After the AfD success in Saxony-Anhalt, Juso leader Türmer is calling for a socio-political restart of the coalition. In the interview, he takes stock of his own party - and the Chancellor's course.
Berlin. Juso boss Philipp Türmer is calling on the federal government to change course immediately after the elections in Saxony-Anhalt. “That was a reckoning with the federal government, especially with the reform course,” said Türmer in an interview with the Handelsblatt. “We have to change our politics in Berlin and make a U-turn.”
Türmer also took a hard line against his own party: “If we experience such a strong loss of trust among our core clientele, we too have to admit that we have done a hell of a lot wrong,” said the Juso leader, referring to the SPD election result of 9.3 percent. "It is impossible to impose a reform course completely against the population. You have to listen to the people. And that means that something has to change now," said Türmer.
Mr. Türmer, the AfD achieved almost 44 percent in the election in Saxony-Anhalt. What does this election result mean for the country, but also for the entire republic?
That was a reckoning with the federal government, especially with its reform course. The polls clearly show what the crucial issue was: social security. We have to change our politics in Berlin and make a U-turn.
What happens if the AfD forms the government in Saxony-Anhalt?
That's the worst case. The AfD will do everything it can to exploit the situation in order to conquer more state parliaments. Ultimately, she wants to form a federal government. People from civil society who have given their all in recent months are likely to have to contend with severe repression. Our solidarity goes out to you. Above all, we do not leave our comrades there alone.
42 percent of young voters in Saxony-Anhalt voted for the AfD, only nine percent for the SPD. What does that mean for you as Juso boss?
There are even more dramatic numbers. Among people in difficult financial situations and among workers, support for the AfD is over 60 percent, ours is far lower. This is a clear mandate. We have to fight for the hearts of the people for whom social democracy was once invented. Every party - including mine - has to ask itself what it needs to change so that the AfD does not celebrate further electoral successes like this and we regain trust.
After the election results, the Union said: We have to carry out the reforms in order to regain the trust of the citizens in the medium term.
We should send a rocket on a rescue mission to bring back to our planet all those who claim this.
Do you want to stop the government's reform program instead?
People must stop equating reform with cuts. An issue that I was confronted with in all age groups: the increase in the retirement age and the abolition of pensions after 45 years of contributions. One in four men in the lowest income group does not live to see their 65th birthday. That's crazy! This number shows how unevenly distributed life expectancy is in this society. And then there is a remote discussion about pension formulas that ignores the fact that 71 percent of people say: After 45 years, I can't and don't want to anymore.
But there are unavoidable, escalating costs for health, care and pensions. Don't you have to stabilize it?
Naturally. I support further reforms than the coalition agreed to. But there have to be real reforms that make the system fairer. What will be better if people have to pay higher co-pays for prescription drugs?
Isn't the capital pension a positive narrative to stabilize the pension system in the long term?
I am in favor of using capital income to finance pensions much more than capital pensions do. Because the real question is: How do people in physically demanding jobs even get a pension that they can live on? Over 70 percent of people say the pension reform is going in the wrong direction.
But pensions cannot be saved through redistribution alone.
The average statutory pension is only 200 euros above the poverty line, while others in pension schemes or thanks to high pensions have significantly higher salaries. It would be fairer to strengthen smaller pensions and slightly reduce very high salaries, but within a common statutory pension insurance for everyone. This is significantly more extensive than what has been agreed so far.
We have had no economic growth in Germany for three years, and the potential growth is trending towards zero. And you want to solve every competition problem through redistribution?
At the moment we finance our social systems and a significant part of the tax revenue through the burden on employees and de facto distribute it from the bottom up. I am in favor of redistributing less. That we don't give undue advantage to the super-rich by financing the entire welfare state from labor income.
When it comes to income tax, high earners already bear a large share of the tax burden.
That's not my problem at all. But it is a de facto redistribution in favor of the rich if someone with several million in capital gains pays a flat rate of 25 percent capital gains tax, regardless of the amount. The funny thing is: When the Union argues for a capital-financed pension, it has actually already understood the basic problem: capital gains also have to finance our social systems.
Lars Klingbeil highlights the SPD's successes, the higher tax on the rich, the special fund for infrastructure. Doesn't he have points there too?
I admit that: The special fund is currently the main reason for the emerging upswing. We are obviously unable to achieve this positive dynamic when it comes to social reforms. But the special fund can also just be a beginning. The investment requirement is much higher.
90 percent of all investments in Germany are private. Shouldn't you boost them instead of further increasing public spending?
All studies show: Investment security through state investments is the factor that most favors private investments - significantly more promising than what some people promise with tax relief. We underestimate how big the investment backlog is. We've been driving this country for wear and tear since the mid-90s. In the area of municipal infrastructure alone, the Institute for Urban Studies puts the need at almost 400 billion euros - that doesn't include education, networks and energy.
Do you want to take on more and more debt in a period of high interest rates?
Not just about debt. You have to look at the real interest rates. If they are less than what we earn with them, they are sensible investments for my generation. In addition, we need a higher inheritance tax in order to finance education, for example. The current Pisa study shows: We are left behind internationally when it comes to equal opportunities. For every euro we gain through inheritance tax and invest in education, four euros come back to society - an absolute dream return.
But you can't get through all of this with the Union?
It is impossible to impose a reform course completely against the population. We live in a democracy that thrives on interaction. You have to hear people. And that means something has to change now.
Doesn't your criticism primarily affect your own party leadership?
In the end, this affects the entire government. When we experience such a severe loss of trust among our core clientele, we too have to realize: We have done a hell of a lot wrong. I can say what my idea is to change that, but so far the party has lacked a common strategy. That has to change.
Has the model failed that the SPD chairmen are part of the government?
From post-election surveys I see a high level of dissatisfaction with the reform course. This shows what we need to do differently. I name that and otherwise support my comrades in the election campaigns.
Would Manuela Schwesig's success be a role model for a new course in the federal government?
Above all, a victory would show that the SPD can win elections by focusing on people's everyday concerns and can thus defeat the AfD.
In the SPD, Schwesig is already being considered as the new party leader.
I'm currently looking at the next few weeks and the substantive questions that arise in Saxony-Anhalt.
The SPD achieved its 9.3 percent in Saxony-Anhalt, as a party with the claim to be a people's party. Who else does the SPD want to reach?
Everyone who has to live from their work.
Also a McKinsey consultant with an annual salary of 130,000 euros?
Even this advisor has more in common with a citizen's benefit recipient than with a billionaire, even if he may not want to admit it. Be it a bus driver, delivery person, nurse or teacher – they all have an interest in tax-free work and good public infrastructure and services of general interest. These are the makers of this society.
“Maker”? Now you almost sound like the Chancellor.
I don't have the impression that the Chancellor is making politics for those who really get involved. He often seems more like the population's chief teacher. It's not a particularly good idea to insult large parts of the population for months as being too lazy. As Juso chairman, I have never been enthusiastic about Friedrich Merz. The only surprising thing is how many people in the CDU are now moving closer to my position.
In one sentence: What should the SPD learn from this historic September 7, 2026?
The SPD must once again become the voice of people with low and normal incomes, of employees who want decent representation of their interests in politics.
