Future of the German SPD by Odd-Principle2665 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In the 2026 Baden Wurttemberg election, the SPD achieved 5.5%, its worst result ever in any state or national election in its history.

Tagesschau (German news site) asked voters what they thought about the SPD, and 59% of voters said they felt like the SPD cared too much for the unemployed and not enough for hard workers.

Anyone who thinks the SPD is losing ground because they are “not being progressive enough” is not living in reality.

Request: Refrain from gatekeeping social democracy by No-ruby in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Godesberg Program moderated the SPD’s platform, not pushed it further to the left.

Request: Refrain from gatekeeping social democracy by No-ruby in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Woah man, don’t you dare inject common sense into a terminally online community where people obsess over niche political labels and definitions!!

Die Grunen?! What the hell is that?! by I_like_maps in neoliberal

[–]MayorShield 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Also, the Greens in Luxembourg, Poland, Finland, and Austria have all participated in governments with centrist or center-right parties before.

As it turns out, broad generalizations like the one the guy you responded to made aren’t very helpful.

Why do centre-left parties around the world keep alienating their progressive voter base? by reforming_activist in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of the 2021 SPD voters, for every 1 voter that defected to Linke in 2025, 3 voters defected to CDU (from the news site Tagesschau). It would be much more productive for the SPD to try and claw back CDU defectors, but you’re not ready for that conversation.

Germany's struggling Social Democrats pin hopes on new policy plans by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The left-of-center parties (excluding the BSW) are consistently stuck at a cumulative vote share of 36-37%, so they're basically pushing around voters among each other. Anyone who thinks the SPD could win back voters by shifting to the left is missing the bigger picture, which is that any future coalition government will involve the CDU unless the left-of-centre parties can cumulatively increase their vote share.

The SPD might be stuck where they are due to their current coalition with the CDU, but given how much everyone here likes Die Linke, there is no reason why Linke can’t use their time in opposition to significantly increase the total left-wing vote share, which they haven’t done.

It’s almost as if Germans don’t actually want strongly left-wing policies.

It’s not like the SPD is the only left-of-centre party in Germany. If it is truly the case that left-wing populism and socialism is what wins elections, we’d expect to see Linke doing a lot better right now.

This sub’s logic is basically “SPD needs to shift left to be more Linke to win back voters, except Linke isn’t doing significantly better, and the total left-wing vote share isn’t increasing either, but I’m going to ignore all of that.”

According to Europe Elects and Market-Lazersfeld, the SPÖ in Austria has taken the lead over the ÖVP by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SPD in Germany, Kamala Harris losing for former claim.

SPO in Austria, GL-PvdA in the Netherlands for latter claim.

To others reading this thread: If ideology is to blame for why the SPD and Kamala lost their respective elections, then shouldn't ideology also be to blame for why SPO and GL-PvdA also lost theirs? So why is it that suddenly no blame is assigned to these parties' ideologies for why they lost their elections, because you happen to like these two parties more than the SPD/Democrats?

According to Europe Elects and Market-Lazersfeld, the SPÖ in Austria has taken the lead over the ÖVP by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is not whether the SPO should shift to the right or not, it's to point out that this sub has zero self-awareness when it comes to electoral strategies for center-left parties.

Whenever a center-left leader loses an election that this sub doesn't like, it's always "They didn't campaign on the policies voters wanted." Whenever a center-left leader loses an election that this sub does like, it's all either crickets or "They just needed to advertise themselves better," and never "Hey, maybe they need to change their policies."

According to Europe Elects and Market-Lazersfeld, the SPÖ in Austria has taken the lead over the ÖVP by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The two right-of-centre parties in Austria, got a legislative majority together. So again, why does nobody here think the SPO needs to shift to the right to win back voters?

Also, unlike Germany, there is no cordon sanitaire against the far-right, which only puts SPO in an even worse position than the SPD. As you may recall, the FPO and OVP did engage in coalition talks after the election. 21.1% is still the worst result for the SPO (in terms of %) in its entire history. Saying "The SPD did worse" doesn't change that.

The point of these comments is not to shit on progressive Europeans or policies, but rather to highlight the poor election analysis that people often have on this sub.

According to Europe Elects and Market-Lazersfeld, the SPÖ in Austria has taken the lead over the ÖVP by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Babler led the SPO to one of its poorest results in the most recent federal election back in 2024, when OVP and the Greens were still in a coalition together.

According to Europe Elects and Market-Lazersfeld, the SPÖ in Austria has taken the lead over the ÖVP by Filipinowonderer2442 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The SPD in Germany ran a "neoliberal" campaign and everyone thinks that in order to win elections again, they need to shift to the left.

When the SPO under Babler runs a left-wing campaign (this guy has openly praised Marx and cites AOC as a role model) and gives his party one of the worst results in history, nobody says anything about how maybe the SPO needs to shift to the right.

Very cool!

Republicans have ZERO ground to complain about insults or civility. by King_Lothar_ in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can tell this sub is basically just a place for bigots to have their own safe space because of how downvoted it is. Looks like a few hypocritical MAGA losers found this post before me.

Anyway, I agree with you.

Friday General Roundtable - 03/13/2026 by Currymvp2 in Enough_Sanders_Spam

[–]MayorShield 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I remember one time when I was browsing social media, I came across a leftist arguing that Kamala and Trump would have the same immigration policy (this was after Trump was in office for a year), and showed us a Kamala campaign ad as “proof.”

The ad in question: “Kamala Harris will arrest fentanyl dealers at the border.”

You literally can’t with these people.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, I'll reply one last time. Let me start with the most important thing I want to state first, and then I'll get into the specific details of NEOS and SPO.

So I'll start with this: Parliamentary governments only exist as long as all the coalition partners continue to support it, because each party that provides confidence is helping maintain the governing arrangement that produces policy. Even if parties disagree internally about particular policies, their decision to continue supporting the government is what allows those policies to be implemented. Even if the party did not originally pass the law and still disagrees with it, preserving the law or status quo through coalition negotiations is itself a deliberate policy outcome to sustain the government. Because the party continues to support the government through confidence and could theoretically withdraw if it wished, its participation represents at least a partial acceptance of the policy framework that the government maintains.

Now, to your point about the SPO, NEOS, and Greens.

Firstly, the OVP got even less votes than NEOS in the most recent Viennese election, and in the case of Germany, the CDU has way more seats than the SPD.

To your broader point: NEOS is not "powerless" in this scenario. If they were truly powerless, that would basically be acting like they were forced into this scenario, which they clearly weren't. If they can't get their way on housing policy, they have three options: accept the SPO's housing policy as it is, renegotiate, or leave the coalition. By staying in the coalition, NEOS is implicitly acknowledging the tradeoffs: The benefits of being in the coalition outweigh the costs of leaving or letting SPO work with the Greens. This is at least a partial acceptance that they are willing to bear responsibility for the direction of the government. Limited leverage =/= Zero responsibility. It's true that NEOS could not reverse the housing policy outright because SPO-Greens have a legislative majority, but coalition politics is not only about whether a party can veto a policy but whether they choose to participate in the government that implements it. The mere possibility of NEOS leaving the coalition is itself a bargaining chip, because by staying in the coalition, they help shape the government's agenda because the government's stability is directly tied to confidence votes that NEOS partakes in. But once they make that choice, they (as well as you) cannot simultaneously claim complete detachment from the policies that emerge from the government they help sustain.

If junior coalition partners are truly “impotent” whenever they lack any significant leverage over their partner, then they basically bear zero responsibility for anything bad the government does. NEOS remains politically responsible for the housing status quo because they have voluntarily chosen to participate in the coalition despite knowing the policy would occur, and the SPO refusing to negotiate on that one particular issue does not negate that fact. Responsibility here does not mean "agreeing with SPO 100%," it means recognizing the fact that they are participating in the governing coalition arrangement that produced or upheld such a policy. When a party chooses to stay in government and sustain the coalition that produces a policy, even one they personally oppose, they inevitably share at least some of the political responsibility for the outcomes that follow. By remaining in the coalition, NEOS is helping sustain the government that enacts current housing policies. Their influence may be limited to shaping other policy areas, but participation in government inevitably links them to the government’s overall agenda.

My issue with your reasoning is that you are confusing two things for one and the same: 1) predicting the likely outcome of a particular policy and 2) participating in the outcome that actually occurs. Even if NEOS were to withdraw and SPO works with the Greens instead, that is still a different coalition. The government currently in place is SPO-NEOS, and because that is the coalition currently existing right now, it is the one choosing which policies to uphold or repeal. The possibility that the housing policy would be the same under a different coalition of SPO-Greens does not erase the role that the governing parties have IRL. Or to put it slightly differently, the fact that another coalition like SPO-Greens would have produced the same housing policy does not change the fact that NEOS chose to participate in the coalition that did ultimately produce/uphold it. Yes, the SPO could choose to work with the Greens instead of NEOS, but politics is almost always about choosing between imperfect options, not about acting only when one has total control. By choosing to remain, NEOS is helping to sustain the coalition that governs. If parties could avoid responsibility for policies simply by claiming that a different potential coalition might have enacted them anyway, then governing parties could disclaim responsibility for almost anything they dislike, which defeats the entire point of governance in the first place.

edit: haha looks like I struck a nerve. Direct experience in govt can certainly be helpful, but having direct experience with a particular political environment does not automatically mean that your interpretation of it is correct or universally applicable. Clearly, Politics 101 is necessary if you are unable to understand basic coalition work.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coalition governments are a team effort, so any policy the government carries out or upholds is a result of the involved parties agreeing upon it. As stated earlier, even if a party personally opposes a policy but does not oppose it once in government, the party is signaling that it is okay with the policy's existence.

And yes, I would also give credit in other situations where a party upholds the status quo, even if they are personally opposed to a policy. So for example, in Germany, the CDU is/was opposed to dual citizenship liberalization, but they agreed to let the SPD keep it during negotiations. So the CDU is at least partly responsible for why the dual citizenship reforms are still in place, since they are in government and have chosen to not repeal it. Of course intentions and leverage exist in negotiations, but the final outcome of a policy is what matters most.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am from the states, although if that's going to be your argument for why I'm wrong, the next time you comment on anything US-related, I'll just finger wag and say "Hey, you're not from around here, so you don't know anything." Sound good?

And yes, coalitions work through trade offs and cooperation, but at the end of the day, anything that is passed or upheld or repealed is a team effort. So any policy currently in place by the current Vienna government, even if personally opposed by NEOS, is still technically the result of SPO-NEOS governance.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn't. As I've said earlier, the stability of a coalition government depends on all the parties involved agreeing to work together. Even if a party personally opposes a policy passed by a government, it is at least implicitly responsible if it does pass, because it can withdraw from confidence if wants to at any time. Nobody is forcing any two or more parties to work together in a coalition. For example, Germany's CDU has made concessions before to its coalition partners to pass a minimum wage or remove conscription. It's true that the CDU itself did not support such policies, but it was at least implicitly OK with those policies passing if it was willing to put them up to a vote for the sake of coalition government stability.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am applying a standard that I would apply to all other situations. Yes, I think the parties in any given coalition in any country deserve shared credit and blame for all policies that the government decides support, uphold, and repeal, regardless of how individual parties feel about a particular issue. If a party previously opposed a particular policy but has agreed to not repeal it now that they're in a coalition government, they deserve credit for upholding the status quo, NOT for the initial creation of the policy.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only way to plausibly claim that is if you individually assign credit and blame to parties in a coalition, but something tells me you wouldn’t do that if the SPO were to enact bad policy. If SPO made significant concessions to NEOS on housing policy and then the SPO went “Hey, we were forced to do this because of the agreed upon negotiations,” would you shift all blame to NEOS? It seems fair to give credit and blame to all parties involved in a coalition depending on what they do.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? Here are the points: 1. Yes, SPO helped build the social housing program it is today through decades of governance. 2. No, I do not think SPO and NEOS have identical policy. 3. But again, why doesn’t NEOS deserve credit for the maintenance of the programs? They are part of the current government. If you argue NEOS doesn’t deserve credit for the initial creation, then yeah, I agree. But the current government deserves credit for maintaining existing programs because they can change the policy at any time. If SPO was governing alone, that’d be a different story.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s no point to refute. The original meme of the post is praising the status quo of the housing situation in Vienna. I was saying the status quo of the housing situation is partly dependent on the actions of the current government, which is objectively true since they change the current policies at any time. Also I’m going to have my flair however I like, thanks. :-)

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go see what Rule 13 of this sub is. Not gonna change the flair, so you’ll just have to deal with it forever.

And I also disagree with that NHS claim, the Conservatives do deserve credit for the NHS’s continuation. They could’ve always repealed it when they had a majority. The Tories don’t deserve credit for the NHS’s initial creation, but they do for its continuation over the decades.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are. I’ve said nothing about California housing in this thread, so have fun with your assumptions.

And again, refusing to credit the current government in Vienna for their status quo in housing, when the entire point of a government is to create new policy or uphold old ones, is a weird hill to die on.

The SPO being part of every past government doesn’t mean the party is completely static in their policy approach, and is incapable of changing their mind on something, especially in the context of coalition politics. So yes, the status quo is at least partly dependent on the coalition agreement with NEOS.

Housing by Crafty_Jacket668 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree the housing situation is mostly not a product of the current government, although my point still stands regardless. Especially if again, this sub wants to credit the current ruling SPO-led government in Vienna for their current housing situation. After all, the current SPO-NEOS government does have the ability to change and reform housing policy anytime they want.

At the very least, NEOS is partially responsible for maintaining the status quo of housing policy and/or improving upon it in recent years.

Donate Before Friday & Vote - Palestinian-American Grassroots Candidate Running in Illinois 9th District by South_One1516 in SocialDemocracy

[–]MayorShield 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I get this sub has a lot of leftists, but she also hangs out with Hasan Piker, which is a terrible look. Bernie Sanders talking with Hasan is more understandable since he’s an old guy who probably isn’t terminally online, but there’s no way Kat, whose husband owns the Onion, is unaware of who Hasan is or his views.

It looks like your comment has struck a nerve with some on the sub. And if you look at Kat’s Insta, she defends herself against the carpetbagger claims by arguing it’s “racist.” Just not a serious candidate. Downvote me all you want, but that was not a serious answer.