Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Nach dem Wahldebakel der SPD in Rheinland-Pfalz steht die Koalition mit dem Rücken zur Wand. Friedrich Merz, Bärbel Bas und Lars Klingbeil haben sich auf eine Flucht nach vorn verständigt: den Weg der schmerzhaften Reformen. Gordon Repinski präsentiert das inoffizielle „Inspirationspapier“ von POLITICO mit radikalen Vorschlägen für Deutschland – vom Rentenrealismus über eine echte Steuerreform bis hin zur mutigen Zusammenlegung von Ministerien. Ist Schwarz-Rot bereit, den eigenen Funktionären und den Wählern echte Kompromisse abzuverlangen? Während die Sozialdemokratie weiter wankt, blickt SPD-Spitzenkandidat Armin Willingmann in Sachsen-Anhalt auf die nächste Schicksalswahl. Im 200-Sekunden-Interview spricht er über die „bedingt hilfreiche“ Performance aus Berlin, warum er rollende Köpfe an der Parteispitze derzeit für kontraproduktiv hält und wie er die Arbeiter im Osten mit einer Politik für die Mitte zurückgewinnen will. Bei den Liberalen ist die nächste Krisenstufe gezündet: Nach dem Verschwinden aus den Umfragen im Südwesten soll im Mai die komplette Parteispitze neu gewählt werden. Rixa Fürsen analysiert das personelle Vakuum: Kann Christian Dürr seinen Posten halten oder schlägt jetzt die Stunde von Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann und dem NRW-Landeschef Henning Höne? Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht der PKV: Hätten Sie’s gedacht? Vom jährlichen 15,5-Milliarden-Euro-Mehrumsatz der Privatversicherten profitiert das gesamte Gesundheitswesen. Denn neben den Haus- und Fachärzten kommen die höheren Honorare auch den zahnärztlichen Praxen zugute, dem Arzneimittelbereich oder Therapeutinnen. So stützt die PKV die medizinische Versorgung in Deutschland zugunsten aller – auch der gesetzlich Versicherten. Mehr auf pkv.de**

ROME — Italian right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s crushing defeat in Monday’s referendum on judicial reform has shattered her aura of political invincibility, and her opponents now reckon she can be toppled in a general election expected next year. The failed referendum is the the first major misstep of her premiership, and comes just as she seemed in complete control in Rome and Brussels, leading Italy’s most stable administration in years. Her loss is immediately energizing Italy’s fragmented opposition, making the country’s torpid politics suddenly look competitive again. Meloni’s bid to overhaul the judiciary — which she accused of being politicized and of left-wing bias — was roundly rejected, with 54 percent voting “no” to her reforms. An unexpectedly high turnout of 59 percent is also likely to alarm Meloni, underscoring how the vote snowballed into a broader vote of confidence in her and her government. She lost heavily in Italy’s three biggest cities: In the provinces of Rome, the “no” vote was 57 percent, Milan 54 percent and Naples 71 percent. In Naples, about 50 prosecutors and judges gathered to open champagne and sing Bella Ciao, the World War II anti-fascist partisan anthem. Activists, students and trade unionists spontaneously marched to Rome’s Piazza del Popolo chanting “resign, resign.”  In a video posted on social media, Meloni put a brave face on the result. “The Italians have decided and we will respect that decision,” she said. She admitted feeling some “bitterness for the lost opportunity … but we will go on as we always have with responsibility, determination and respect for Italy and its people.” In truth, however, the referendum will be widely viewed as a sign that she is politically vulnerable, after all. It knocks her off course just as she was setting her sights on major electoral reforms that would further cement her grip on power. One of her main goals has been to shift to a fixed-term prime ministership, which would be elected by direct suffrage rather than being hostage to rotating governments. Those ambitions look far more fragile now. The opposition groups that have struggled to dent Meloni’s dominance immediately scented blood. After months on the defensive, they pointed to Monday’s result as proof that the prime minister can be beaten and that a coordinated campaign can mobilize voters against her. Matteo Renzi, former prime minister and leader of the centrist Italia Viva party, predicted Meloni would now be a “lame duck,” telling reporters that “even her own followers will now start to doubt her.” When he lost a referendum in 2016 he resigned as prime minister. “Let’s see what Meloni will do after this clamorous defeat,” he said.  Elly Schlein, leader of the opposition Democratic Party, said: “We will beat [Meloni] in the next general election, I’m sure of that. I think that from today’s vote, from this extraordinary democratic participation, an unexpected participation in some ways, a clear political message is being sent to Meloni and this government, who must now listen to the country and its real priorities.”  Former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, leader of the populist 5Star Movement heralded “a new spring and a new political season.” Angelo Bonelli , leader of the Greens and Left Alliance, told reporters the result was “an important signal for us because it shows that there is a majority in the country opposed to the government.” ‘PARALLEL MAFIA’ The referendum itself centered on changes to how judges and prosecutors are governed and disciplined, including separating their career paths and reshaping their oversight bodies. The government framed the reforms as a long-overdue opportunity to fix a system where politicized legal “factions” impede the government’s ability to implement core policies on issues such as migration and security. Justice Minister Carlo Nordio called prosecutors a “parallel mafia,” while his chief of staff compared parts of the judiciary to “an execution squad.”   A voter is given a ballot at a polling station in Rome, Italy, on March 22, 2026. | Riccardo De Luca/Anadolu via Getty Images Meloni’s opponents viewed the defeated reforms differently, casting them as an attempt to weaken a fiercely independent judiciary and concentrate power. That framing helped turn a technical vote into a broader political contest, one that opposition parties were able to rally around. It was a clash with a long and bitter political history. The Mani Pulite (Clean Hands) investigations of the 1990s, which wiped out an entire political class, left a legacy of mistrust between politicians and the judiciary. The right, in particular, accused judges of running a left-wing vendetta against them. Under Meloni’s rule that tension has repeatedly resurfaced, with her government clashing with courts, saying judges are thwarting initiatives to fight migration and criminality. Meloni herself stepped late into the campaign, after initially keeping some distance, betting that her personal involvement could shift the outcome. She called the referendum an “historic opportunity to change Italy.” In combative form this month, she had called on Italians not squander their opportunity to shake up the judges. If they let things continue as they are now, she warned: “We will find ourselves with even more powerful factions, even more negligent judges, even more surreal sentences, immigrants, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers being freed and putting your security at risk.” It was to no avail, and Meloni was hardly helped by the timing of the vote. Her ally U.S. President Donald Trump is highly unpopular in Italy and the war in Iran has triggered intense fears among Italians that they will have to pay more for power and fuel. The main upshot is that Italy’s political clock is ticking again. REGAINING THE INITIATIVE For Meloni, the temptation will be to regain the initiative quickly. That could even mean trying to press for early elections before economic pressures mount and key EU recovery funds wind down later this year. The logic of holding elections before economic conditions deteriorate further would be to prevent a slow bleeding away of support, said Roberto D’Alimonte, professor of political science at the Luiss University in Rome. But Italy’s President Sergio Mattarella has the ultimate say about when to dissolve parliament and parliamentarians, whose pensions depend on the legislature lasting until February, could help him prevent elections by forming alternative majorities. D’Alimonte said Meloni’s “standing is now damaged.” “There is no doubt she comes out of this much weaker. The defeat changes the perception of her. She has lost her clout with voters and to some extent in Europe. Until now she was a winner and now she has shown she can lose,” he added. She must now weigh whether to identify scapegoats who can take the fall — potentially Justice Minister Nordio, a technocrat with no political support base of his own.  Meloni is expected to move quickly to regain control of the agenda. She is due to travel to Algeria on Wednesday to advance energy cooperation, a trip that may also serve to pivot the political conversation back to economic and foreign policy aims. But the immediate impact of the vote is clear: A prime minister who entered the referendum from a position of strength but now faces a more uncertain political landscape, against an opposition newly convinced she can be beaten.

LONDON — The House of Lords has struck down the government’s controversial proposal to direct where pension schemes invest, handing Rachel Reeves’ Treasury a significant defeat. The government had sought to give itself a controversial “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill, which would allow it to direct where pension schemes invest, in a bid to boost U.K. and private assets. That provision was met with fury by the pensions industry, and Thursday’s amendment shows enough peers feel the same way. An amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill — tabled by Liberal Democrat peer Sharon Bowles, Conservative peers Deborah Stedman-Scott and Thérèse Coffey, and independent peer Ros Altmann — won a vote in the upper chamber Thursday by 217 to 113. It removes the provision on the asset allocation condition in the legislation. The defeat is a blow to Pensions Minister Torsten Bell, who only last week tried to reassure industry and peers by telling POLITICO that he would table “clarifications” to the bill outlining that the power would only align to Mansion House Accord signatories and targets. It means ministers will now be required to reconsider the proposed law. “This power must be removed,” said Stedman-Scott. “It is a massive overstep from the government, and despite the assurances of the minister, no one is yet convinced that this can remai.” The amendment removing the threat of a mandate will now go back to the House of Commons, where Bell will need to decide whether to include new changes to reinstate the power.  Altmann got another victory in the report stage debate on Thursday by winning a vote on her amendment to extend the time limit defining an unused pension pot as “dormant” from 12 months to two years.  Under government plans, all “dormant” small pots worth under £1,000 will be consolidated into larger schemes.

BUDAPEST — As Hungarians awoke to a sunny national day on March 15, a question overshadowed the celebrations: Who would draw the larger crowd to the streets of Budapest? Would it be incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, still a formidable force after 16 years of uninterrupted rule? Or Péter Magyar, a less prickly opposition wild card who is bidding to bring down Orbán’s government? With less than a month to go until the April 12 election — and with Magyar’s opposition Tisza party polling about 10 points ahead of Orbán’s Fidesz — the national day festivities offered both parties a final chance to show off their strength and sway public opinion as the campaign enters its final stretch. “Everything is ready for the biggest event ever,” Magyar had said the evening before. “This will be the day when size truly matters,” he added Sunday morning. Meanwhile, as followers started gathering after 9 a.m. to march for Orbán, the Fidesz-aligned Magyar Nemzet newspaper said that “the crowd is huge.” Small wonder, then, that the two sides disputed who had attracted the bigger crowd. The Fidesz “peace march” rally at Kossuth Square, next to the Hungarian Parliament building. | Max Griera/POLITICO Fidesz shared data from the Hungarian Tourism Agency, which reported that Orbán’s “peace march” had drawn 180,000 people to the opposition’s 150,000; the agency, which is controlled by the government, based its estimate on how many cell phones had been connected to antennas near the respective rallies. But people close to Tisza estimated for POLITICO that their party had mobilized 350,000 attendees. DEFENDING HUNGARY AGAINST BRUSSELS, KYIV Hungary’s March 15 national day commemorates its revolution and war of independence to escape the rule of Austria’s Habsburg monarchy from 1848-1849. Both parties used the occasion to drive home their campaign slogans and espouse patriotism and national identity. Orbán’s Fidesz has focused on the war in Ukraine and Iran, portraying itself as the party of security but avoiding domestic issues. Tisza has campaigned on a platform of complete regime change. The competing events both featured national anthems and folk songs, most prominently “Nemzeti Dal” by Sándor Petőfi — an iconic poem and a cornerstone of Hungarian literature that is widely credited with helping spark the Hungarian Revolution in 1848. And both Orbán and Magyar called on Hungarians to rise and defend the country just like they did in 1956 against the Soviet occupation — the former invoking Ukraine as the threat, the latter another Orbán government after 16 years of uninterrupted rule. Orbán addressed his supporters beside the parliament in Kossuth Square, where they had marched from the Buda quarter of the capital across the Danube River. “We will not be a Ukrainian colony,” was the motto on the placards protesters carried, a slogan that Orbán had echoed on social media the day before. Budapest is embroiled in a furious dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy over the cessation of Russian oil flows across Ukraine and a stalled €90 billion EU loan to fund Kyiv’s war effort. Orbán has framed his rival Magyar as a Brussels proxy who will do as the EU and Ukraine say. “I said no to the Soviets,” Orbán told the rally. “I said no to Brussels, to the war, and I’m standing before the vote now, together with you, saying no to the Ukrainians.” Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó took the stage to claim that Brussels, Kyiv and Berlin “want to bring Europe to war” and “want the money of Europeans to be given to the Ukrainians.” Near Kossuth Square, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky Boulevard was at a standstill with dozens of buses still disgorging supporters from the countryside, who had been brought in to offset Budapest’s predominantly opposition voters. High school student Mikolt, 16, and her stay-at-home mother Daniela, 42, were arriving from the village of Eger in the northeast of the country. They said they supported Orbán because he is keeping Hungary out of the war in Ukraine and because he supports Christianity, the family and Hungarians. Tisza volunteers Balázs and Zsigmund on Andrássy Avenue before the march starts. | Max Griera/POLITICO Magyar is a “narcissist,” Daniela said, who “behaves like a wounded little child who no longer has any power” since leaving Fidesz in February 2024. “RUSSIANS GO HOME” A 20-minute walk away, the Tisza marchers were beginning to assemble. Volunteers Zsigmund and Balázs, both 18, agreed to talk with POLITICO, despite having received a caution from their team leader not to speak with media, as Orbán’s “propagandists” could use what they said against the party. Describing themselves as “patriots,” the two students are counting on Magyar to improve the country’s health care and education systems, which they said have been battered by years of misrule. “Orbán replaced skilled people with loyalists. Tisza has many professionals and they have a program, Fidesz hasn’t had a program for years,” Zsigmund said. For Balazs, who plans to study economics at a foreign university, the election is existential — he says he may not come back if Orbán wins. “I would prefer to come back, definitely, but let’s see what happens.” Once it gets going, the Tisza march fills the 2.5 kilometer-long Andrassy Avenue, heading for Heroes Square, where Magyar is due to speak at 17:00. On stage, the opposition leader promises to fix Hungary’s health care system, restore billions of euros in EU funding that has been frozen due to rule-of-law concerns regarding Orbán’s government, improve pensions and child support, boost the economy and fight corruption. Evoking Hungary’s “other” revolution — the 1956 uprising that killed 3,000 civilians — Magyar said Hungarians need to rise up again to regain their “freedom” and protect their rights. Framing the current government as an occupier that represses its “subjects,” he accused Orbán of allowing Russian agents in the country to meddle in the election. “Russians go home!” the crowd chanted, repeating: “It’s over!”

BERLIN —  Germany’s pro-business Free Democrats, on the brink of political extinction, face a make-or-break state vote this Sunday that party leaders believe may well be their last chance to claw back relevance. Leaders of the fiscally conservative Free Democratic Party (FDP) — which was part of Germany’s previous, ill-fated coalition government under former Chancellor Olaf Scholz — have long pinned their hopes for a national revival on this Sunday’s election in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg, traditionally one of the party’s strongholds. Instead, the vote now may end up being a death knell for a party that long played a central role in postwar German politics, wielding outsized influence as a kingmaker between the two major centrist parties that once dominated the political landscape. With the FDP now hovering just above the 5 percent threshold of support needed to make it into the Baden-Württemberg legislature, according to polls, the party is at risk of crashing out of the state parliament for the first time in its history. That result would prove disastrous for a party that already failed to make it into the federal parliament in a snap national election last year, an outcome that sent then party leader, Christian Lindner — once deemed a wunderkind of European free-market liberalism — into early political retirement. In an unmistakable symbol of the party’s decline, Lindner, who served as finance minister in the previous government under Scholz, has since taken on a key management role at a national car dealership business. The FDP’s prospects of turning things around with a resurgence in Baden-Württemberg are looking next to impossible. Current polls show it losing almost half of its support in the state since the last election there, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservatives maintain a small lead in the state over the second-place Greens. “If we fail to enter parliament in Baden-Württemberg, it would be hard to explain why it would be different elsewhere,” Wolfgang Kubicki, the party’s deputy national leader, told POLITICO. DISAPPEARING CENTER The FDP’s decline can be seen as part of a larger hollowing-out of the political middle ground in Germany that is likely to be evident in numerous state and local elections set to take place this year across the country. This Sunday’s vote in Baden-Württemberg — a state of some 11 million people and the cradle of Germany’s increasingly troubled auto industry — is the first in a series of five state votes seen as key tests of the national mood, particularly as the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) vies for first place in many national polls. For most of Germany’s postwar history, national elections have been dominated by either the the center-right Christian Democrats or the center-left Social Democrats, with the FDP choosing at varying times to form coalition governments with both of these parties. It served as a junior coalition partner in 18 out of 25 federal governments since the founding of West Germany. As parties on Germany’s political fringes, including the AfD, have risen in popularity across Germany, the pro-business FDP has been particularly hard hit, seeing its support collapse to just 3 percent in national polls. The FDP’s new leader, Christian Dürr, is trying to revive the party’s fortunes with a policy platform he refers to as “radical centrism.” | Bernd Weißbrod/picture alliance via Getty Images Yet other classical liberal parties across Europe — which fuse market-oriented policies with libertarianism on social issues — have performed far better. In the Netherlands, Rob Jetten and his liberal-progressive D66 party came in first in a national election in October, edging out Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV). In Austria, the liberal NEOS take part in a three-party coalition with the conservatives and the Social Democrats. In Denmark, both the Venstre party and Liberal Alliance have maintained stable support for years, and are each polling at roughly 10 percent. Germany’s FDP, however, has been punished by German voters for their role in bringing down the previous, three-party government under Scholz. The party never recovered after details of its “D-Day” plot to blow up the coalition emerged in 2024. In the snap election that followed the Scholz government’s collapse, FDP voters defected in droves to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s conservative bloc as well as to the AfD. A similar trend can now be seen in Baden-Württemberg. While the FDP in the state has seen its support plummet, the conservatives boast a moderate increase in support. At the same time the AfD has nearly doubled its support in the state compared with the last election, according to polls, and may emerge as the clearest winner on Sunday in terms of vote share gained. ‘RADICAL CENTRISM’ The FDP’s new leader, Christian Dürr, is trying to revive the party’s fortunes with a policy platform he refers to as “radical centrism,” though the specifics of that agenda remain vague. “People expect real reform policy,” Dürr told POLITICO. “What drives them mad is that all debates are overlaid with ideology. They expect rational politics in the center.” The party says it wants to implement market-friendly reforms to boost Germany’s economy, including by easing access to the labor market for skilled migrants and reforming the state pension system to allow contributions to be invested in equity markets. These positions, however, don’t necessarily strike many voters as particularly fresh — nor sweeping enough to reverse Germany’s manufacturing decline. In Baden-Württemberg, it’s the car industry that has been particularly affected. Overall, around 100,000 positions or around 8 percent of jobs in the car sector are expected to disappear by 2030 in Germany, according to a 2025 study carried out for the economy ministry in Berlin. The FDP’s biggest problem is that voters’ have lost trust in the party’s ability to rectify this. “What’s really dramatic is that the economy has been a major, important issue — not only during the federal election — and now the FDP has very poor competence ratings in that area,” said Simon Franzmann, a political scientist at the University of Göttingen. As economic worries grow in the state, anxious voters are increasingly drawn not to the FDP’s “radical centrism,” it seems, but to other centrist parties — or the AfD’s plain radicalism. That’s just another reason the FDP, a fixture of German postwar politics, may well be on its last gasps. For transparency: The author of this article briefly worked for a FDP lawmaker in 2024.

LONDON — Britain’s graduates helped Keir Starmer’s Labour Party win power. Now they’re on the warpath. Soaring interest rates have left a cohort of voters in their 20s and early 30s — the first to be hit by an early 2010s overhaul of university funding — with spiraling student loan debts, and frustrated at sizable monthly repayments not touching the sides of what they owe. Chancellor Rachel Reeves delivers a tricky economic update Tuesday under pressure to act, and with opposition politicians — aware of bubbling rage among young professionals seeing their pay vanish — jumping on the bandwagon to offer friendlier options. Labour MPs are nervous too.  They are facing a real electoral threat from the left-wing populist Green Party, which has backed the complete abolition of university of tuition fees, and is open to student debt forgiveness. This generation of graduates is “the bedrock of Labour support,” Labour MP Chris Curtis, a former pollster and graduate on the controversial loan plan, said. He chairs the Labour Growth Group, which is campaigning on the issue. “There’s a worry about losing them” if financial pressures remain, he said. With Starmer’s place as prime minister under pressure, the row could also become a talking point in a future leadership contest. Wes Streeting, Starmer’s ambitious health secretary, said the “clearly rumbling” debate is “worth having.” In a sign of growing recognition of the problem, Starmer last week told MPs he would “look at ways” to make the student loans system in England “fairer.” Labour’s landslide majority in 2024 was built on support from graduates. A YouGov mega poll conducted after the 2024 general election found 42 percent of people with a degree or higher qualification backed Labour — compared to 18 percent for the rival Tories.  “It’s a ticking time bomb waiting to happen,” said Toby Whelton, a senior researcher at the Intergenerational Foundation, added. Graduates have been picked on “as the path of the least political resistance” by politicians, he argued. LEARN THE HARD WAY  This specific student loan problem dates back to 2012, when university tuition fees — introduced just a few years prior — soared to £9,000-a-year under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The move was aimed at compensating for huge cuts to state funding for academic institutions. Maintenance grants for the poorest students were replaced with repayable loans in 2016.  Wes Streeting, Starmer’s ambitious health secretary, said the “clearly rumbling” debate is “worth having.” | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images Under the terms of these loans — known as “plan two,” and issued between 2012 and 2023 — students agreed to repay 9 percent of their salary over a threshold set by the Treasury. The terms of the deal last 30 years before any remaining arrears are wiped. (A different plan has been put in place since 2023.) With the interest rate on the loan tied to the retail price index (RPI) —seen as a poor measure of inflation by some analysts— graduate debts have been climbing at a time when wage growth has slowed and living costs are shooting up. Reeves’ decision last fall to keep the repayment threshold frozen at £29,385 for three years until 2030 was the final straw, and appears to have mobilized influential campaigners behind the plight of graduates. The Times newspaper launched an End the Graduate Rip-Off campaign, and the popular consumer finance journalist Martin Lewis has made it a cause, questioning the morality of the freeze. “It’s a complete mess,” said National Union of Students (NUS) Vice President for Higher Education Alex Stanley, whose members recently held a protest outside parliament dressed as sharks. “The fault initially may not be theirs, but the responsibility is absolutely now theirs,” he said of the Labour government, arguing the backlash poses an “opportunity as much as it is a threat” to Starmer.  “We’ve got a system that is costing students so much money that it risks putting off prospective students,” he warned.  “This is a very real burden on young people when it comes to the cost of living,” says Curtis. The repayments are a “deep cause of the economic insecurity that many younger graduates are facing” as they try buying their first home, he adds. Curtis supports a graduate tax, where university leavers would pay extra tax when they start earning with lower repayments, but in the near-term at least wants ministers to increase the threshold for loan repayments. ALTERNATIVE GRAD SCHEME Labour’s opponents on the right and left of British politics spy an opportunity. Green leader Zack Polanski — whose party won a seismic by-election in Greater Manchester last Thursday — said the system is “deeply unjust,” and treats “the costs of education as a private debt rather than a public investment.” Reeves’ decision last fall to keep the repayment threshold frozen at £29,385 for three years until 2030 was the final straw. | Jack Taylor/Getty Images He backs abolishing tuition fees and reversing repayment freezes, claiming “young people have been let down time and time again by governments who have chased the votes of older voters.”  Polanski told POLITICO in a statement he is open to debt forgiveness in the longer term, but admits “it’s a really complex issue, and we’d need to look carefully at how it would be funded.” Labour’s Curtis is skeptical the rival Greens have the answer, however. “People in this country aren’t idiots,” he said. “When these populist parties try to make arguments that one side of the balance sheet doesn’t have to add up to the other, voters … will realize that promises are being made that can’t be kept.”  A U-turn would not be cost-free for taxpayers. Last month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that increasing the repayment threshold in line with average earnings growth each year (as the centrist Lib Dems have proposed) would cost taxpayers around £3 billion just for graduates who started courses in 2022/23. Totally writing off existing student debts would cost tens of billions of pounds. Starmer has moved away from former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ambition for 50 percent of young people to attend university, pivoting to a target of two-thirds doing apprenticeships, higher training or going to university.  Labour will also be well aware of the problems former U.S. President Joe Biden encountered in Republican states and the Supreme Court over his student loan relief program, which would have canceled hundreds of billions of dollars in student loans. AGE OLD PROBLEM  The opposition Conservatives are backing changes too. “It’s an infuriating situation,” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. “You’re paying money back, but every time you look at the outstanding amount, it’s rising. It just isn’t fair.”  The Tories have pledged to scrap additional interest applied to some student loans, and fund it by scrapping “dead end university courses.”   Tory MP David Reed, who is also in the graduate cohort hit by the student loan trap, argues women are being particularly hard hit when they temporarily leave the workplace. They are unable to make repayments, but the high interest rates mean their loan balance continues to rise. “The rules are technically the same for everyone,” Reed said. “But because women are still far more likely to take time out to raise children, the impact falls disproportionately on them.” “It’s an infuriating situation,” Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. “You’re paying money back, but every time you look at the outstanding amount, it’s rising. It just isn’t fair.” | Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images Nigel Farage’s Reform UK will address the issue at a press conference Wednesday. The party’s Treasury spokesperson Robert Jenrick has previously said interest rates are far too high. A U.K. government spokesperson said: “The student finance system protects lower-earning graduates, with repayments determined by incomes and outstanding loans and interest being cancelled at the end of repayment terms.” The spokeperson pointed out ministers are reintroducing targeted maintenance grants. Reeves argues government efforts to lower inflation will lower Bank of England interest rates, helping graduates. But with a powerful constituency calling for action, that position may struggle to hold. It is unacceptable for governments to “milk young people dry” to fund older generations’ benefits, Whelton, the Intergenerational Foundation researcher, argues. “As graduates on plan two systems get older [and] go into positions of influence and power, we will see more of a backlash,” he adds. “They will be [an] increasing voting constituency that can sway elections.”

Rachel Reeves is U.K. chancellor of the exchequer and Elisabeth Svantesson is Sweden’s minister of finance. Four years ago Russia illegally invaded Ukraine — striking at peace in Europe and undermining global security. Since then, Vladimir Putin’s propaganda machine has been working in overdrive to spread the false narrative of a strong Russian economy. It is now clear that the country is not performing as well as its official statistics suggest. A report commissioned by the Swedish government last year showed signs of mounting imbalances in the Russian economy, suggesting that key economic indicators such as inflation and real GDP growth were likely manipulated. Since then, we have had access to intelligence that confirms that the Russian government is deliberately lying to the world about the state of the Russian economy. This is the weakest Russia’s economy has been since the start of the war, and it is likely to get worse over the next year. Putin wants to undermine international support for sanctions and portray Russia as strong. Through inflated threats and by pointing to problems in other economies, he is trying to divert attention from the hardships faced by his own population as a result of his illegal war. Inflation caused by the Kremlin’s spending on the war in Ukraine now means Russian households are cutting back on food under the burden of rising costs. Four years into Russia’s illegal invasion, the resolve and courage of the Ukrainian people endures and our determination to defend peace and security remains unshakeable. We’ve been strongly targeting Russia’s energy revenues, which are down by a third since the latest sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil were announced. It is also welcome that the EU has reached an agreement to ban Russian gas imports completely and the UK has committed to adopting a full maritime services ban on Russian Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Now it is important to continue to increase pressure on Russian oil exports. This is why we should move towards a comprehensive maritime services ban on all Russian exports of crude oil and refined products. Squeezing Russia’s remaining revenues will further deplete its ability to finance the war.   We can already see that a large share of Russia’s National Wealth Fund – its financial buffer used to pay for everything from pensions to roads – has been drained to pay for the war. In fact, the Russian government has stopped drawing funds from it and is instead relying on banks to buy government bonds, adding to public debt. The remaining funds are not even sufficient to cover the projected budget deficit for 2025.  We’ve been strongly targeting Russia’s energy revenues, which are down by a third since the latest sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil were announced. | Getty Images The Russian economy is failing. Spending has increased while exports and earning have decreased. The National Wealth Fund is being drained while banks and ordinary Russians are being forced to finance the war.  We estimate that Russia has lost over $450 billion due to international sanctions; the equivalent of four years of war funding. This does not mean the Russian economy is about to collapse, or that we can afford complacency. It means that data proves that pressure on Russia works and should be intensified.  That’s why this week the U.K. announced the biggest sanctions package against Russia since the early months of the invasion in 2022, clamping down on Russian banks, its liquefied natural gas industry, and international suppliers involved in sustaining Russia’s war machine. As well as continuing our pressure on Russia’s economy, we must ensure that Ukraine has the financing it needs to fight back. We welcome the European Council’s agreement in December to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion loan. This is a vital step and this desperately needed support must reach Ukraine as soon as possible. Continued European unity is central to getting us closer to a just and lasting peace.    Four years in to Russia’s illegal invasion, the resolve and courage of the Ukrainian people endures and our determination to defend peace and security remains unshakeable. | Sebastian Gollnow/picture alliance via Getty Images By strengthening Ukraine’s hand, it sends a clear signal to Putin that he cannot wait Ukraine out. We must not be intimidated by Putin’s bluster and we cannot let Russia dictate our actions.  We should take every possible step to increase pressure on the Russian economy and strengthen the position of Ukraine. Only if we do so will Russia abandon its illegal war and engage meaningfully toward a just and lasting peace.   The United Kingdom and Sweden stand united in our support for Ukraine. 

The Netherlands’ youngest prime minister, Rob Jetten, was sworn in on Monday vowing to end the paralysis and polarization that plagued the previous government, the most far-right in Dutch politics. That promised return to the Netherlands’ historical tradition of consensus politics will be a tall order for the 38-year centrist, however.  He now presides over a fragile minority government and his plans on cutting welfare and social security spending are already facing backlash across the political spectrum. With far-right parties leading the polls in France and Germany, Jetten’s victory in October was welcomed by traditional parties in Brussels because it had been touch-and-go whether voters in the EU’s fifth-biggest economy would support centrists rather than the far right.  One hundred and seventeen days of coalition building later, Jetten faces a battle to drive through an ambitious agenda that includes a massive boost to defense spending in line with NATO’s 3.5-percent core target and reducing emissions from one of Europe’s most important livestock industries. On all counts, his opponents are out to extract painful concessions at the risk of political deadlock. Consultancy Verisk Maplecroft has ranked the Netherlands as the third-most governmentally unstable country in Europe, behind Bulgaria and Moldova.  The question now is whether Jetten’s government can buck a trend that has already seen two governments collapse in four years.  KNIVES OUT FOR COALITION DEAL In its coalition agreement, Jetten’s government —  which, aside from his own centrist D66, also includes the center-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) —  has promised to splurge on defense and housing and reintroduce voluntary farm buyouts, while maintaining a hawkish fiscal policy. To fund the spending bonanza, it is proposing a “freedom contribution” tax on income on top of drastic cuts to welfare and social security spending. The coalition agreement also looks to continue a strict line on migration set by the previous, far-right government, and envisages accelerating previous plans to increase the pension age. The left and far right have their knives out for the agreement. GreenLeft-Labor alliance (GL-PvDA) leader Jesse Klaver said he would only support the plans in case “of a U-turn.”  Geert Wilders, who leads the far-right Freedom Party (PVV) promised to fight it “tooth and nail.”  And Socialist Party (SP) leader Jimmy Dijk went as far as saying the government blueprint constituted “a frontal attack on our civilization.”  To get anywhere, Jetten’s government will need their support. The coalition has only 66 out of 150 seats in the lower house of Dutch parliament — 10 short of a majority. In the upper house of parliament, its position is even weaker, with 22 out of 75 seats.  Jetten himself has defended the minority government as a boon to democracy because it will allow opposition parties a greater say. But some argue that presents too rosy a picture, pointing out that the last formal minority government in 1939 collapsed after only two days.  A minority government is like “driving on the wrong side of the road,” political historian Kemal Rijken told Dutch public radio. “It’s quite dangerous and risky.” Presumably, a minority government was not Jetten’s first choice, either. The logical alternative would have been to include GL-PvdA, but the VVD torpedoed that possibility, rejecting the left-wing party as too “radical.” “The problem in The Hague is that parties that should be able to work together exclude each other,” explained Simon Otjes, аn associate professor of Dutch politics at Leiden University. Another option would have been to invite the far-right JA21 party into the coalition, but that would have come at the steep price of alienating Jetten’s progressive voter base. COBBLING TOGETHER COALITIONS Jetten’s minority government might represent less of a sea-change than it might seem at first glance. Haggling for political support from unlikely allies has, in recent years, been a fixture of Dutch politics. While the last official minority government was in 1939, the liberal Mark Rutte formed a highly unorthodox arrangement in 2010 in which he relied on the support of anti-Islam firebrand Wilders. Consecutive Dutch governments have since ruled with coalitions that, at some stage during their term, were forced to make do with minority support after one of the coalition parties pulled out, or lacked a clear majority in one or other chambers of parliament, Otjes noted.  “Every coalition has needed support from opposition parties to make laws and that remains unchanged,” he said. Moreover, on several core issues, finding an agreement might not present too much of a challenge.  On migration, for example, the coalition is likely to look for, and find, support on the far-right flank. On the other hand, it is likely to turn to the GL-PvDA for support on climate and measures to cut back nitrogen emissions from farms. There’s also widespread support for its plans to boost defense spending to meet NATO targets.  Analysts point out, however, it will be much harder to get parties to agree to the far-reaching cuts to social spending, whether on the left or the far right, leaving the foundation underpinning Jetten’s plans resting on quicksand. Jetten’s own answer to bridging deep political division is humility.  In selecting his ministers, Jetten said he looked for those “who are able to listen and don’t have all too big an ego.”  But the new prime minister himself risks becoming the greatest casualty of the political tightrope exercise.  The main risk is that left-wing voters who helped him to victory in last October’s election might change their minds in light of what looks to be his government’s overwhelmingly right-wing agenda.  Jetten can celebrate today. But from Tuesday, the hunger games begin. 

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music In der rheinland-pfälzischen Landeshauptstadt Mainz bereitet sich Alexander Schweitzer auf seine erste Bewährungsprobe als gewählter Regierungschef vor. Es ist ein Spiel gegen die Zeit und gegen den Bundestrend, bei dem der SPD-Ministerpräsident auf die Karte des regionalen Pragmatismus setzt. Während die Bundespolitik in Berlin oft von schrillen Tönen geprägt ist, kultiviert Schweitzer auch im Wahlkampf bis zum 22. März das Image einer soliden, fast schon demonstrativ unaufgeregten Regierungsarbeit als Markenkern. Um die jahrzehntelange Vorherrschaft seiner Partei an Rhein und Mosel gegen eine erstarkende CDU zu verteidigen. Im Gespräch mit Alexander Schweitzer geht es um das Spannungsfeld zwischen sozialdemokratischen Gerechtigkeitsfragen und der notwendigen Nähe zum Mittelstand. Er skizziert seine Vision einer Erbschaftsteuer, die extrem vermögende Dynastien stärker in die Pflicht nimmt, ohne dabei das Rückgrat der heimischen Wirtschaft zu gefährden. Dabei wird deutlich, wie sehr der „rheinland-pfälzische Weg“ auf persönlichem Vertrauen und einer bewussten Abgrenzung vom Berliner Polit-Chaos fußt, wobei Schweitzer auch für unkonventionellen Allianzen und um liberale Wähler wirbt. Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna

Listen on * Spotify * Apple Music * Amazon Music Am 20. September wird in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern gewählt und die AfD unter Leif-Erik Holm erhebt den Anspruch auf eine Alleinregierung. Gordon Repinski trifft ihn an symbolträchtigen Orten zwischen der Staatskanzlei, dem Schweriner Schloss und dem dünnen Eis des Schweriner Sees. Es geht um die strategischen Optionen im Nordosten und die Frage, ob die CDU tatsächlich nur noch als Mehrheitsbeschaffer für die Linke fungiert. Im ausführlichen Spaziergang präsentiert sich der frühere Radiomoderator Holm als moderater Versöhner, der auch für gesellschaftliche Gruppen außerhalb seiner Kernklientel da sein möchte. Aber hinter diesem Image stehen radikale Forderungen wie die Abschaffung des Rundfunkstaatsvertrags, das Ende der Kirchensteuer oder das umstrittene Konzept der Remigration. Gordon Repinski fragt nach, wie Holm den Spagat zwischen bürgerlichem Schein und dem harten Programm seiner Partei bewältigt. ⁠ Unseren neuen Podcast “Inside AfD” gibt es hier zu hören.⁠ Das Berlin Playbook als Podcast gibt es jeden Morgen ab 5 Uhr. Gordon Repinski und das POLITICO-Team liefern Politik zum Hören – kompakt, international, hintergründig. Für alle Hauptstadt-Profis: Der Berlin Playbook-Newsletter bietet jeden Morgen die wichtigsten Themen und Einordnungen. ⁠Jetzt kostenlos abonnieren.⁠ Mehr von Host und POLITICO Executive Editor Gordon Repinski: Instagram: ⁠@gordon.repinski⁠ | X: ⁠@GordonRepinski⁠. POLITICO Deutschland – ein Angebot der Axel Springer Deutschland GmbH Axel-Springer-Straße 65, 10888 Berlin Tel: +49 (30) 2591 0 ⁠information@axelspringer.de⁠ Sitz: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 196159 B USt-IdNr: DE 214 852 390 Geschäftsführer: Carolin Hulshoff Pol, Mathias Sanchez Luna **(Anzeige) Eine Nachricht von Amazon: Unabhängige Verkaufspartner stehen heute für über 60 % aller bei Amazon verkauften Produkte. Ein Beispiel ist 3Bears aus München: Caroline und ihr Team haben ihre Leidenschaft in ein erfolgreich wachsendes Unternehmen verwandelt. Über Amazon bringt 3Bears hochwertigen Porridge auf Frühstückstische in ganz Europa. Sie sind eines von rund 47.000 deutschen kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen, die bei Amazon erfolgreich verkaufen. Jetzt mehr erfahren auf: AboutAmazon.de.**