Merkel forced on defensive in TV debate Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, was forced on the defensive for the first time in the German election campaign on Sunday evening, when she was sharply attacked for her austerity policies in the eurozone by Peer Steinbrück, her Social Democrat challenger. He accused her of forcing Greece into a "vicious circle" of recession and unsustainable debt, saying that what was really needed was a "second Marshall Plan" to rescue the worst-hit members of the eurozone in the crisis. "I would have followed a different crisis strategy," he said. Of course there must be budget consolidation, but not a deadly dose. Germany had been "massively helped" after the second world war with cash from the Marshall Plan, "and we must not forget that." Mr Steinbrück, who was finance minister under the chancellor from 2005-09, also blamed Ms Merkel's policy for forcing the European Central Bank to introduce such low interest rates that German savers were unable to earn a decent rate of return to finance their pensions. He scored a series of points in the TV exchange, which is the only time the two candidates will have such a public clash during the campaign. But he was also forced on to the defensive himself over his plans to raise taxes on higher income earners, and over his refusal to contemplate serving in a "grand coalition" under Ms Merkel if neither left nor right were to emerge with a clear majority. In a head-to-head confrontation on German television, broadcast simultaneously on four major TV channels and national radio, Mr Steinbrück emerged as the more convincing candidate, according to an instant poll of viewers, by a margin of 49 to 44 per cent. His success may help revive his flagging campaign with just three weeks to run before polling day, but most political analysts doubt that the temporary victory will be enough to dent Ms Merkel's huge advantage in popularity. The chancellor defended herself vigorously against the SPD challenger's criticism, reminding him that he had voted in favour of all the eurozone crisis measures proposed by her government. She insisted that the German government would only support rescue plans for debt-strapped eurozone countries, such as Greece and Portugal, in exchange for their commitment to economic reforms. It was essential that they took action to improve their competitiveness, and it would be wrong to relax the pressure for reform by providing them with more debt forgiveness, she added. Mr Steinbrück's decision to attack Ms Merkel directly on her European crisis management was a clear change of tactics for his party. Apart from the fact that the SPD has backed government policy, the issue is seen as one where Ms Merkel has a clear advantage among voters. A poll of TV viewers among the 15m estimated to have watched the debate showed that Mr Steinbrück came out in front for being more intelligible, more combative (by 88 to 5 per cent), and having the better arguments (by 48 to 38 per cent). On the other hand, viewers saw the chancellor as more sympathetic (by 52 to 32 per cent) and fairer (by 45 to 13 per cent). The SPD challenger is trailing in the latest opinion polls, with some 28 per cent favouring him as the next chancellor, against 52 per cent for Ms Merkel. His party is polling between 22 and 25 per cent, against 39-41 per cent for Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union. Challenged on why he would not serve in possible grand coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, Mr Steinbrück said he could not recommend it for the good of his party. He insisted that he was campaigning for a "red-green" coalition of the SPD and the Green party, and rejected any other outcome. Ms Merkel immediately retorted that forming a coalition was something done "for the good of the nation" and not for the good of one's party. She wanted victory for her current "Christian-liberal" coalition, but would not rule out a grand coalition. She was less comfortable in defending the modest reforms achieved by her government, especially in the fields of health and old age care. She also admitted that big changes had to be made to the present transformation of the energy sector, including cuts in subsidies for renewable energy which threaten to raise energy prices sharply for all consumers.