Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

286k now.

[DavidB.]

The proposal was at 289k this morning.

The biggest Dutch tabloid, De Telegraaf, revealed that the government isn't happy with this. A referendum would likely be organized in the first months of 2016 - the Association Agreement will already have come into force by then... - and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte will then be the President of the Council of Europe on behalf of the Netherlands, which will lead to an awkward situation if Dutch voters say "no" to the Association Agreement.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants the government to endorse the Association Agreement, but the cabinet is not sure about that, considering the fact that the government enthusiastically endorsed the European Constitution in 2005, which led to an extreme backlash and the rejection of the Constitution. A high Dutch EU diplomat has called the potential referendum "a fishbone in the throat" of the government.

[DavidB.]

Given that PVV only has two members: Geert Wilders and the Geert Wilders foundation, how is that gong to happen?

For all their top-down management and leadership intolerance of critics both DPP and the Finns Party do have an actual membership.

Yeah, the only possibility for this to happen would be if Wilders steps down voluntarily and allows this to happen - he could then make this person a party member as well. To be sure, I don't really see this happening in the near future. I'm thinking about the long-term future for the PVV.

[DavidB.]

A lot of interesting statements. I'm going to try to reply to most of them.

I know it is clichéd to say the 'new right' movement is a flash in the pan in Europe, but in the Dutch case the PVV will probably not exist in ten years time. Another party will take its place, that is either currently standing or will be born out of another round of VVD defection and crucially, the growing number of local parties that adopt a few 'New Right' ideas. This started with the Leefbaar movement.  

Let's start with the main point of your post. I always find it hard to "predict"; I don't have a crystal ball. Ten years is a very long time. I truly don't know what will happen to the PVV (or to this PVV). It might be replaced by another new-right party, or it might continue under the name "PVV" in a direction that seems electorally fruitful - with or without Wilders. I suppose the PVV won't exist as it exists now in ten years, with Wilders as leader and the same "direction" in terms of policy/harsh statements, but even that I don't know for sure.

Ten years ago, the VVD was also a very different party. So even if I doubt the viability of the current course of the PVV in the long term, I also doubt if that conclusion about this specific party is necessarily relevant. What seems a sure thing to me is that the Dutch new-right will be an important political force in ten years time, as important as now or possibly stronger.

Unlike the N-VA and Vlaams Belang, as well as other 'new right' forces in Europe, Wilders has no base whatsoever in local and regional governments. People forget that Wilders' party was born out of a parliamentary defection that attracted a lot of attention. He then started a complete path of political stunts to attract various types of electorates that I went into detail at the start of the thread. He still has no local party organisms, and his strong regional results probably coincide with the same election of a national chamber on the same day.

I think you are overestimating the importance of local party organizations to be a successful new-right party in terms of vote seeking, office seeking, or policy seeking. The PVV was perfectly able to have influence when it entered Rutte-I.

I think not establishing local party organizations has strengthened the PVV rather than weakened. It is hard to say this in an objective, neutral way, but there don't seem to be so many capable PVV politicians. The PVV can truly miss the loonies, the loudmouths, the racists, and the gaffe-prone people who will embarrass the party and hurt its chances on the national level.

At best the typical structures he can rely on are the scared elderly, the people who still believe in Fortuyn's core anti-Islam message and the intellectual baggage around it (which is far from a flawed political philosophy given current events, but not enough to constitute a genuine reliable electorate in the long run), and anti-globalists who are also anti-leftist.

I think this part of your post is pretty POV, as they call it on Wikipedia. First of all, the PVV's core electorate of disappointed voters or voters who want "change" seems substantial and, indeed, sustainable. I do think that the Dutch new right will have a genuinely reliable electorate in the future. Of course, "reliable" is subjective and the new right will continue to struggle with problems regarding turnout and disillusionment with all political parties, including new-right ones. Secondly, as the "culture wars" and value-oriented issues (immigration, refugees, EU, "globalization" in general) might have become the most politically "salient" ones, there will always be a party to fill the gap on the end of the political spectrum. Islam is simply quite important to Dutch politics and to Dutch political discourse, and it plays an important part in people's conception of the current state of affairs in the Netherlands. I am confused by your use of the word "still", because the influence of these issues doesn't seem to diminish (even if it temporarily seemed so after the collapse of the Rutte-I cabinet in 2012): the refugee crisis and the amount of talk about IS - and their effect on the PVV's popularity - prove that.

There's no way the Netherlands hasn't benefited from globalisation.

I think it is hard to reply to such statements. What is "globalization"? I don't know. I think I may agree with you, but it is too generalizing a term. More importantly, it is irrelevant. What matters if voters think the Netherlands has benefited from the developments that have also affected the Netherlands. If 30% think the Netherlands hasn't become a better country to live in, and that might very well be the case - for conceivable and less conceivable reasons to us - then this can become politically relevant, even if "globalization" has been "all positive, all the time".

For me, even if I agree that "globalization" as a whole has had a positive impact on the country, that answer will not be an unequivocal "yes" or "no", and I think this will be the case for most people. There are inherently some developments that have hurt people in the Netherlands. The country might have benefited greatly from Schengen and the free movement of goods and persons (I think it did), but it has, for instance, caused rampant problems with drug trafficking in Limburg, affecting people's lives negatively as they experience an increase in crime and a decrease in the feeling to be secure in their own neighborhoods. People's jobs are on the line because it is cheaper to produce cars in Poland than in the Netherlands. Do you see where I'm going? Personally, I find it too easy to "look down upon" these people. To be clear, I am not saying you are doing so, but many people do, and many people in The Hague do. As strange as it sounds for someone who is "privileged" in many respects, I feel for these people, who don't seem to be taken seriously by the parties that were created in order to represent them.

By the way, add to the potential "PVV voter coalition" the young, married, double-income, middle-class couples who live in the new "Vinex" neighborhoods (built in the 1990s and the 2000s) in suburbs or satellite towns. In 2012, these people swung heavily toward the VVD, because they are right-wing (they feel economically insecure) when it comes to the economy. However, they are very critical of developments regarding Islam, even if Wilders sometimes takes it too far for these people, and even if the VVD sometimes satisfies these people with populist statements regarding "law and order", it is not enough. If the election will be primarily about the economy, these people will swing to the VVD, as was the case in 2012 (and less so in 2010). But if the election will be more about immaterial issues, and these issues are the issues which make the PVV skyrocket in the polls (such as now), then the PVV or any other future new-right party which plays its cards the smart way is going to win.

Possibly heading off-topic, but why is it that Flanders has a heavy amount of populist-rightism, but Wallonia doesn't?

I don't want to ignore you, because it is a good question. I just don't think I'm qualified to answer this question because I don't really know so much about politics in Wallonia. Maybe Belgian posters could help.

I am not entirely convinced by politicus' answer. It is logical that most Wallonians want Belgium to remain one country, but a Wallonian far-right or new-right party doesn't necessarily have to be secessionist (or extremely pro-Belgian) - it could also simply ignore the "polity" issues and focus on things like "Islamization", law and order, and distrust of the existing political parties. Still, it doesn't really exist (only some insignificant marginal groups do), whereas Wallonia seems to have an extremely fertile soil for the new-right.

The referendum proposal, by the way, was at 298k a few hours ago. More elections = more fun

[DavidB.]

300k has been reached, but mistakes will have been made: people inadvertently giving wrong addresses, signing multiple times etc, but also trolls. The Electoral Council will take a sample of 4,000 of which more than 90% has to be valid in order for the referendum to be organized. Therefore, GeenPeil is still urging people to sign, in order to increase the percentage of valid signatures.

[DavidB.]

1. Flanders is wealthier but thats a more recent thing, Wallonia used to be the industrial heart of Belgium and was more wealthy, However post 1970s when deindustrialization in most of the west became a long-term trend. It was flipped, the flemish who weren't dependent on industry and developed a better Services economy to compensate, flourished in the aftermath.  More wealthier = more right of centre leaning.

2. Because of #1,  Flemish tax revenues has been forced to be used to subsidize welfare for wallonians, since their unemployment is higher when they didn't diversify from industry when globalization became a thing.  Rightful anger at this means more support for right of centre parties in general.

3.  History of flemish culture being hold down by the Culturally french-Wallonians.  Resulting in distrust of government in general more-so in flanders.

1+2+3 = Unpopularity of the left(70% of Flemish voted for right of centre parties in the last General and Regional elections) and Flanders being right of centre dominated.

All of this might explain the popularity of the new-right/far-right in Flanders (even though I wouldn't even call the N-VA truly new-right), but it doesn't explain the absence of a new-right/far-right party in Wallonia, which is what Crab asked about.

[DavidB.]

Have you read about the Vlaams-Belang?

[picture]

There was a true far-right party in Belgium and a lot of their supporters over the years. Fled to the N-VA because unlike VB, it was clean and had independence goals, but none of the negative aspects obviously. So a lot of VB voters felt they would have more influence in the political stage by switching to N-Va.

Of course I know about VB and of course I know that N-VA (which I still do not consider new-right, even if it has some tendencies that could be qualified as "populist", a term I, however, normally like to avoid because of its vagueness) has absorbed much of VB's former support in recent years. I speak Dutch, you know. I actually know a guy who is active in VB. The point is that Crab's question didn't relate to Flanders or to Belgium as a whole, but specifically to Wallonia, where the far-right/new-right doesn't really get support.

[DavidB.]

Good contribution I found it especially interesting that you said that Marine Le Pen is popular in Wallonia. I didn't know that. To me, it just seems like the conditions for a successful new-right party are present in Wallonia.

Except for the fact that the political focus continues to lie on economic/material issues such as unemployment and poverty (which, indeed, seem to be Wallonia's biggest problems) rather than immaterial issues such as multiculturalism, immigration, Islam and preserving one's identity, which makes working-class people more inclined to simply vote for the PS or PTB rather than a new-right party: after all, it is not as if they are disillusioned with the socialist economic ideas of these parties. The fact that the political party system operates on the Walloon level (even in federal elections) yet there is no real distinct Walloon identity might reinforce this focus on material issues: "identity politics" isn't as powerful when you haven't really figured out what your own identity is.

[DavidB.]

The official GeenPeil referendum count has been sabotaged by GeenStijl all the time. They have now published the real count, and it has been signed 443,055 times (and counting) This referendum is definitely going to happen.



According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dutch ratification of the Agreement will be suspended until the referendum will be organized. The Agreement can only come into force if all EU member states have ratified it, meaning that the Agreement cannot come into force on January 1, 2016, as scheduled.

[DavidB.]

High-profile former VVD MP Arend Jan Boekestijn, who had to step down after a series of embarrassing gaffes (which are often called "Boekestijntjes" now - for a reason...), is already extremely angry about this on Twitter. I'm already looking forward to the fear-mongering during the campaign, even though I support the Agreement. Let's see if the political establishment can top the scare-campaign before the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005, when the VVD published the following - truly bizarre - video, featuring pictures from the Holocaust, Srebrenica, and the Madrid terrorist attacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv715js9_TA #tbt

Text: "Never again! Start European cooperation in 1952."
Text 2: "The danger is always present! Better cooperation is necessary."
Text 3: "Future with peace, security and prosperity. One European constitution."
Jan Mulder MEP: "If you want to check European regulations in a better way, then you need to vote for the European Constitution."

[DavidB.]

1. Poll

New EenVandaag/De Stemming poll, which I consider to be quite good, even if it usually slightly overpolls PVV/D66 and slightly underpolls VVD/PvdA. But the trend seems clear. PVV (+7) and GroenLinks (+3) have won big during the last month, mainly at the cost of SP (-> PVV) and D66 (-> GL). The migrant crisis will, of course, have had a big role in this. This might be an all-time high for the PVV in a non-peil.nl poll. It is clear that people who stopped supporting the party after the "fewer Moroccans" speech in March 2014 are now willing to return.

Seats (election 2012, last poll August 31)
PVV 34 (+19, +7)
VVD 23 (-18, -1)
D66 19 (+7, -2)
CDA 19 (+6, =)
SP 18 (+3, -3)
PvdA 11 (-17, -1)
GroenLinks 9 (+5, +3)
ChristenUnie 6 (+1, -1)
50Plus 5 (+3, -1)
SGP 3 (=, -1)
PvdD 3 (+1, =)
VNL 0
---
Total = 150 (76 for majority)

Note that the big parties on the (center) right, VVD+CDA+PVV, have a majority of 76 seats, probably for the first time since July 2010. It is caused by SP voters switching to the PVV. The fact that this combination has a majority in the polls doesn't mean anything in reality, because VVD and (especially) CDA don't want government cooperation with the PVV anymore, but it is still interesting.

One of the PVV's strengths is that it seems able to attract support from many parties. Not only from the obvious parties:
- SP (working-class anti-immigration/anti-Islam voters, often in peripherical areas in the Randstad/the Catholic south/the northeast)
- VVD (middle-class anti-immigration/anti-Islam right-wingers, often in "Vinex" neighborhoods/suburbs in the Randstad, also some people in the Catholic south)

... but also from
- CDA (mainly people in the Catholic south),
- PvdD (the PVV is a strong supporter of animal rights; these are of course the people who vote for the PvdD as a protest vote, not the inner-city/rich suburb hippies/vegans),
- SGP (orthodox Protestants who think the SGP is too "naive" on Islam - admittedly, there aren't too many of them),
- 50Plus (elderly people who don't like immigration + PVV is seen as a party that protects the economic interests of the elderly).

According to De Stemming, there are even people who doubt between D66 and PVV, but I'll take that with a grain of salt...

2. It's all about the South...



It is worthwile to consider the enormous difference between the North and the South (Noord-Brabant and Limburg). The religious divide that has influenced Dutch history and the formation of the state still matters, even though it has become more of a cultural issue. Secularization took place quickly in the south (where the Catholic People's Party, the most important predecessor of the CDA, used to get >95% of the votes in many places during pillarization), which rendered the KVP/CDA (in the past necessary for the emancipation of the Catholics) unnecessary in terms of emancipating Catholics. The South has long been a depoliticized area, in which there was a homogeneous Catholic majority (90%+). Therefore, the relation between politicians and citizens was more clientelistic, especially on a local level.

Secularization (people often continued to be "culturally Catholic") and the closing of the cole mines (in Limburg) led to quick changes. Because of this sudden collapse of religiosity, which had stood at the heart of people's lives in these areas for centuries before, a vacuum has come into being: people miss the social cohesion of yore. At the same time, they have been passive, because that had been their attitude before: in the Catholic South of the nineteenth century, one who was born poor would always stay poor. The deteriorating social-economic conditions in the South (mine closing, de-industrialization, outsourcing) led to a perception of being neglected by The Hague, which, of course, is rooted in a long history in which Catholics were "second-class citizens" and Northern Protestants ruled the country. This causes popularity for anti-establishment parties in the Southern provinces: PVV, SP, and to a lesser extent PvdD and 50Plus. (Ironically, the in my opinion disproportional Northern left-wing outrage about the high percentage of PVV votes in Limburg in 2010 - 26,6% - might have strengthened this perception.) Social cohesion is low in the South: for instance, the percentage of people who do volunteer work is lowest. By contrast, many areas in the most northern provinces (Friesland, Groningen) are also quite poor, but high social cohesion and a tradition of quite "liberal" Protestantism and Socialism causes many people to vote for either CDA or PvdA. The PVV is weak in these provinces, especially in Friesland.

There is an important difference between Noord-Brabant and Limburg: Noord-Brabant has been modernizing rapidly and is now the leading area in the Netherlands when it comes to IT/technology development (concentrated around Eindhoven), whereas Limburg doesn't seem to be able to catch up with the changes in the global economy (even though it is situated well, close to the Ruhr-Rhine-metropolis, Brussels, and Liege). This is why the VVD has recently become quite popular in relatively prosperous Noord-Brabant (see the 2012 election result), whereas PVV, SP, CDA (the de-alignment of Catholics is a very gradual process, the older generations still being inclined to vote for the CDA), and PvdA dominate in poorer Limburg. Still, Brabant, too, is very clearly electorally part of the South: the same patterns exist, it is just that its prosperity makes people more inclined than in Limburg to vote VVD when an election is mainly about the economy.

Tl;dr: Overall, the main difference between the North and the South is the extreme degree of electoral volatility in the South, rooted in its Catholic past, its culture of clientelism, and its anti-establishment sentiments that have increased and become politically relevant after the rapid secularization. In Limburg, social cohesion is low and unemployment/poverty are relatively big problems. In Noord-Brabant, this is much less the case: it has become quite prosperous, even though there are some problematic areas in the southwest of the province (Bergen op Zoom, Roosendaal; in rural Rucphen, the PVV always gets the highest vote percentage in the entire country) and in the far east (drug crime-ridden Helmond, one of the worst places in the country; Venray; the Cuijk area, from where SP leader Emile Roemer hails). Still, both provinces vote are alike in favoring anti-establishment parties and high volatility.


The SP's results in the 2012 general election, breakdown by municipality. It is clear that the South votes differently than the North. The South-East of Gelderland is also historically Catholic, with a strong KVP in the past.

[DavidB.]

Regarding the poll: I think it's safe to say that the PVV is around 31-32 seats now (De Stemming and peil.nl overpolling them by a little), and all other parties are only around 20. Given the notorious volatility of Dutch voters that doesn't necessarily say anything about the next elections, which might take place only in March 2017, but this anti-establishment sentiment among the population might definitely influence the outcome of the EU referendum, which will take place no later than in March 2016.

Also interesting is that while 22% say, in De Hond's poll, that they would vote for the PVV, another 8% say they could vote for the PVV. That's quite a high ceiling (the 1989 election was the last time a party got over 30% of the vote), probably as high as in their best days. Common wisdom has it that the PVV's ceiling is around or somewhat over 35 seats, meaning that their result would be quite "maxed out" now, but the poll seems to suggest that the party's ceiling goes up when its polling result goes up, which seems plausible, at least for now.

It is caused by SP voters switching to the PVV.

I assume that's because SP voters don't care much for the parties (presumedly) pro-refugee stance? I think in Germany the Left Party could eventually also face some problems in the east if the AfD establishes itself as a viable force because of the former's position on immigration and the increasing salience of the topic vis-à-vis economics.

Yes, definitely, although the PVV attracts people from other parties than the SP as well, so your explanation - while entirely true - doesn't explain all of the hypothetical votes the PVV gained.

Note that Die Linke might be more openly pro-immigration than the SP (for reasons related to Germany's history and the influence of this history on the ideological development of the German left), which would render the party even more vulnerable if it would operate in the Netherlands. To be sure, the SP is not critical of immigration or the Netherlands taking in refugees, they basically hold the same position as GroenLinks (although they have been more critical of immigration from Eastern Europe, but on economic grounds, not with nativist arguments). Many people on Atlas seem to think that the SP is this populist party that also tends to play the nativist card, but that's really not true, they hold the same "internationalist" positions as most of their European counterparts - the real difference is that they don't talk about it too much, because that would lead to an even bigger loss in potential voters.

The simple truth is that the Dutch working class likes the SP when it comes to economics, but not when it comes to identity issues. So you're right: it all depends on the salience of identity issues vis-à-vis material issues. That is why the VVD and the PvdA have, recently, always tried to frame elections as if they were solely about the economic course of the next government. This enables them to attract voters from both PVV and D66, the parties with the clearest profile on identity-related issues.

[DavidB.]

In a controversial decision, the government has purchased two Rembrandt paintings in cooperation with France. Each country pays 80 million euros. The paintings will be owned both by France and the Netherlands, being half of the time in France and half of the time in the Netherlands. Initially the Netherlands would buy both paintings, but now France wants to have them as well, and since they are in France, apparently a compromise had to be made. So PM Rutte and French president Hollande have reached a deal now. The paintings are currently owned by the Rothschild family, so all conspiracy crazies have gathered on an online hatefest (the utterly irrelevant Libertarian Party taking the cake in this competition, surprising absolutely nobody). Today, the Senate approved of the deal: only PVV and SP voted against. However, a peil.nl poll suggests that the majority (56%) of the Dutch population is against this deal, only 36% supporting it.

Initially, when the Netherlands would buy both paintings, the Netherlands would contribute 80 million euros and the Dutch State Museum in Amsterdam would contribute 80 million euros: the paintings would be permanently at the State Museum. Now, however, the State Museum is angry with the fact that they won't be able to have a "monopoly" on the painings since they will be in France for six months every year, so it's not sure if they will be contributing anything. This rather "entitled" attitude of the State Museum - something many people will connect to the general attitude of Amsterdam's cultural elite - has led SP leader Emile Roemer to suggest that if the State Museum doesn't want to contribute anything, then the paintings could go on loan to a museum in (for instance) Enschede (a medium-sized city in the far east of the country) as well, which, in my opinion, was the exact right thing to say.

[DavidB.]

Finally, Ipsos falls in line as well: it has the PVV as the largest party. Ipsos tends to overpoll PvdA (by a big margin) and VVD (by a smaller margin) and it underpolls the PVV by a rather big margin, so that's good to take into account. This confirms the existing view on the PVV's popularity: it is likely around 31-33 seats and somewhat over 20% of the vote. Remarkable about this poll: SGP at 5 (!) seats.

By the way, if you guys have any questions regarding Dutch politics not related to the current political situation, please do feel free to ask these as well and I'll do my utmost best to answer them.

[DavidB.]

Why is VNL not polled? Or is it part of the 0.3 Andere ? Then why is it so low ? Is it dead already?

It is part of 0.3 "andere", yes. It's not dead, but it's losing support to the PVV because of the migrant crisis, an issue on which the PVV seems to be more convincing to some than VNL: after all, being against immigration in the Netherlands has a face and it is Geert Wilders'. When Wilders was making speeches in villages where asylum seeker centers will be opened, VNL MP Joram van Klaveren wrote a policy paper in which he outlined what legislation, according to him, ought to be changed, including a detailed analysis of the existing legal framework. That probably doesn't make a politician more popular. What's more, VNL leader Bram Moszkowicz isn't an MP, the buzz about him being VNL's leader has died, and he seems to be in the media for all sorts of silly things - he's well-known to the public as a good, yet shady lawyer who is also often a guest in showbizz television programs - but not for anything political. It is clear that Van Klaveren is the one who decides on the party's program and its future. In general, it seems to be very hard for VNL to attract media attention.

And is SP losing to PvdA a thing again, or is it just Ipsos being Ipsos ? SP is taking quite a blow from the passed weeks and months in this one poll.

Not sure if the PvdA winning some voters is something real/significant, other polls show the PvdA being stable and the SP losing. However, it seems more likely that the PvdA is winning these voters from GroenLinks (which goes down in this poll) whereas the SP just keeps bleeding votes to the PVV. Emile Roemer attacked the PVV this week, stating that we should do our utmost best to welcome the refugees. That is a position the SP has held for a long time, but it is not a position that is particularly popular with the SP's electorate. Wilders stated that Roemer places the needs of asylum seekers above the needs of the elderly. To add a geographical factor: many asylum seeker centers are in peripherical areas in the northeast (Groningen, Drenthe) and the southeast of the Netherlands (Noord-Brabant, Limburg), areas that constitute the absolute electoral heartland for the SP yet also areas in which asylum seekers/immigration aren't popular.

[DavidB.]

Is Wilders a hindrance to the PVV at this point?

Wilders is the PVV, I don't know what would be there if he wouldn't be there, but I definitely don't see anyone who would be able to take over. Wilders is still extremely popular with a lot of people, so he's definitely no hindrance. He might now even be almost as popular as in his heydays, in 2009 and 2010. Of course, he's also the most hated politician in the Netherlands, but these people wouldn't vote for him anyway.

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, last night, a sickening coordinated attack on an emergency accommodation facility for asylum seekers has been perpetrated in Woerden (in the province of Utrecht). The facility, housing 148 people (amongst whom 51 children), has been attacked by a group of twenty people (possibly FC Utrecht hooligans), who hurled heavy firework bombs (like nitrates) to the asylum seekers, leading to extreme panic and sometimes to traumatizing experiences considering the fact that many people had fled war zones.

Mayor Victor Molkenboer (PvdA) stated that the government doesn't seem to have a plan to coordinate the situation and that there isn't a real debate on the migrant crisis, only people voicing their opinions in a loud way. He said "this could have happened everywhere" and that he isn't surprised about it: "the debate on the refugee problem has been heading in the wrong direction", leading to a "horrifying atmosphere." Deputy immigration minister Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD) comdemned the attack, stating he was horrified: "This violence is unacceptable. The perpetrators need to be punished. Refugees and neighborhood residents need to be safe." Prime Minister Mark Rutte visited the asylum seekers today, to buck them up and to show solidarity.

[DavidB.]

Embarrassing: VVD parliamentary group leader Halbe Zijlstra, the most important contender for the party leadership on the more conservative side of the party, painfully backtracked on some comments that were clearly intended to out-PVV the PVV. In an interview with newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, Zijlstra suggested that asylum seekers choose to go to the Netherlands because of "plastic surgery, eyelid correction surgery, breast enlargement, and teeth renovations". However, it quickly became apparent that asylum seekers don't have a right to said surgeries in the Netherlands, leading GroenLinks senator Tineke Strik to suggest that Zijlstra ought to get an eyelid surgery himself so that he can read the policy conditions of health insurance companies.

Zijlstra calls it "a mistake". He said that the brouhaha about his comments distracts people from his real point: that conditions for asylum seekers need to become more sober in order to decourage people from coming to the Netherlands. He says temporary residence permits need to be given on a one-year basis rather than a five-year basis, that family reunification needs to be a more difficult process, and that it has to become harder to obtain a Dutch passport.

Of course, nothing of this is going to be implemented by this government, since the PvdA will obviously not support it. In other words: Zijlstra says something entirely meaningless in order to make the VVD look conservative/tough on immigration in a wild attempt to persuade VVD-2012 voters who might vote for the PVV next time. We will see much more of this when the election season starts again, because the VVD is desperate to keep these voters.

[DavidB.]

Did Wilders reacted?

Yes, he tweeted the news article with the text: "Perpetrators need to be punished harshly. Resistance yes, but never with violence!"

I hope this Strik character immediatelly put on some sunglasses and swaggered out the chamber to around of applause and groupies after that burn.

Hahaha

[DavidB.]

New day, new poll: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond now officially has the PVV at an all-time high, at 35 seats (+15 over two months, +2 compared to last week, +20 compared to the 2012 election).



Some statements:
The Netherlands needs to close its borders to refugees immediately - 47% agree
I wouldn't mind an asylum seeker accommodation in my neighborhood - 44% agree
Many refugees don't flee war, but seek economic benefits - 62% agree
All refugees who come to the Netherlands should be helped - 36% agree
The Netherlands need to set a quota for refugees each year, and immediately send refugees back after reaching this quota - 51% agree
Geert Wilders is the only politician who articulates what many Dutch people think on refugees - 53% agree
Geert Wilders renders the divide in our society more pronounced - 61% agree
Prime Minister Rutte needs to ask the Dutch people to welcome refugees - 38% agree
Prime Minister Rutte needs to do everything in order to limit the amount of refugees that come to the Netherlands - 66% agree

[DavidB.]

Have you got tangible proof that SP is in fact bleeding voters to PVV ? People say this a lot in France, and until very very recently it had never been proven, though since 2012 we had a few instances in which left-wing voters seem to have indeed chosen the FN instead. Is the SP->PVV transfer an older and more established thing ?

On the one hand, the SP/PVV switching narrative is probably a tad overrated, since scholars tend to agree that Dutch voting behavior can be characterized as "bounded volatility" in which voters switch between parties in the same general "bloc": right-wing and left-wing (CDA being on the right, D66 being a somewhat more complicated case in the center).

On the other hand, there seems to be evidence that there are definitely people who consider switching between SP and PVV (much less so between PvdA and PVV). I cannot find cool vote transfer statistics between several elections right now, but there are various indicators for this phenomenon:

1. De Stemming/EenVandaag always polls specifically between which parties people doubt. It shows that the PVV currently has the most "battles" with VVD, CDA and SP. The SP currently has the most "battles" with GL, PvdA, PVV and D66, see http://destemming.eenvandaag.nl/. They are not alone in this: another pollster, peil.nl/Maurice de Hond, finds a same pattern (haven't checked the other pollsters for this, Ipsos and TNS/NIPO are so intransparent): there seem to be two types of SP voters, the ones who are more ideologically socialist/left-wing and would definitely/probably not vote for the PVV and the ones who derive their support from the SP from a less ideological/left-wing point of view and would be more inclined to switch to the PVV.

2. Scholar Josse de Voogd did research on electoral geography and parties' demographics in the Netherlands, and states in his important, interesting landmark publication "Bakfietsen en rolluiken: de electorale geografie van Nederland" that "fringe parties SP and PVV are close to one another [in the ideological space, DavidB.] and can switch voters amongst one another: both find their support mostly among lower and medium educated people. They share their opposition to globalization and European unification, attempt to preserve the Dutch cultural identity and the social security system for Dutch citizens, urge a tough stance on immigration and integration, and have a suspicious outlook on the market and the government" (2011: 12 - my shaky translation from Dutch). In a footnote, De Voogd adds that there seems to be a divide between higher educated SP voters, who vote for the SP because they think GroenLinks and PvdA are too right-wing on economic issues, and lower educated SP voters, who vote for the SP because they think GroenLinks and PvdA are too soft on immaterial issues (2011: 73).

It seems that PVV-SP swing voters are largely living in the electorally volatile Catholic south (I posted something about the history of the South a few weeks ago in this thread, you could take a look at that). They have a less ideological/socialist anti-establishment attitude than the SP voter core in the far north of the country (a historical hotbed of socialism), which causes them to be less inclined to "stay on the left", and are often on the "nationalist" side of the "cosmopolitan/nationalist" divide.

[DavidB.]

The Electoral Council just announced that the referendum is going to happen: a sufficient amount of signatures has been declared valid (429k out of 471k; threshold 300k).

[DavidB.]

TNS NIPO just released a new poll. This is quite a good pollster, it only tends to slightly overpoll D66 yet otherwise it's accurate.

Seats (compared to last poll on August 18):
PVV 38 (+17)
VVD 21 (-7)
D66 18 (-5)
SP 17 (-6)
CDA 15 (-2)
PvdA 11 (-2)
GroenLinks 9 (+2)
ChristenUnie 8 (+1)
50Plus 6 (+1)
SGP 4 (+1)
PvdD 3 (nc)
----
VNL 0 (nc)
Pirates 0 (nc)

It seems that the PVV is still growing. 38 seats means that they're close to 25% of the vote. The footage of the massive demonstrations against asylum seeker facilities in people's neighborhoods shows that so many people are angry and genuinely scared in a way that I didn't really expect normally calm Dutch people to be.

TNS NIPO states that most "new" PVV voters come from VVD and SP. In August, 8% of VVD-2012 voters and 9% of SP-2012 voters said they would vote for the PVV. Now, it's 26% for VVD-2012 voters (more than 10 seats) and 23% for SP-2012 voters. An SP-2012 voter who would now vote for the PVV states that "only the PVV seems to understand that the Netherlands cannot handle the refugee problem."

Meanwhile, D66 is losing voters on both sides of the political spectrum: to GroenLinks and VVD. Switchers to GroenLinks focus on new GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver "looking further than figures and money only" whereas switchers to the VVD seem to be pulled to this party by its supposedly more realistic stance on the migrant crisis.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Finance, PvdA) and Lodewijk Asscher (Social Affairs, PvdA) are the most popular ministers, Ard van der Steur (Security and Justice, VVD) is the least popular. Alexander Pechtold (D66) is rapidly becoming less popular, whereas Geert Wilders (PVV) is becoming more popular.

[DavidB.]

I truly don't see it happening. The VVD and the SGP would probably be okay with it, but all the others still really don't want it. CDA voters probably wouldn't mind so much, but the party membership is actually quite a bit to the left of the party's electorate (the chairwoman of the CDA, Ruth Peetoom, didn't earn her nickname "the Red Reverend" out of nothing) and entering the Rutte-I coalition has generally been seen as a one-time mistake. The CDA also has many formerly important politicians (sometimes pejoratively called "the fossils") who hate the PVV and can be very loud about that.

With this figures (but the election result will probably not even close to this...) a minority cabinet would be the most likely option. It could consist of D66, CDA, PvdA, GroenLinks and ChristenUnie, with SP outside support (but CU, PvdA and GL could also be out; SP could be in; but the combination of parties giving the minority government a majority with outside support would be the same; additional 50Plus support could also be an option).

This is more likely because CDA members would probably prefer this to another coalition with the PVV (even though others won't and this has the potential to split the party). Their voters won't, though, so the CDA would be fycked again in the next election and probably lose some support to the VVD. The PVV would also lose some support to the VVD, which can act right-wing enough in the opposition to convince moderate right-wing swing PVV/VVD voters. But I'll stress once again that it's extremely unlikely that the election result will look like this (but you probably understand that ).

Edit: I might add that such a government would, ironically, probably be a moderate hero government that would implement economic policies just to the left of the current government and immaterial policies that would very much resemble the current government's policies. This is still the Netherlands. Because of depillarization, people aren't aligned to specific parties anymore, which has led to the current insanely volatile political landscape, but we are still a pretty centrist people when it comes to policy. That's what having had centrist Christian Democrats as pivotal political force for decades and decades does with a country: there has never really been alignment on the basis of being right or left, as in the Scandinavian countries, because the left and the right (not including the CDA and its predecessors, because they might as well cooperate with the PvdA) weren't strong enough - they always needed the/some Christian Democrats. That's why a minority government that pursues controversial policies, either to the right or to the left, is dead meat, see Rutte-I. The real right (which doesn't include the CDA - and which obviously doesn't include D66) is never going to have a majority in this country and the real left (which doesn't include D66 or the CDA) is never going to have a majority in this country.

As much as I'd like to see otherwise, we are a people of moderate heroes. We're just moderate heroes who happen to be unhappy with parties in government, so then we switch to other centrist moderate hero parties who happen to be in the opposition. VVD and PvdA can be as polarizing as they want during campaigns, but they will both cooperate with centrist parties and make compromises if it's really necessary. I'd prefer the Danish situation with "blocs", but that's just not going to happen: centrist parties (D66, CDA, ChristenUnie) would never want that, and if necessary, parties that are neither truly centrist nor extreme (PvdA, VVD, GroenLinks) will be willing to compromise and cooperate with parties that are very different. Not necessarily all of them together, but there will always be enough of them to do so in order to make a coalition possible. It might take some time, but it will always happen.

[DavidB.]

Didn't D66 use to hate, like absolutely loathe, the CDa?

Nah. In the 80s and the early 90s, yes, when the CDA was still the pivotal party. But the CDA's power as a pivotal party has been broken, which was essential to D66's founders ("breaking the system"), and most of D66's "crown jewels" in order to democratize the country have been implemented. What's more, the traditional culture wars on "social issues" (which D66 waged fanatically and which the CDA tried to hold back) are now over in the Netherlands. I could see a liberalization of our euthanasia policies and a liberalization (legalization) of our marijuana policies happening, somewhere in the future, but it doesn't really matter to most people anymore. We already have same-sex marriage and liberal trans laws, women can have an abortion, we might have the most liberal euthanasia policy after Belgium, and even if marijuana and XTC aren't "legalized" you can smoke up and pop pills as much as you want if you really like to do so (for instance, the nearest "coffee shop" is within 250 meters from my house and it's still open ). And even if the CDA isn't okay with all of this (though they're okay with some of it, such as abortion and SSM), they know it's not going to change anymore (and they never talk about these issues). All they can do is preventing it from becoming even more liberal.

CDA and D66 are quite different in terms of electorate, tone, and focus, but apart from the "social issues" that don't matter anymore anyway, they very much see eye to eye with each other: on the economy, on the EU, to some extent on immigration... Marijuana definitely won't be a dealbreaker. CDA and D66 might very well be the two parties that could most easily work together in a government right now: many overlap in policies yet not a lot of people who would be tempted to switch between these two parties.