In an unspectacular and comparatively respectful duel, despite some harsh criticisms from the Neos, several commonalities emerged between the turquoise and pink parties. At least in theory.
It may seem paradoxical that a statement that ÖVP voters would surely like to hear comes from the mouth of an opposition politician: “The ÖVP will be in government again after the election, we can say that much.”
This was made clear by Neos leader Beate Meinl-Reisinger at the beginning of the TV duel with Chancellor Karl Nehammer (ÖVP). She added, “The only question is what the government will look like.” The turquoise party was so eager for power, the pink leader claimed, that they would, if necessary, govern with Herbert Kickl’s FPÖ.
And yet, it is at least tactically understandable why Meinl-Reisinger said this, and for several reasons. The first: The pink party is evidently trying to appeal to ÖVP voters who do not want a government with the Blues in the final stretch of the campaign. “Will you coalition with the FPÖ?” Thus, it was not ORF moderator Susanne Schnabl who posed the question first, but rather Meinl-Reisinger who asked the Chancellor. He responded with what he always says in this situation: “It depends on who leads a party. Not with Herbert Kickl.” And that is also the case even if Kickl remains party leader of the FPÖ far from a government office. “If he is party leader, it cannot happen,” said Nehammer. “That would make no sense and would not provide certainty for a viable government.” After all, when Jörg Haider once governed the black-blue coalition from the outside under Wolfgang Schüssel, it did not work out then either; the FPÖ had also “blown itself up” back then, Nehammer stated.
And then there is the open desire for government from the Neos. As Meinl-Reisinger herself said, this can only be realized in their view in partnership with the ÖVP, most likely in a coalition of turquoise, red, and pink. Many within the ÖVP also desire a coalition with the Neos—certainly much more than with the Greens. Thus, the logical conclusion followed: for nearly an hour, viewers saw two party leaders who did not want to alienate each other despite their disagreements. The tone was a strong contrast to previous duels, such as that between Kickl and Green leader Werner Kogler shortly before.
“No anti-patriotic act”
Nehammer once again promoted his government’s work. He spoke of the abolition of cold progression, which had always been a Neos demand; he reiterated how challenging the framework conditions had been in light of major crises. That may all be true, countered Meinl-Reisinger, “but I do not think much of what your government has done economically.” In response to Nehammer’s accusation that the opposition is speaking ill of Austria and that they “do not have to bear any responsibility,” she replied: “Saying that is not an anti-patriotic act.” Both sides emphasized their known priorities. For instance, Nehammer criticized that the red-pink governed Vienna is a “magnet” for refugees due to comparatively high social benefits. As is often the case, he mentioned in the budget consolidation debate that he wanted to increase the pie—referring to economic output—through “economic growth.” Instead, Meinl-Reisinger called for federalism and pension reforms as well as savings in funding.
“Yes, then we will change that!”
So, not much new was heard in the 50 minutes, but several commonalities surfaced—from the gradually disappearing unemployment benefits to a uniform social assistance system and the need for tax cuts instead of new taxes, as well as the fight against uncontrolled asylum migration. “It cannot continue like this with irregular migration; people don’t want that anymore,” Meinl-Reisinger said, for example, demanding “closed EU external borders” and asylum procedures taking place there. The entire debate was permeated by the fact that Meinl-Reisinger criticized less the ÖVP’s programmatic stance per se but rather the circumstance that the chancellor’s party does not fulfill its promises. “For 37 years you have been posting that performance must be rewarded. But work does not pay off, and working full-time does not pay off at all.” They need “hard reforms that your government has lacked the courage to undertake,” she said to Nehammer—who, by the way, mentioned that he appreciates Meinl-Reisinger “as a convinced Democrat.” And in response to Meinl-Reisinger’s criticism of the social assistance “patchwork,” he replied: “Yes, then we will change that!” Maybe in a joint government.