Cheat sheet on Germany's colour-coded politics
Confused? Here is a cheat sheet for Germany's colour-coded party politics ahead of the pivotal vote in Europe's most populous country and biggest economy.
Every German party is traditionally associated with a colour, and national flags and other imagery are commonly used as shorthand for possible coalition combinations.
Here are Germany's main parties, their colours, leaders and what they stand for:
- Red: Social Democratic Party (SPD) -
The centre-left party of embattled Chancellor Olaf Scholz, 66, is Germany's oldest with origins in a labour association founded in the mid-1800s.
Its key demands are fair wages, safe pensions and social benefits, and its symbol is a red rose.
The SPD prides itself on its principled opposition to the Nazis before it was banned and its members exiled.
Party lore says that dialogue with Moscow, rather than confrontation, helped end the Cold War.
Prominent former SPD chancellors include Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt and Gerhard Schroeder.
- Black: Christian Democratic Union (CDU) -
Germany's main conservative party, led by former corporate lawyer Friedrich Merz, 69, prioritises boosting the economy, law and order and traditional social values.
Merz has promised to steer the party back to its right-wing roots, away from the more centrist course charted by former chancellor Angela Merkel.
He has vowed to strongly restrict irregular immigration and perhaps bring back nuclear energy, phased out under Merkel.
The CDU is in a permanent alliance with Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU) led by Markus Soeder.
Well-known former CDU chancellors include the first post-WWII leader Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl, dubbed the father of Germany's 1990 reunification.
- Yellow: Free Democratic Party (FDP) -
The FDP, which promotes liberal economic policies and small government, was long Germany's main "third party" and has had a key role in building and bringing down governments.
Its leader, former finance minister Christian Lindner, 46, provoked the government crisis that came to a head when Scholz fired him on November 6.
The turmoil recalled a 1982 power play when the FDP switched sides, bringing down Schmidt, who was replaced by Kohl.
The FDP is sometimes mocked as the party of the rich but sees itself as a watchdog against government overreach, bureaucracy and red tape.
- Green: Alliance 90/The Greens -
The Greens emerged from the environmental, anti-nuclear and peace protest movement of the 1970s.
Its first MPs were elected in the early 1980s and they shocked the staid Bundestag when they showed up in knitted pullovers and put their feet on the benches.
But the party has since firmly entered the mainstream and advocates strong military support for Ukraine against Russia.
The current alliance was built in 1993 with activist groups from the formerly communist East Germany.
Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, 55, is the top election candidate of the Greens, which is also the party of Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock.
- Blue: Alternative for Germany (AfD) -
The far-right party started off a decade ago as a eurosceptic fringe party but has since embraced a virulent anti-immigration agenda.
It railed against Merkel's 2015 green light to allow in more than a million migrants, many from war-torn Syria.
AfD politicians tend to doubt climate change, hold pro-Moscow positions and support US President Donald Trump whose ally Elon Musk has strongly backed the AfD.
Some AfD key figures have used Nazi-era phrases, and the domestic security services consider elements in the party to be extremists, fuelling calls to ban it.
With its top candidate Alice Weidel, 46, the AfD has been polling at around 20 percent, with most of its support in the ex-communist east.
All other parties have committed to an anti-AfD "firewall" of non-cooperation, although Merz breached this in late January when he accepted AfD support in parliament to pass a motion calling for an immigration crackdown.
- Violet: Linke and Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW) -
Germany's two far-left parties have hovered around the five-percent cutoff mark for reentry into parliament.
Die Linke has enjoyed a late poll surge above that mark, boosted by a spirited anti-fascist speech by its top candidate Heidi Reichinnek, 36.
The Linke's former leading figure, Sahra Wagenknecht, 55, left last year to form her own "left-wing conservative" BSW, which is sceptical of immigration.
Wagenknecht, who grew up in the communist East, promotes anti-capitalist views and opposes NATO, has struggled to maintain the initial buzz around her new party.
- Colourful coalitions -
Scholz's collapsed red-yellow-green coalition was dubbed the "traffic light" government.
In 2017 Germany almost got a black-yellow-green "Jamaica" coalition, before the FDP pulled out of talks.
Polling suggests Germany could next be headed for a CDU-led "black-red" grand coalition with the SPD that may need a third partner.
If the FDP were to join in, their colours would match the national flag for a "Germany" coalition.
If instead the Greens joined, this would lead to a black-red-green "Kenya" coalition.
Also seen at the state level before, but highly unlikely at the national level, is a black-red-violet alliance of the CDU, SPD and BSW, dubbed the "blackberry".
bur-fz/gv
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Iran to Hold Nuclear Talks With 3 European Countries
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Leaders from Iran, Germany, France, and Britain are finalizing plans to discuss Tehran's nuclear program, a major source of global tension, "in the coming week," a German diplomatic source told Newsweek on Sunday. Newsweek has reached out to press representatives for France, Britain, and Iran via email for comment on Sunday. Why It Matters Iran's nuclear program has long been a source of international concern. In 2015, Iran and several world powers including France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement aimed at limiting Tehran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The JCPOA is set to expire in October. The United States withdrew from the accord in 2018 under the Trump administration, reimposing sanctions and reigniting diplomatic friction. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes, while the U.S. and some of its allies like Israel have accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons capability. Tensions spiked again last month when the U.S. conducted airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, prompting Iranian retaliation with a strike on a U.S. military base in Qatar. What To Know The three European countries, known as the E3, "are in contact with Iran to arrange further talks in the coming week," a German diplomatic source told Newsweek in an email Sunday. Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency reported a source informed on the matter, saying, "The principle of talks has been agreed upon, but consultations are continuing on the time and place of the talks. The country in which the talks could be held next week has not been finalized." The organization of talks with E3 leaders and Iran comes just days after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held discussions with French, German and European Union (EU) officials. That was the first formal call since the Israel-Iran war. A German diplomatic source told Newsweek that "Iran must never possess nuclear weapons." They added: "Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution that addresses the security interests of the international community is essential." The source continued: "If such a solution is not achieved by the end of the summer, the snapback mechanism will remain an option for the E3. We continue to coordinate closely with our E3 and U.S. partners on this issue." The E3 have warned they will trigger a "snapback" of sanctions on Iran by the end of summer if Tehran does not make progress on a nuclear deal. The snapback mechanism embedded in the 2015 deal allows sanctions to be reimposed if Tehran is found noncompliant. Washington and Tehran held five rounds of nuclear talks mediated by Oman this year. Talks halted after Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," a military campaign against Iran that it said was meant to preempt a reportedly planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities. The war intensified when the U.S. joined and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, in the largest B-2 operation in U.S. history. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attends the 17th annual BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 7. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attends the 17th annual BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 7. AP Photo/Eraldo Peres What People Are Saying Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week: "If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly, and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they lack absolutely [any] moral and legal ground." French President Emmanuel Macron said last month: "We don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But the biggest error would be to use military strikes to change the regime because it would then be chaos and our responsibility is to return discussions as quickly as possible to be able to set a course again on the nuclear and ballistic question." What Happens Next? Details regarding the place and timing of the talks are still being finalized. Tasnim reported that the talks would be carried out by the foreign ministers of the four countries.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Mamdani would make New York a gloomy city of handouts and moochers
For centuries, New York City was the place strivers came to make something of their lives — where smarts, hard work and grit turned pushcarts into prosperity, and where the streets were paved with gold for those willing to mine them. Success in New York was always tougher than anyplace else. Making it here meant you could make it anywhere. Only the very poor received charity or government assistance, and only enough to help them get on their feet and start helping themselves. Advertisement Zohran Mamdani has a very different philosophy. Much of his 'affordability agenda' isn't targeted to the neediest — but to New Yorkers who should be paying their own way. Take fare-free buses: The city already offers a half-price 'Fair Fares' program for low-income bus and subway riders. Advertisement Free buses would be available to everyone, including well-paid professionals and even loathed billionaires. Food stamps, too, are means-tested, but city-run grocery stores wouldn't stop millionaires from scooping up avocados at below-market prices. Plenty of wealthy people already live in rent-stabilized apartments, so freezing the rent would benefit some rich tenants at landlords' expense, even those small landlords who are less well-off than their tenants. Advertisement But Mamdani isn't asking everyone to share the burden evenly by raising taxes across the board. He wants to tax corporations and the wealthiest. It's welfare for the upper-middle class, with no strings attached. It's also a paradigm shift, a belief that government — not our own efforts — should guarantee security. The traditional American free market rewards those who work hard, delay gratification and take risks. Advertisement Those efforts benefit wider society — making companies more productive, adding to the tax base through growth and extending new opportunities for others. In much of the country, homeownership is the reward for these sacrifices — a marker of having earned one's place in society and holding a stake in a stable neighborhood. In rental-heavy New York, paying rent for a comfortable place confers a similar status. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Rent stabilization, by contrast, provides these benefits through government mandate. Stabilized tenants can pass along a legal entitlement to live in the below-market apartment to family members and even in some cases to non-related co-residents. Unsurprisingly, these tenants rarely give up their sweetheart deals, making it harder for younger New Yorkers to find a foothold. Doubling down on these programs would make New Yorkers more dependent on them — and on the government. As always, those who benefit from a government program have a strong stake in seeing it continue — and they vote. Mamdani's proposals are tailor-made for his base of young, highly educated, far-left NYC newcomers. These bright and capable young voters aren't chasing big dreams. Advertisement By many measures, they experience higher rates of mental health challenges and lower well-being at work — and are turning to the government for a more comfortable, secure life. But New York has never been content with 'good enough.' Is it difficult to buy a house or afford rent, especially for the young? Absolutely. But is it the answer to hand more power to City Hall and let it determine more of our lives? Advertisement The government's track record isn't pretty. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The single biggest reason why housing is so expensive in NYC is that, for decades, City Hall has prevented the private sector from building enough supply to meet demand. And in the housing stock the government does control or influence, residents aren't thriving. Advertisement Rent-stabilized apartment stock is rapidly deteriorating. Landlords are prohibited from collecting enough in rent increases to cover higher operating and maintenance costs. Conditions in NYCHA buildings are so poor that far-left Public Advocate Jumaane Williams has repeatedly named the public housing authority the worst landlord in the city. On average, it takes 413 days for NYCHA to complete repairs. At its best, New York rewards aspiration, not entitlement. If the city is to be a place where strivers thrive, its government must reward diligence and productivity. Advertisement It must allow for growth, making it easy for businesses to set up shop and create jobs. Instead of making life more comfortable for young professionals, the next mayor should inspire them to make the most of their skills and talents — to make them dream bigger than what mere government can offer. Allowing the private sector to build much more housing would give young New Yorkers a better chance to buy or rent new, modern apartments. They'd feel like their hard work is getting them somewhere. The alternative is stagnation — a sadder, less dynamic city. That's not New York. John Ketcham is director of cities and a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.
Chicago Tribune
6 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
