German election hoardings

In just over a month, on June 9, German voters will go to the polls for European Parliament elections. In some states, local elections will be run concurrently. This means a lot of election hoardings along roadsides and on lampposts. Today, an illustrated tour of some of these billboards with photos taken by myself of billboards down by the Rhine river here.

(I've always kept this blog for posts related in some way to ACT. I'm almost going to break this rule, but have found myself a get-out clause. On the tour of German election hoardings is the Free Democratic Party (FDP) - a party which ACT has in the past seen as "like minded".)

Let's start then with the FDP billboard. The caption reads "For Germany in Europe". It's the only European election billboard I've seen with a photograph of the leading candidate. I'll let you make your own decision as to why. Interestingly, at the bottom left is a number to which you text to receive an MMS picture of the billboard! And if you're on the Vodafone network, it's even free of charge!


The next billboard, also from the FDP, is for the council elections. A vandal has helpfully turned Mr. Strutz with a sticker which reflects the FDP's own image problem. It's been partially torn off, but the words "a****holes everywhere" are still clearly visible. This billboard also shows the FDP's latest slogan - translated liberally "You can rely on us". This doesn't seem that dissimilar from ACT's 2008 slogan, "The guts to do what's right".
The next two billboards are my favourites and one of the first examples of outright negative campaign advertising in Germany. The first is from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) - the main centre-left party here. The caption reads: "Financial sharks would vote for the FDP: for a Europe in which there are clear rules are for everyone."


There are two further negative billboards, one against the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and one against the Left Party. The caption for the latter reads: "Hot air would vote for the Left Party: for a Europe in which responsibility counts."



Political scientist Darren Lilleker has also posted on these billboards in the last week - at his site you can also view a YouTube clip. I suspect the SPD is using the European elections in June as a dry run for the main federal elections in September to see whether this sort of negative advertising is effective. Interest in the European elections is very low, so it's quite safe to try this sort of thing out now to see what works. It's definitely a more Anglo-American approach than has traditionally been the case here. While it's not surprising that this sort of thing will be attempted, it is surprising that the SPD is the one trying it. You might more readily expect this tactic from one of the smaller issue-driven parties, such as the FDP or the Greens.

On the other hand, while it's fine to attack the Left Party (which is regarded as untouchable by all the other main parties due to its extremist views), the FDP is part of the only constellation which could return the SPD back to power (along with the Greens - from the party colours it's called a "traffic light" coalition) other than continuing the unpopular Grand Coalition with the Christian Democrats. So despite the good humour there is the potential to backfire. Indeed, as political scientist Bonnie Meguid has proven, small parties tend to only benefit when big parties attack them. What you won't find is an SPD attack billboard against the Greens!


The final billboard on our tour is from the "Republicans" - a very distasteful micro-party with neo-Nazi views. The billboard reads "It's enough! Mainz can't be allowed to become Istanbul!". (Mainz in particular has a large minority population of Turkish origin). These small placards are mounted high up on lamp-posts - obviously targets for vandals. Earlier this week there were some up on the way to my work but these have already disappeared - I assume removed by some voters who, unsurprisingly, disagreed with their views. While the Republicans aren't electorally successful these days (they attracted 1.7% support in this state, Rhineland-Palatinate, in the last state elections in 2006) , they have been elsewhere in Germany in the past and the NPD - a party with similar views - is represented in several state parliaments in eastern Germany. However, in Mainz, a May Day neo-Nazi march attracted about 70 supporters, while thousands marched against them in a counter-demonstration.

I'll leave you with the Rhine river on a beautiful spring day...

The guts to do what's right?

ACT party stalwart Trevor Loudon, who runs the New Zeal blog, reports on the fate of the "anti-gang patches" bill. Amidst a busy news week I had initially overlooked the Herald's coverage of the fate of the bill, which saw it passed 62-59. For ACT, Rodney Hide, John Boscawen and David Garrett both voted in favour of the bill, while Heather Roy and Roger Douglas voted against it. In March, Hide had made the bill a conscience vote after divisions amongst the caucus had become apparent.

On hearing that Rodney Hide had reversed his original opposition to the bill, Loudon wrote: "I was shocked. Why would Rodney do it? Rodney's a libertarian who cares about individual liberty more than anything else. I'm still stunned."

And yes, it is a little surprising. Gang patches, Hide had argued in the past, were a question of freedom of speech. But if you read Hide's speech for the third reading of the bill, which Loudon helpfully reproduces at his post, his argument is that gang patches represent intimidation:

Interestingly, the arrival of a gang member without the patch will not cause that intimidation. It is not the look that is causing the intimidation; it is the patch. I say that it is a tough line to draw, but clearly, in this example, the wearing of a patch on a jacket is intimidation of law-abiding citizens, and I am prepared to give the good people of Wanganui the opportunity to make a law so that they can choose how they want to live, and so that the police can enforce that, for people to live free of the intimidation and fear they have been suffering.

Initially my response to this was to suspect that Hide had found a convenient get-out clause to support the bill. Was this really part of the "guts to do what's right" - the 2008 campaign slogan? Loudon's surprise is justified: most supporters would align Hide with the libertarian, rather than the conservative wing of the party. Nobody would be surprised about Garrett's support for the bill. Even John Boscawen's vote in favour is somewhat understandable. But Rodney Hide? Surely he can't really mean what he said in his speech?

Or perhaps he can. There are two possible motives which have led Hide to his decision. The first is that having studied the potential consequences, he now truly believes in the bill. I'm fairly sure Hide wouldn't agree with his economics, but he probably would agree with the famous quotation by John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" And indeed, Hide and ACT have been researching the effects of the bill. According to Hide, he "despatched Mr David Garrett to Wanganui to talk to people, and in particular to ask some very basic questions". Perhaps after some long chats with Garrett, Hide has been convinced that the good of the bill outweighs the bad.

The second option is that Hide's support is pure Realpolitik. ACT is supporting National in government. National supports the bill. The bill does not need Hide's support - it would have passed even without John Boscawen - but as party leader, his vote is a powerful symbol. Small parties in government need to win friends and influence people. Sure, Hide could have voted against the bill. But why should National feel dispositioned to supporting ACT's own tough-on-crime bill - Garrett's "three strikes" legislation? There is nothing wrong with compromise in a unofficial coalition government - in fact it is a requirement. Hide may have realised that the point of difference was so small enough that it was not worth worrying about. It is a local law which affects Wanganui only. Surely, three-strikes is worth a lot more to the party as a whole?

If the former option is what happened, fine. Some supporters such as Trevor Loudon will of course be disappointed at first, this time. But having a party leader who's prepared to change his mind where necessary is probably a good thing to have.

If the latter is what happened, then I'm not so sure. If it really was Realpolitik at work, why not try and explain this compromise to members? "Look, we're in government now, sometimes we're not always going to get our own way. For a majority of members, three-strikes is important and we really need to do everything to get that passed". Wouldn't this be the more honest course of action to take, rather than looking for a detail which would let you off the hook? Is this really "the guts to do what's right"?

Trevor Loudon asked his readers for what they thought of Hide's decision. So will I. What do ACT supporters think?