Interview with the left-wing politician: Strategies for defending against the AfD and rent policy

Ms. Schwerdtner, you are facing very important weeks - Saxony-Anhalt will vote on Sunday, and Berlin will vote two weeks later. What is more important to you: that the Left prevent the AfD or that the candidate Elif Eralp herself be the mayor?

This is actually a paradoxical situation. On the one hand we are talking about left-wing housing and rent policies by a left-wing mayor, and on the other hand we are talking about preventing the AfD. In principle, it's about the same thing: we advocate a different political model. If Saxony-Anhalt tips over, it could have an impact on the entire Federal Republic. Then a qualitative tipping point would be reached.

Chancellor Merz made it clear: The CDU does not work with radicals, and by that he doesn't just mean the AfD, but also you.

I sometimes wonder whether Friedrich Merz can actually do math. If you know basic arithmetic, you can see what options the CDU has. I find it irresponsible when a Federal Chancellor gives the impression that he doesn't have to talk to anyone. After the election, people will have to talk to each other if Saxony-Anhalt is not to sink into complete chaos and possibly be re-elected in the end. One can only hope and pray that the CDU secretly has a plan. However, I don't believe in it. In this respect, a lot actually depends on how the CDU deals with this ordeal.

And conversely, how do you convince your voters that cooperation with the CDU is necessary? Her co-party leader Luigi Pantisano has described the CDU as fascists.

We have had a debate about it ever since. I also said very clearly in the Bundestag afterwards: It's not about describing the CDU as fascist. He himself also said that that was wrong. But one has to say: The idea of ​​many Union politicians that they could copy the content of the AfD has not led to the AfD becoming smaller. On the contrary: in Saxony-Anhalt it is now twice as strong as the CDU. For us it is clear: We are doing everything in our power to keep the AfD away from the levers of power. But we will not support any AfD policies from the CDU either.

What price would you charge for it?

We approach this issue very responsibly. In Saxony-Anhalt, jobs in the chemical industry are being lost. Neither the state nor the federal government has a plan on how they want to deal with this or what they want to do for the chemical triangle. They also have no plan for the budget gap. The municipalities are lacking money. We say: An investment program is needed for industry. We need more municipally owned hospitals because we hear from people that they have little access to doctors. But this debate doesn't take place at all because it's only about what Sven Schulze or Friedrich Merz from the Left think.

Does that mean the CDU has to change quite a bit so that you would be willing to elect Sven Schulze as Prime Minister?

That's what it's all about. That's why people vote for the left: not so that we can say that everything the CDU does is right. We call for protests against Friedrich Merz. I think many millions of citizens feel the same way. He could have stayed on vacation longer.

And would you still be willing to cooperate?

Yes, under certain conditions. Many surveys show that many people are aware of this dilemma. Even many left-wing voters say: It is so important to me to keep the AfD away from the levers of power that democratic parties have to talk to each other. At the same time, it is completely clear: we will not simply follow the CDU. With its attacks on the welfare state, it is part of the problem.

There is another point that plays a role in the Berlin election campaign and leads to vehement defensive reactions: the socialization of real estate companies. How do you imagine that?

Rents have risen by 69 percent in the past ten years. Of course, everyone felt that when they voted for socialization. It involves around a dozen companies with around 220,000 apartments. If a dozen housing companies own a lot of apartments, they can influence the price and drive it up.

The average rent at Vonovia is around eight euros. This is well below the Berlin average.

Nevertheless, rents are rising. We are currently very systematically checking illegal exorbitant rents. Here too the Senate failed. We have already examined hundreds of cases in which tenants have sent us their rent increases. We discovered that a very large proportion – more than 80 percent – ​​was inadmissible. So it's not just about the number of apartments, but also about the business model of these housing companies. Vonovia is trying to reduce its costs and make as much profit as possible.

In the case of socialization, the companies would be expropriated and then compensated. How expensive will this be for the Berlin Senate?

The citizens' initiative expects 8 to 18 billion euros if compensation is paid below the market value. However, this is a decision that is not made by the Senate, but by the courts. First of all, it is clear that we want to work on it from day one. But you have to realize that it would be a process that would take years. It's about a large number of apartments and structuring the financing so that it is sustainable. The Berlin budget would not have to be burdened permanently. You could buy back the apartments using loans and spread the financing over many years using rental income.

Who then owns the inventory, who manages it, and how is it organized?

According to the referendum model, tenants make their own decisions in advisory boards. Institutions under public law could emerge, similar to public broadcasting, where there are also advisory boards and decisions are made jointly. First of all, it's about how the inventory is transferred into city hands and how democratic forms of participation can then be organized.

Sounds complicated.

It's complicated. But firstly, Berliners want this model, and secondly, it would be more democratic.

Can you guarantee that rents would then go down?

In any case, we can guarantee that they will not rise as astronomically as they are currently doing. And that's what the principle is all about. We will pull out all the stops. In addition to socialization, many other measures must of course be taken at the same time.

As a result, no new apartments are created. Only the owner would change.

Exactly. We have to fight rent usury. You can also immediately introduce a rent cap for state-owned apartments. Of course we have to invest in social and public housing. In order to meet demand, around 7,500 additional apartments would have to be built per year. We are not against new construction. But you finally have to implement it.

With whom do you want to enforce the expropriation? Steffen Krach, the SPD's top candidate, said quite clearly: Not with us.

I would like to remind you that there was a referendum that all parties must initially adhere to. The Greens and the SPD party base are also fundamentally in favor of it.

Who else should invest in the Berlin housing market?

First of all, hardly anyone is investing anyway. Many say it's not worth it at the moment because building is too expensive and there is a lack of skilled workers. The crisis in the construction industry is therefore much deeper than the question of foreign investment.

The rent cap also had a deterrent effect.

This was partly a myth and was greatly exaggerated. We knew that the rent cap would initially have an effect. However, it would not have prevented investments over a longer period of time. The crucial question is: Do we want major foreign investors who will provide us with large blocks of condominiums here that hardly anyone can afford? Large foreign investors do not build social housing. Social housing belongs to the public sector.

If you are so committed to the little people, why are you fighting for a pension at 65 that benefits high-earning, healthy men?

Because it's about a principle. People who have contributed for 45 years should have the right to retire. It can be a healthy man who says to himself: I'll do it this way now. But it could just as easily be an East German employee who started working very early, has a long working history with many different jobs and breaks and has provided for the family.

Why should poorer pensioners who cannot take advantage of this privilege finance this?

A majority of Germans are against the move to abolish pensions at 63 - which is now a higher age depending on the age group. It is similar to the question of why people with good incomes vote for the AfD. One could say that they must be under particularly strong economic pressure. But that's not how politics works. It's about people feeling that an attack on pensions is being waged here.

Is it really an attack? I think that's what people are being told.

It is also a real attack. If the government eliminates this right, it takes away this potential right from everyone - regardless of whether they have done hard physical labor or not. You then either have to work two years longer or get by with less pension for the rest of your life. Both are a reduction, once in money and once in lifespan.

How about exceptions for groups that are particularly burdened?

Then you create bureaucratic hurdles again, and in the end the law is used by even fewer people. There is actually something strange when a left-wing party of all people has to say this: This is also about the performance principle and performance justice.

Benefits are already reflected in the pension points and thus in the pension amount.

Yes, that's what every pension notice says: Anyone who has paid in more and for longer gets more. That's not the point of contention at all. Anyone who wants to change the pension system in order to strengthen its financing must talk about broadening the contributor base. The Pension Commission is now proposing to extend working life overall and link it to a rising retirement age. In addition, supposedly small adjustments such as the pension at 63 should be adjusted. So it's not just that the left is emotionalizing the debate out of evil populism.