Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Decided to write something on two relevant issues: the election for SP chairman, and a fairly special initiative on climate change.

1. SP
SP members through the entire country have voiced their discontent with the way in which the board of the party sides with Ron Meyer, the endorsed candidate. They think MP Sharon Gesthuizen, the other candidate, is being treated unfairly. This debate is taking place quite openly. Long-standing MP (and spokesman on foreign policy) Harry van Bommel said it is "unmistakably true" that the board is too open in providing support to Meyer's campaign, and he criticizes this: "They shouldn't do that. It plays into the perception that the SP is being led in a very centralist manner." Founder, ex-leader and current chairman Marijnissen recently called Gesthuizen's experience as an MP "irrelevant" to assessing her capabilities. Moreover, there seem to be some tricks in regard to who can be a delegate at the congress, and rumors have spread that someone at the SP's central office is arranging meetings for Meyer across the country so that he can convince members to vote for them. Gesthuizen obviously wouldn't have this advantage. Marijnissen: "Ron is objectively better suited to become chairman. Some members are not really capable of deciding this." However, he says he will not vote himself, because according to him that would lead to an awkward situation if Gesthuizen were to become chairperson.

To be sure, Meyer and Gesthuizen are not ideologically different. However, Meyer wants the party to remain quite hierarchical and centralized, whereas Gesthuizen wants the party to become more internally democratic. Gesthuizen also wants to grant local SP branches more autonomy.

2. The unique Samsom-Klaver initiative
Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks leader) and Diederik Samsom (PvdA leader) drafted an initiative for a "national climate law" with measurable and objective standards. They want Dutch CO2 emission to be diminished by 95% in 2050 (compared to 1990), and they want all Dutch energy to be "sustainable" in 2050. Currently, the Netherlands is doing quite bad in the EU statistics in regard to climate change, failing to reach almost all of its self-imposed targets (see our position at the Climate Change Performance Index). The subject became topical due to the upcoming climate conference in Paris and due to the remarkable judicial verdict in the "Urgenda" case, in which judges decided that Dutch government is obliged to tackle climate change.

However, this initiative is not only revolutionary because of its content. It is for the first time in 35 years that two party leaders jointly come up with an initiative for a new law, and it is the first time in Dutch parliamentary history that one of the leaders (Samsom) is in the coalition and the other (Klaver) in opposition. According to PvdA leader Samsom, who had previously been a Greenpeace activist, "climate change transcends traditional patterns of coalition and opposition."

The law would oblige the government to draft a "climate budget" on a yearly basis, in which the government would indicate which measures need to be taken both on a short-term and a long-term basis. This would lead emission reduction, stimulation of initiatives regarding sustainable energy, and saving energy to become official goals, by which the government needs to abide. Samsom: "Currently, in terms of emission, we just do whatever seems nice for our prosperity and in ten years we'll see what the world looks like." Klaver: "This is the tragedy of the horizon: we define climate goals, but fail to implement corresponding laws in order to reach these targets. We aim at changing this pattern."

Strategically, this is very smart for Samsom and the (unpopular) PvdA. This topic allows the parliamentary caucus to (finally) discern itself from the VVD-PvdA coalition government. The PvdA is seen very negatively when it comes to the two most topical issues, immigration and terrorism, yet when it comes to the environment, voters are more positive about the PvdA: this issue being high on the political agenda might improve the PvdA's popularity. Moreover, probably the most important electoral rival on the PvdA's left, GroenLinks, seems to have "issue ownership" on this specific issue. GroenLinks is currently very popular in the polls, but Klaver risks to partly lose "issue ownership" on climate change to the PvdA, which would damage GL and benefit the PvdA electorally. Additionally, the PvdA and GroenLinks force parties of the center (CDA, CU, D66) to be clear about their choice: championing the interests of farmers and businesses, or tackling climate change? Research shows that it is electorally beneficial for coalition parties to present itself on issues that are important to their voters, even if the government is against this: governing often (especially in the Netherlands) leads to a loss of votes in the next elections, but in this way, parties can diminish this effect.

The initiative might very well become Dutch law. It is likely to be supported not only by PvdA and D66, but also by SP, PvdD, D66, ChristenUnie and SGP. These parties have a majority in both houses of parliament.

[DavidB.]

Can't say I'm surprised: today, the SP's delegates elected Ron Meyer to be the new chairman of the Socialist Party.

[DavidB.]

New Peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll has the PVV up again. However, the picture has been quite stable during the last weeks, with little change.



"Could you see yourself voting for party X in the next elections?", based on current preference. Of course, this greatly inflates the "potential voting percentage" of smaller, non-niche parties. At the same time it seems interesting that the maximum percentage of VVD and PvdA is, at this point, lower than the actual percentage of the vote these parties had in the 2012 election.

Some other questions:

"Do you think government policy should be aimed at lowering CO2 emission with 95% in 2050 compared to 1990?"
This question essentially measures if people agree with the Klaver-Samsom initiative. Most people seem to agree with this, although I dare to say a lot more people would be skeptical if the costs of this policy would be included in the question. However, it is still interesting and probably electorally relevant that this initiative seems to be rather popular among voters, and it can definitely generate positive effects for PvdA and GL among left-wing voters. It also shows how pro-green D66's electorate is. This is going to be very problematic for D66 if TTIP becomes an important topic: the party seems to be more pro-free market than its (potential) electorate.

 - on the basis of 2012 vote, not on current voting preference
1) How do you evaluate the Klaver-Samsom initiative? ("Vrij" means "somewhat" in this regard)
2) Proposition: "The PvdA should have done more in order to combat climate change in the government". "Eens" = agree, "oneens" = disagree, "weet niet/geen antwoord" = dunno/don't want to answer.

1) shows that many people are rather partisan when it comes to evaluating this initiative: many VVD-2012 voters and PVV-2012 voters agree with the idea that CO2 emission should be cut, yet are not positive about the initiative, presumably because this question explicitly mentions that this law is initiated by Klaver and Samsom. Still, 43% are positive, and only 27% are negative.

Regarding 2), it seems many PVV voters simply answered "agree" just to show that they disagree with everything the PvdA does in government, since I have a very hard time believing that 42% of PVV-2012 voters think more should happen in order to combat climate change.

... and something less serious: stereotypes within the Netherlands

[Zinneke]

I'm surprised they call Limburgers belgians given that both countries call Limburgers ''moffen''.

Otherwise its spot on.

[DavidB.]

The latest Peilingwijzer (the aggregate thing).

In response to the deal that the EU and Turkey struck, Wilders presented a message to the Turkish people two days ago...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

fycking hell, government formation is going to be a mess, especially if the migration crisis continues and allows the PVV to continue making political hay. Wilders has burnt his bridges so he can't be in office. The public probably won't want a government that moderates (or acts 'elitist' or is perceived as sanctimonious) on refugees, so GL, D66 and SP are out. (And heck, maybe the Christian Democrats as well under their leadership).

Do the Dutch poll approvals for the party leaders, David? I'd be especially interested in Geert's numbers at the moment.

[DavidB.]

fycking hell, government formation is going to be a mess, especially if the migration crisis continues and allows the PVV to continue making political hay. Wilders has burnt his bridges so he can't be in office.

Agree. But again: so much can change even in a few months, let alone in more than a year. This is the Netherlands after all. I don't think the election result will look like this.

The public probably won't want a government that moderates (or acts 'elitist' or is perceived as sanctimonious) on refugees, so GL, D66 and SP are out. (And heck, maybe the Christian Democrats as well under their leadership).

Even if the public as a whole considers the current government too moderate on the issue, other issues will be considered relevant as well and there are also voters that agree with the government (or think more migrants should be admitted). And ultimately, people vote for a party, not for a coalition, so what government the public want is not really relevant: the Netherlands isn't Denmark, parties don't announce with whom they want to cooperate before the elections.

My take remains that with this result, a minority government consisting of VVD, CDA, D66 and possibly ChristenUnie would be most likely, supported by other parties (only the PVV is truly off-limits) in order to obtain a parliamentary majority (which is a beneficial position for other parties, especially if there are more of them: they will not be blamed for the bad things yet can achieve serious things in terms of policy).

Do the Dutch poll approvals for the party leaders, David? I'd be especially interested in Geert's numbers at the moment.

They poll on the basis of grades, like they are given in the Dutch school system: from 1,0 (low) to 10,0 (high). The grades politicians get are generally very low -- I wouldn't want to get the grades politicians get... Pollsters don't do this very regularly. I found two polls.

1. October 2015
De Hond mentioned approval rates only once since the PVV surged, in mid-October, when Wilders' was at 4,2 and Rutte's at 3,9 -- Wilders' score among VVD voters had increased by 1,3 point in half a year. It was seen as remarkable that Wilders is now more popular than Rutte; this was never before the case.

"Verschuiving sinds april" = change compared to April.


By peil.nl/Maurice de Hond on October 18, 2015.

2. August 2015
More general (yet older):
The first table indicates the party leader's score among the general public (blue background) and among the party's own voters in 2012 (yellow background). First two columns for August 2013, second two May 2015 (before migrant crisis), last one August 2015 (when migrant crisis became topic number 1, but not yet as politicized as now). Note that Wilders' score was at 3,8 in August 2015, but it was at 4,2 mid-October (see other table) so it will be between 4,2 and 4,4 now.

The second table indicates the party leaders' popularity by party vote in 2012.


By peil.nl/Maurice de Hond on August 30, 2015.

A low grade, of course, doesn't necessarily indicate much. If 60% give 1 and 40% either 7 or 8, a politician's grade will be quite low, possibly lower than some other politicians, yet if all 40% vote for this party (which is unlikely, but theoretically possible) then their party will obtain around 40% of the seats. On the other hand, a high grade also doesn't indicate much. Many people liked Pechtold in 2012, yet voted for Samsom or Rutte.

[Lief 🗽]

how do you say YUGE in Dutch?

https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/673991276291825665

[DavidB.]

how do you say YUGE in Dutch?

https://twitter.com/geertwilderspvv/status/673991276291825665

Lol. Wilders is more interested in the Dutch word for "attention".

[DavidB.]

- After negotiations, D66 announced that it will support the government's tax plan. Earlier, the coalition had already obtained the CDA's support for the plan, which provides for tax cuts. With the CDA's and D66's support, the coalition now has a majority in both houses of parliament.

- Former PVV MEP Daniel van der Stoep, who split off during his 2009-2014 term to become an independent, will be jailed for two months for seducing underaged women to engaging in sexual intercourse with him. He offered the underaged girls money, presents and cocaine to have sex with him. Rumor has it that Van der Stoep used to be an alcoholic; he resigned as a PVV MEP after causing a car crash while driving drunk. Later, he returned as an MEP but was not welcome in the PVV anymore, becoming an independent. In 2014 he failed to win a seat in the European Parliament with his party Artikel 50.

[DavidB.]

Speaker Anouchka van Miltenburg (VVD) will step down due to her role in the handling of the crisis around former Justice minister Opstelten (VVD) and former deputy Justice minister Teeven (VVD), who stepped down earlier this year over misinforming parliament regarding a controversial deal between the public prosecution service and a drug dealer (which was made by Teeven himself when he was still a public prosecutor...). This week it became apparent that Van Miltenburg destroyed a letter to parliament written by a whistleblower, presumably in order to save Opstelten's and Teeven's a$$es.

It was clear to all political parties (except some people in the VVD) that Van Miltenburg was extremely incompetent, and her term as Speaker has been full of mistakes and embarrassing moments. Even many right-wing politicians thought former Speaker Gerdi Verbeet (PvdA) was much more capable and professional, so it is no big loss that Van Miltenburg will step down.

[swl]

I was wondering if there is any poll on this referendum? And how likely is it to reach 30% turnout?

[DavidB.]

I was wondering if there is any poll on this referendum? And how likely is it to reach 30% turnout?

Not yet, and I find that to be surprising. But I think most people still don't know about it, and Dutch pollsters tend not to take into account undecideds, so any poll would be meaningless anyway. Politicians are silent about it. It seems they are still in denial that this referendum will actually happen. A referendum that has not been introduced by the government is, of course, a novum in Dutch politics, which is why there is a remarkable difference between the way Denmark handles this (very professionally) and the way the Dutch do it.

Recently, political scientists wrote an article about this, warning the government that it is important for them to take this referendum seriously even if they do not like it. According to them, the government should make it clear which consequences a "yes" and (especially) a "no" vote would have, because the biggest problem with this referendum could be that political distrust will increase -- whereas the opportunity for citizens to trigger a referendum was meant to tackle that. Therefore, the government should take this referendum seriously, despite the fact that it has been triggered by a group most politicians loathe; it should not be about them, but about the voters and the instrument of the referendum.

I think 30% turnout will be passed easily, but it depends on the extent to which the media will discuss it. But even the most unpopular European elections had more than 30% turnout, so yeah... My expectation is that turnout will be somewhere between 40% and 60%. As for the outcome of the referendum itself, I still do not have a clue. I think a vast majority are in favor of the Association Agreement, but if this is going to be about either the EU or the government's performance, things could go in a very different way. And the PVV will of course try to push these frames as much as possible.

New poll by peil.nl/De Hond, released today:

Government lost two seats, now at 28. Both PVV and GroenLinks are at an all time high. One mistake: the +2 in "VVD+PvdA, verschil in 1 jr" should be 0.

[DavidB.]

Today, Dutch quality newspaper De Volkskrant interviewed Health Minister Edith Schippers, the VVD's "number two" after Prime Minister Rutte. In the interview, Schippers made some surprising and controversial statements. In the past, she has always been highly loyal to Rutte within the VVD. Now, Schippers indicates that she thinks Rutte wants to continue as VVD leader.

However, Schippers is currently "not convinced" that Rutte's "expiration date" will be later than the next general election in 2017: according to her, politics is "too turbulent" for that. Ouch... The last two prime ministers with an eight-year term lost their election after eight years spectacularly: Kok (PvdA) in 2002 and Balkenende (CDA) in 2010; in 2017 Rutte will have been Prime Minister for almost seven years. Here's the news: Schippers says she does not doubt that she would make a capable leader of the VVD. "Why wouldn't I be capable to do that?", she states.

Schippers also states that the VVD should not outrule governing with the PVV. Rutte and parliamentary group leader Zijlstra consider it a prerequisite that Wilders take back his controversial comments on "fewer Moroccans" (in 2014), after which the VVD ruled out renewed government cooperation with the PVV. However, according to Schippers, "we should be able to talk with anybody. I don't see why I should exclude the PVV and not the SP." However, she considers the "real chances" that the VVD will govern together with the PVV rather slim: "if they want us to get out of the EU, to leave the eurozone, to close the borders and to double healthcare spending, then we are obviously not going to govern together." Schippers also states that she doesn't want this government to collapse, even if the VVD will be electorally vulnerable during the next campaign.

So the gloves are off for a new dirty race for the VVD leadership...


Edith Schippers

Meanwhile, last Wednesday, the city council of rural hellhole Geldermalsen (right in the center of the Netherlands) discussed harboring 1500 migrants in the municipality, in a new asylum seeker center. Prior to the meeting, Geert Wilders had tweeted that people should "resist" this. Resisting this decision people did, but not in a peaceful way: riots took place and extreme violence was used against the special riot police, e.g. throwing firecrackers. 2,000 people took part in these riots. All the arrestants were from Geldermalsen, indicating that much resistance to these plans exists within the municipality. Today, mayor Miranda de Vries (PvdA) announced that the plans have been cancelled and that mistakes have been made: there had been no "dialogue with society" on the asylum seeker center.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Do the PVV want to leave the EU? I thought they just wanted a weaker Union, with more national control over borders.

According to her Wiki page, this Schippers character was elected in 2003, and still-VVD-Geert was her initial "mentor".

[DavidB.]

The PVV has explicitly supported leaving the EU since the 2012 election campaign. It was their main theme in the 2012 elections, but that didn't work, since the campaign was mainly about the economy instead of the EU.


"Their Brussels, our Netherlands". PVV 2012 campaign poster.

Schippers became prominent within the VVD when she supported Rutte in the election to become party leader; they became close allies within the party afterwards. Together with Rutte himself, Schippers has been the most important negotiator for the VVD in the cabinets Rutte-I and Rutte-II. She's not seen as close to Wilders due to her past within the party or something like that. It is more likely that she tries to present herself as a more right-wing alternative to Rutte. Rutte has always been to Schippers' left, even if both have turned sharply to the right (together with the party). However, I'd see Zijlstra as more right-wing than Schippers (but that is debatable), so in that respect their difference in views on the PVV as partner for government cooperation is remarkable -- but I don't think Zijlstra would have much of a problem with governing with the PVV in reality.

[DavidB.]

And after the annoying national Zwarte Piet debate, it is now time for the next national debate that has the potential to become annoying: the fireworks debate. For many this seems to become the next "Dutch culture war" issue: "they wanted to take away Zwarte Piet from us, and now they're also taking our fireworks from us!" However, for years, a majority (and a majority of voters for all political parties) have been in favor of banning consumer fireworks. Many think the "tradition" of fireworks has gone out of hand. Setting off fireworks used to be legal from December 31, 10:00 until January 1, 2:00, but last year the government changed this: setting off fireworks is now only legal from 18:00 onward. In addition to that, municipalities now have the right to create areas in which setting off fireworks is entirely outlawed, for instance near old people's homes. Still, illegal fireworks (from Poland and Belgium, where laws are less strict) are a problem and in many urban areas fireworks are being set off long before December 31. (I live in a poor area in one of the biggest cities and hear a lot of explosions already.)

Opposition to fireworks increases every year, and the percentage of people that set off fireworks decreases. In politics, GroenLinks seems the only party that actively tries to outlaw consumer fireworks. This fight is led by a member of the Rotterdam municipal council, Arno Bonte, who runs an online registration point for nuisance due to fireworks. Many complaints have already been filed.

My honest opinion (which you probably read between the lines already): I don't care for this "tradition" that enables annoying teenagers to terrorize entire neighborhoods during the last weeks of the year (even if I have the idea that it was worse in the past). Setting off fireworks before December 31 is of course already illegal, but it happens everywhere -- especially in urban areas -- and nothing can be done about it, because you can't have policemen in every street. Meanwhile, vandalism costs are high and I don't care for the "victims" who were stupid themselves, but I do care about the victims who were harassed with fireworks and got injured. Moreover, the last week of the year should be fun also for the elderly and for animals. Consumer fireworks also cause insane pollution. In short, for me it would be okay if only the "beautiful" fireworks were allowed

[DavidB.]

1. Speaker
Following Van Miltenburg's embarrassing departure, Dutch parliament needs a new speaker. Two MPs have now announced their candidacies: Madeleine van Toorenburg (CDA), who has been a rather unknown MP since 2007, and Khadija Arib (PvdA), who has also been an MP since 2007 and who is particularly known because of controversies regarding her holding Moroccan citizenship and her being a member of an advisory commission to the Moroccan king. Today, Arib announced that if elected, she would not allow Geert Wilders to say parliament is a "fake parliament". Wilders' reply:


"A speaker holding double citizenship that seeks to scupper freedom of speech? #fakecandidate"

Below, "qualified" and "unqualified" are shown, the box "unqualified" being ticked. The Dutch army often runs ads with the same boxes, where people are considered "qualified".

2. Asylum seekers
Coalition parties VVD and PvdA again seemed to be in conflict with one another, this time over the number of asylum seekers that the Netherlands should allow. PvdA leader Samsom announced that the Netherlands should take in 200,000 asylum seekers. Of course, the VVD will never allow this to happen and this rhetoric only serves to please left-wing voters that are walking away from the PvdA to GroenLinks in droves.

[Zanas]

On the subject of double citizenship, French Minister for Education Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is often attacked by the far-right on her holding Moroccan and French citizenship, but actually you cannot renounce your Moroccan citizenship even if you'd want to. So, on this subject at least, it's a false trial on Arib. I can see her belonging to an advisory committee to king Mohammed 6 a much more problematic issue, though.

[Zinneke]

If we are talking conflict of interests, why don't we just disqualify half of parliament for their private holdings in the business world. Just as damaging as holding dual citizenship.

[DavidB.]

The sentence "by the grace of God" is part of the formal text that the King signs when officially enacting a law. According to D66 MP Stientje van Veldhoven, this should be removed, since it is contrary to the separation of Church and State. She therefore put forward an initiative, which will be up for a parliamentary vote.

[Zanas]

The sentence "by the grace of God" is part of the formal text that the King signs when officially enacting a law. According to D66 MP Stientje van Veldhoven, this should be removed, since it is contrary to the separation of Church and State. She therefore put forward an initiative, which will be up for a parliamentary vote.

I'm curious what PVV's stance would be on this topic ? "OMG they're hurting our beloved Christian traditions and values !!!1!11!" or "We don't need old bigoted references, we're in a modern world" ? I could see both, but with the migrants being perceived as mostly Muslim, I guess the first one would be the best electorally speaking.

[DavidB.]

I'm curious what PVV's stance would be on this topic ? "OMG they're hurting our beloved Christian traditions and values !!!1!11!" or "We don't need old bigoted references, we're in a modern world" ? I could see both, but with the migrants being perceived as mostly Muslim, I guess the first one would be the best electorally speaking.

No, the Netherlands doesn't work like that: we are too secular for that stance to be popular. The only parties that explicitly talk about Christian values/traditions are ChristenUnie and SGP; even the CDA has become extremely cautious in doing so. The kind of rhetoric you describe would do well for FN and the FPÖ, radical right parties in countries with a broader segment of social conservatives, but not in the Netherlands. The PVV never talks about "Christian traditions", it only talks about Judeo-Christian values (but never without the "Judeo" part, otherwise they would look like Bible-thumpers instead of Islam-haters in the eyes of most Dutch).

I'm not sure what their stance on this proposal is, but the PVV is generally seen as standing firmly in the secular camp: they support, for instance, an unlimited number of "shopping Sundays", they recently voted in favor of the end of the ban on blasphemy, and they voted for the ban on ritual slaughter, along with all the other secular parties. I think they will therefore vote for this proposal, but they could swing both ways, as this could be seen as "too much"; the fact that this is a D66 initiative might also play a role.

(Elaborating on the comparison with radical right parties: I could even see DF and SD be more explicit about Christian traditions/values than the PVV. Denmark and Sweden might be about as secular as the Netherlands, but "Christian" there basically indicates "non-Muslim/what everyone used to be/what 'our nation' is", automatically indicating who is in-group and who is out-group. The religious situation in the Netherlands, on the other hand, has historically been much more complicated, with tensions between Protestants and Catholics. "Being Dutch" is not as connected to being (culturally) Christian as, for instance, "being Danish". This has also rendered the Dutch separation between church and state more strict than in Scandinavian countries, even if it isn't nearly as strict as in France. And because of that, explicit religious influence on politics is frowned upon by the vast majority of the Dutch. Radical right parties often do what the majority want, and it is therefore that the PVV might be one of the most secular radical right-wing parties.)

[Famous Mortimer]

Geert Wilders is not a Christian.

[DavidB.]

Geert Wilders is an atheist.

Not really: as far as I know, he said he was agnostic. Though him being either an agnostic or an atheist doesn't necessarily indicate anything about his stance on issues regarding religion.