmanuel Macron – no stranger to his own domestic political battles – has emerged as Europe's most important national leader amid the global shocks wrought by the second Trump administration and its hostile posture towards traditional European allies. Changing face of European leadership Germany is without a government, but is expected to return to a 'Grand Coalition' led by Friedrich Merz and his centre-right Union with a junior partner in the centre-left Social Democrats. But while these establishment parties thrash out the terms of their political alliance, Europe's most powerful economy is stuck with a caretaker government during Donald Trump's barrage of tariffs and the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. While Macron has always been among the world's most recognisable national leaders, he has been particularly vocal amid current turmoil, and comfortably wears the hats of both French president and an ambassador for Europe. 'He has a European message and this message is coordinated, but in the end, he's the President of France,' said Gesine Weber, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund specialising in European security. 'The two are, of course, interlinked because most European interests are also French interests and vice versa.' As European leaders scope out increased defence spending and even concepts of unified defence, Macron has even gone as far as to put the expansion of France's domestic nuclear shield back on the table, to the chagrin of Russia. In other areas of foreign policy, Macron has been trying to advance European interests along French lines: 'Europe has become very French over the last five years,' Weber points out. After a slow start, Macron has put himself in the middle of advancing the continent's interests on Ukraine and, now, in addressing tariffs. His incumbency and pre-existing relationship with Donald Trump from the US President's first term also uniquely position him to engage the United States. 'He was the first head-of-state or government among Europeans that was able to establish – or reestablish – a relationship with Trump,' says Weber. Macron's moment closing fast Macron is a 'lame duck' president, with limits on the French presidency limiting the role to two consecutive terms. With the next election due in 2027, that leaves just two years for Macron to realise his vision for France and Europe. Jacob Ross, a research fellow in Franco-German Relations at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) said France is well-positioned to lead Europe through this fractious period. 'Intellectually at least, the French are in a very good position right now to take leadership,' Ross said. Ross points to France's traditional stance of thinking about its role – and Europe's larger place in the world – autonomously, and not through a US-centric lens. But France's autonomous viewpoint isn't enough for it to claim a standalone place as Europe's quasi-leader. 'They are in such a difficult position with regards to their sovereign debt situation, with very little room for manoeuvre in terms of expanding national budgets, including on defence,' Ross said. 'With regard to ideas, Macron takes leadership and has been doing so since 2017 and now the environment really favours his position. But France lacks the material base to really put that forward on its own.' Another hurdle for Macron's pro-Europe vision is the rise of his former Eurosceptic presidential rival Marine Le Pen, who is seeking to take a recent conviction barring her from running in 2027 and turn it into political momentum. Questions over singular European 'leader' Both Ross and Weber say a singular Merkel-like European figure is less likely amid the fractious period of deteriorating relations with the US to the west, ongoing conflict with Russia to the east, and rising populists and far-right parties at home. Amid Donald Trump's protectionist 'America First' doctrine and war on the continent, strengthening traditional alliances like the 'E3' France-Germany-Britain triumvirate may be the best bet for Europeans, and Franco-German leadership with another powerful ally across the English Channel. 'A certainty is the Franco-German dynamic will remain strong in the foreseeable future, at least in the next two years,' said Ross. 'The French know that Macron and his pro-European stance will be at risk beyond 2027, with the presidential election coming up. '(They'll) try to pressure the Germans into getting important steps done before 2027.' DW
Times of Oman
08-04-2025
- Business
- Times of Oman
Could France's Macron be the new leader of Europe?
Berlin: For years, Germany had been seen as the leading light of Europe — both politically and economically powerful, and with a figurehead in the form of Angela Merkel who was instantly recognisable on the continent and internationally. Her retirement, a comparatively unstable successor government led by the center-left's Olaf Scholz, and the difficult passage through the economic turmoil of the COVID-19 pandemic, saw Germany's European star dull. Across the border, Emmanuel Macron — no stranger to his own domestic political battles — has emerged as Europe's most important national leader amid the global shocks wrought by the second Trump administration and its hostile posture towards traditional European allies. Changing face of European leadership Germany is without a government, but is expected to return to a "Grand Coalition" led by Friedrich Merz and his center-right Union with a junior partner in the center-left Social Democrats. But while these establishment parties thrash out the terms of their political alliance, Europe's most powerful economy is stuck with a caretaker government during Donald Trump's barrage of tariffs and the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. While Macron has always been among the world's most recognizable national leaders, he has been particularly vocal amid current turmoil, and comfortably wears the hats of both French president and an ambassador for Europe. "He has a European message and this message is coordinated, but in the end, he's the President of France," said Gesine Weber, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund specializing in European security. "The two are, of course, interlinked because most European interests are also French interests and vice versa." As European leaders scope out increased defense spending and even concepts of unified defense, Macron has even gone as far as to put the expansion of France's domestic nuclear shield back on the table, to the chagrin of Russia. In other areas of foreign policy, Macron has been trying to advance European interests along French lines: "Europe has become very French over the last five years," Weber points out. After a slow start, Macron has put himself in the middle of advancing the continent's interests on Ukraine and, now, in addressing tariffs. His incumbency and pre-existing relationship with Donald Trump from the US President's first term also uniquely position him to engage the United States. "He was the first head-of-state or government among Europeans that was able to establish — or reestablish — a relationship with Trump," says Weber. Macron's moment closing fast Macron is a "lame duck" president, with limits on the French presidency limiting the role to two consecutive terms. With the next election due in 2027, that leaves just two years for Macron to realize his vision for France and Europe. Jacob Ross, a research fellow in Franco-German Relations at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) said France is well-positioned to lead Europe through this fractious period. "Intellectually at least, the French are in a very good position right now to take leadership," Ross said. Ross points to France's traditional stance of thinking about its role — and Europe's larger place in the world — autonomously, and not through a US-centric lens. But France's autonomous viewpoint isn't enough for it to claim a standalone place as Europe's quasi-leader. "They are in such a difficult position with regards to their sovereign debt situation, with very little room for maneuver in terms of expanding national budgets, including on defense," Ross said. "With regard to ideas, Macron takes leadership and has been doing so since 2017 and now the environment really favors his position. But France lacks the material base to really put that forward on its own." Another hurdle for Macron's pro-Europe vision is the rise of his former Euroskeptic presidential rival Marine Le Pen, who is seeking to take a recent conviction barring her from running in 2027 and turn it into political momentum. Questions over singular European 'leader' Both Ross and Weber say a singular Merkel-like European figure is less likely amid the fractious period of deteriorating relations with the US to the west, ongoing conflict with Russia to the east, and rising populists and far-right parties at home. Amid Donald Trump's protectionist "America First" doctrine and war on the continent, strengthening traditional alliances like the "E3" France-Germany-Britain triumvirate may be the best bet for Europeans, and Franco-German leadership with another powerful ally across the English Channel. "A certainty is the Franco-German dynamic will remain strong in the foreseeable future, at least in the next two years," said Ross. "The French know that Macron and his pro European stance will be at risk beyond 2027, with the presidential election coming up.
