(de-news.net) – The CDU/CSU parliamentary group has reaffirmed its support for Chancellor Friedrich Merz and urgedto proceed rapidly with its agreed reform agenda, following recent state election setbacks. Merz acknowledged some responsibility for the results but defended the government’s course, while Union politicians stressed the need for tangible results and continued reform. Economist Monika Schnitzer argued against weakening the broader social reform package in response to individual elections, while warning of potentially poorly targeted measures. SPD parliamentary leader Matthias Miersch, meanwhile, called for public confidence in how the coalition presents itself as well as fairness and the emphasizing concrete benefits when it comes to implementation.
On Tuesday, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group called for the swift implementation of the reform packages agreed with the SPD while reaffirming its support for Chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz. Thorsten Frei, the parliamentary group leader, CDU/CSU parliamentary manager Catarina dos Santos-Wintz and CSU parliamentary group leader Alexander Hoffmann each expressed their support for Merz.
Merz had reportedly defended the government’s reform agenda, while acknowledging his own share of responsibility for the Union’s poor performances in recent state elections, during a meeting with the CDU/CSU group in the German Bundestag. Although the results had raised questions within the party, the chancellor maintained that the fundamental direction of the government’s policies remained correct and should therefore be continued. He also insisted that the coalition use the autumn to implement projects already agreed upon, including reforms to pensions and long-term care, while defense spending should eventually be incorporated into the regular federal budget. On tax policy, Merz argued that lawmakers seeking greater relief would also have to identify corresponding reductions in spending, linking additional tax measures to the broader budgetary framework. The meeting focused on the political consequences of the Union’s defeats in Berlin and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Against that backdrop, Merz has made clear that he intends to retain both of his positions as CDU leader and chancellor while continuing with the government’s reform program.
Before the parliamentary group met, Frei and Hoffmann described the election results as a turning point for the Union and emphasized that the reform agenda should remain in place. Frei acknowledged that the Union also had a responsibility to help stabilize the coalition following disappointing state election results. At the same time, Frei and Hoffmann argued that the government should proceed with its planned measures as quickly as possible rather than reopening agreements that had already been reached. Frei also sought to clarify remarks by Merz concerning the health insurance system. Rather than questioning the system of statutory and private insurance itself, he said, the Chancellor had been drawing attention to perceived disparities and associated concerns about fairness.
Some criticism was also reportedly voiced within the Union parties’ parliamentary group, reflecting the pressure surrounding the government’s reform agenda after the election setbacks. Digital Minister Karsten Wildberger (CDU) emphasized that the government now needed to produce tangible results, while former parliamentary group leader Ralph Brinkhaus (CDU) was reportedly critical of insufficiently clear objectives. Hoffmann, for his part, acknowledged that some adjustments had already been agreed with the SPD but continued to characterize the core reform projects as non-negotiable. Pension reform, he said, would have to address the existing early-retirement arrangement for people with 45 years of contributions while incorporating a hardship provision that had already been agreed upon.
Economic experts and SPD propose different ways of rethinking Germany’s reform strategy
Monika Schnitzer, chairwoman of the German Council of Economic Experts, meanwhile urged the government not to alter its planned social reforms in response to individual election results. She defended Merz’s decision to maintain the existing course and described the measures as part of an integrated overall package rather than isolated policies that could be changed independently. In her assessment, weakening the reforms could ultimately leave the government facing pressure from both sides: voters who favor changes because they fear increasingly high contribution rates and those who oppose reductions in benefits. A partial retreat, she argued, could therefore fail to satisfy either group.
Schnitzer also stated that people who are particularly affected by the reforms should receive targeted assistance. She criticized the renewed discussion of measures such as the 63-year retirement option and a fuel-price discount, arguing that neither represented a sufficiently targeted response. She also warned of potential distortions arising from a state-imposed fuel-price cap. If a maximum price were set too high, prices could actually rise in areas where consumers had previously shown relatively low willingness to pay. If it were set too low, fuel suppliers could redirect their sales to other markets, creating shortages. Schnitzer suggested that the resulting distortions could be particularly significant in eastern Germany.
Following the elections in Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Saxony-Anhalt, SPD parliamentary group leader Matthias Miersch had prior to the Union parties’ meeting argued that the governing coalition could not simply continue as before. He said the government needed to acknowledge the uncertainty felt by substantial parts of the population and communicate more effectively about the purpose and benefits of its reform agenda. Pension policy, in particular, remained politically sensitive because eligibility after 45 years of contributions was viewed by many as a fundamental question of fairness. For Miersch, the issue therefore extended beyond the technical design of a pension reform and into broader public perceptions of security and equity.
Miersch nevertheless rejected the idea that the government should simply follow majority opinion. Instead, he called for greater reflection within the coalition and for reforms that could demonstrate concrete gains in security and fairness. In his assessment, the current process risked leaving the public with the impression that reform primarily meant cuts. The government would therefore need to make clearer why the changes were being pursued and what added value they were intended to provide, particularly in terms of greater security and a stronger sense of fairness.
