Traffic light trouble about pensions: How the heating chaos has shaped the coalition

One of the strangest episodes of this federal government, which is blessed with plenty of strange episodes, are the weeks in May 2023, when the FDP parliamentary group collected 101 questions for Robert Habeck. We remember: It was about the new Building Energy Act, or GEG for short, popularly known as “Habeck’s heating hammer”. The SPD, Greens and FDP argued over how long the Germans would be allowed to build gas boilers in their basements.

An intense time that pushed the traffic lights to their limits and shaped the way the coalition works together – until today. These days are the first anniversary of the peak phase of the heating dispute. And the traffic light is celebrating its birthday in its own way. The new dispute over the pension package clearly shows who drew what conclusions from the mess.

Let’s start with the FDP. The Liberals have learned from the heating dispute that their own base definitely appreciates if they dare to put up a bit of opposition in the government. It was like this: Christian Lindner, Finance Minister and FDP leader, had already approved the GEG in the cabinet, but dissatisfaction arose in the run-up to the party conference at the end of April 2023. Ex-Euro rebel Frank Schäffler wrote an urgent motion that called for a hard door in front of the boiler room and thus put pressure on the party and parliamentary group leadership to agree to it. Schäffler recognized the mood among the liberal base earlier than others.

The lessons from the big traffic light trouble

Even after the party conference, it was Schäffler who, together with others, ensured that the tone remained sharp. With Wolfgang Kubicki he collected 101 questions that the parliamentary group wanted to send to the Green Economics Minister Habeck. This is what “Bild” reported. FDP General Bijan Djir-Sarai also loudly announced the list of questions as a done deal. The problem: The parliamentary group leadership never intended to send 101 questions about the heating law to Robert Habeck.

But the public pressure had long been too great. In the end, the FDP even sent 113 questions to Habeck; the GEG was comprehensively changed in the parliamentary process. And the FDP members of the Bundestag were able to proudly announce in their district associations: We have protected the country’s gas and oil heating systems from the plumbers of power. Look how important it is that we are in this government!

Always block? It’s not worth it. The FDP had already learned that beforehand. Block correctly at crucial points and with full conviction – that is the liberal lesson from the heating chaos.

Enjoyed on the sidelines

For the green coalition partner, the conclusion was much more bitter. It starts with the fact that no one in the leadership of the party or parliamentary group would talk about “lessons” that could have been learned. No, the Greens have missed a lesson. Very easy. And so that this doesn’t happen to them again, they have been working under different premises ever since. First: Don’t trust the FDP. Second: Assume that the FDP does not stick to agreements. Third: Anticipate the liberal stick before it hits you.

That still leaves the SPD. The Chancellor and his comrades watched the heating battle in the public arena mostly from the sidelines. Why interfere? Why take the risk when the FDP makes one or two points that you yourself consider to be quite reasonable? After all, you can claim the loan for it later when the thing is over.

The Social Democrats have of course noticed how the FDP acted. And they noticed what happened to the Greens. This now benefits them. Because in the dispute over pensions, the roles are reversed.

As was the case last year, the starting point is an agreement that Christian Lindner agreed to. In March he stands next to Social Minister Hubertus Heil from the SPD. Your message: Pension package II is coming, the pension level is secured, and so is the generational capital. Of course, one could understand Lindner, there would be changes in the parliamentary procedure, but no big deal.

Then things turned out differently.

The parallel is obvious

A party conference of the FDP at the end of April, a proposal, a stricter formulation. Unlike the GEG a year ago, pension package II was not yet in the cabinet. This means: Despite the joint press conference, Lindner can still delay the process and refuse to give his consent. He doesn’t want to make the same mistake again and sign off on the law without having his own people behind him. Hence his blockade last week. When will the law come to parliament? Open. However, the FDP faction via “Bild” (“FDP is planning pension revenge against Scholz”) is already warming up again. Ready to do anything to repeat their masterpiece – this time without any internal dissonance over a list of questions.

For the FDP, it is about nothing less than proving once again that it is better to participate in government than to leave. Lindner has promised an “economic turnaround” that should be decided by the summer break. And if you talk about competitiveness all day long, you also have to put your pension to the test. Otherwise, as a liberal you will quickly lose credibility, especially among your own people.

The parallels to last year are obvious. And yet the starting point is somewhat different. Hubertus Heil is a professional. Someone who likes to go out with maximum demands in order to ultimately achieve what they originally wanted to achieve. Who doesn’t let himself be surprised when a partner suddenly throws a wrench. In addition, the Chancellor will not simply stand by in this case. The pension at 63, which the FDP wants to abolish, is important to Olaf Scholz. Completely different than the GEG back then.

It’s hard to tell from the experience back then how the traffic light trouble will turn out this time. But you can perhaps anticipate some behavioral patterns.

And what are the Greens doing?

This time the Greens can watch the trouble from the sidelines. Why risk an FDP attack when the SPD is already fighting for things that are important to one or two of the Greens? You can always claim this for your own voters afterwards…

The question remains: does that have to be all? Politicians from the traffic light parties repeatedly claim that the public dispute is important in order to emphasize the differences between the SPD, the Greens and the FDP. Which in turn is necessary for the survival of a healthy democracy. May well be. They just forget the prerequisite that must be met so that public disputes in a coalition do not develop destructive power: you have to be able to begracious.

If there was ever a willingness to do this in the traffic lights, the heating dispute destroyed it. She won’t come back again. Much more likely are 101 questions from the FDP parliamentary group to Hubertus Heil about pension package II.