Who with whom?

In the past few days, the parties have already begun to sound out their options - not in the formal sense, as will happen after the election on Sunday, but in informal contacts.

It's about the points that coalitions offer or stand in their way.

Open signals, however, served more as a tactical threading shortly before the final spurt in the election campaign than as offers to the rivals.

Jasper von Altenbockum

Responsible editor for domestic politics.

  • Follow I follow

The Left Party in particular let it be known that it was not ready for anything, but ready for much, in order to govern with the SPD and the Greens.

The CDU / CSU and FDP, on the other hand, are watching each other in the direction of “Jamaica” or “traffic lights”.

The intersection parties, the FDP and the Greens, play the main role - in the end it could be that they look for the Chancellor, not the other way around.

Which irritating topics, which points play the most important role?

If the FDP and the Greens have to decide with whom they want to govern, the exploratory paper of the failed Jamaica talks of November 2017 should play an interesting role.

The two parties were still lying apart in many brackets, the negotiations were then broken on the solidarity surcharge - the CDU / CSU and SPD later had no major problems navigating this cliff.

Around this surcharge - the FDP and CDU / CSU want to abolish it completely, not only partially as it is now - an agreement will only be possible if a tax package is put together: there is agreement (also with the SPD) on relief for middle and lower incomes but not a tax hike for top earners.

If the SPD or the Greens do without it, the FDP will hardly be able to prevail even after the award ends.

Minimum wage of 12 euros only guaranteed with the Left Party

In Jamaica it's the other way around - if the FDP wins this time with the surcharge, the Greens will not want to forego a higher top tax rate. A compromise could be a higher limit from which a higher top tax rate should apply. The bottom line is that the burden and relief could be distributed in a similar way as in the traffic light coalition: Yes, end of the surcharge, but more peak burden. A reallocation of the award would also be conceivable, in case of doubt for the climate. Jamaica and traffic lights would then be close together. And the wealth tax? Jamaica: no. Traffic light: yes, but with the proviso "we are checking ..." (for example by the Federal Constitutional Court). Red-green-red: for sure.

A second cliff is the minimum wage.

Olaf Scholz has carelessly promised (and then skilfully relativized) that with him as Chancellor there will soon have to be twelve euros.

He can just get this through with the Greens and the Left Party.

The Left Party wants 13 euros, but is willing to compromise.

CDU / CSU and FDP are against a “political” increase, insist on the vote of the collective bargaining parties.

However, they do not want to completely rule out an increase - the question is in what time frame and who will make the decision.

The Greens could get involved in a similarly curious formulation, as it is in the exploratory paper of 2017: "The minimum wage applies".

When which will be found.

That could also be signed by the FDP.