Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Is there a quorum? This is the sort of question a lot of normal people wouldn't bother turning out for.

30%, but even then it is only a consultative referendum -- the government is not under the obligation to accept the result, which is why the 30% threshold is sort of meaningless (and highly criticized by political scientists). It was not part of the initial proposal, but the Senate wanted it... However, pollsters think turnout will definitely be higher than 30%. I think it will be somewhere between 40% and 60%.

Meanwhile, the government has still declined allocating enough money to organizing the referendum, which means there will be a lot less polling stations than usually -- which, for me, means that I will not be counting votes (and not be earning $$$), as I usually do. Instead, I will either provide you with my excellent (lol) analysis of the results or get pissed drunk with my friends while making fun of elitist establishment politicians' disappointment and shock at a large majority voting "no"

(I am still undecided, btw, but lean less toward yes than before, not because of the agreement itself -- of which I still approve -- but because of the condescending attitude of the "yes" side, which assumes voters are stupid. Typically Dutch. I have no words to describe how annoying and wrong I find that attitude.)

[DavidB.]

In the looney department, deranged Jewish Moroccan professor David Pinto had been part of VNL (and of five other parties before that) until he threw a hissy fit and left the party. Now he created his own party, LEF (which means "courage" in Dutch, derived from Yiddish, and "heart" in Hebrew, because many Dutch pronounce the v like an f; it also stands for Liberté, égalité, fraternité). I can say with certainty that this guy won't get more than 7,500 votes, and even that would be a lot.

[DavidB.]

Today, the PvdA party congress takes place. The social democrats will celebrate their 70th anniversary with their favorite pastime: backstabbing. A day before the congress, Jacques Monasch, MP since 2010, gave an interview to the Leeuwarder Courant saying Diederik Samsom should not be party leader in the next general election. The PvdA will organize an election for the party leader in October.

According to Monasch, Samsom is not the person who will get the PvdA out of its rut. Instead, a "person of stature" would be necessary, and Monasch knows exactly what he wants: Amsterdam's mayor Eberhard van der Laan or Rotterdam's mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb. The last person would be particularly suitable, because "Aboutaleb can indicate what we should tolerate and what we should not tolerate, and draw clear lines in the sand. That is what this country needs."

Monasch does not think Lodewijk Asscher, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Affairs and someone who is often mentioned as the PvdA's "crown prince", would make a good leader, and neither is he positive about Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Finance Minister and Eurogroup chairman) and Hans Spekman (party chairman).

Earlier this week, the PvdA suffered negative publicity because of the fact that a local chairman had tweeted that he hoped Geert Wilders would get a heart attack, but if he were to be killed by a bullet, then it should have "by the grateful Dutch people" on it. He was forced to step down, but not before a hilarious "sorrynotsorry" response in which he said he should not have send the tweets "because of the negative responses". Right.

One of my fellow congregants in my synagogue is a high-ranking PvdA member. Yesterday, a friend of mine told him that "at least there is one thing all PvdA members agree on: they all hate the PvdA". He agreed.

Happy birthday, PvdA!

[aross]

Since you mention it: To what extent is old leftist symbolism (such as singing The Internationale) still in fashion in the PvdA?

[DavidB.]

Since you mention it: To what extent is old leftist symbolism (such as singing The Internationale) still in fashion in the PvdA?

Some of the symbolism still lives on, and they sing the Internationale at party congresses, but this doesn't have actual consequences.

The party has of course been an important political force in building the Dutch welfare state and changing the Netherlands, but this was mainly done before the New Left took over within the party, who didn't like to refer to the actual people who had a role in changing the country (though they probably had no problem with the Internationale). Instead, different, more international causes than the welfare state were embraced. Afterwards, the Third Wayists also didn't like the party's past so much: according to then-party leader Wim Kok the PvdA was losing its "ideological feathers", which he saw as something positive. The current leader, Samsom, is more ideologically left-wing, but still the party's history tends to be somewhat forgotten, within the party as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The PvdA has basically become the sort of organisation that far left critics of social democratic parties accuse all such parties of becoming. Dutch politics is bizarre.

[DavidB.]

The PvdA has basically become the sort of organisation that far left critics of social democratic parties accuse all such parties of becoming. Dutch politics is bizarre.

I'm not in the position to judge (not a social democrat), but while I could understand why the PvdA would have been such a party during the Purple period and under Wouter Bos, I think they were pretty much back on track (not electorally, but ideologically) between 2010 and the moment they entered the current government, especially after Diederik Samsom, who is -- though no Corbyn -- fairly left-wing, became their leader.

I think at least currently it has more to do with having the wrong priorities (i.e. caring too much about being "progressive" and international while not caring about and listening to the working class, which seems endemic among most social democratic parties in Western Europe) than with truly selling out on their principles, although it was different in the past. Still, the PvdA is no Irish Labour and I just don't see how they are objectively worse than, say, the SPD or the SPÖ. Could you explain why you think they are (because I think you think they are)?

[DavidB.]

LMAO
M
A
O

Okay, I'm starting to see what Al meant. Diederik Samsom said he would campaign on the government's record if re-elected party leader in October. Good luck. I wonder if they remain in the double digits.

[ObserverIE]

Still, the PvdA is no Irish Labour and I just don't see how they are objectively worse than, say, the SPD or the SPÖ. Could you explain why you think they are (because I think you think they are)?

Because they agreed to this?

Irish Labour might be able to plead that they were one-third of the government. PvdA and VVD are roughly 50:50.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You see? I'm right about everything.

[Zinneke]

Since last election I am not going to trust anybody who says the PvdA are a dead party. All it takes is Rutte or the CDA to repeat that they will never join in a coalition with SP and the PvdA will soar in the polls under a new left-wing politician. What needs to happen is that people need to stop voting tactically. 5 parties on 20% would be beautiful.

Anarchy is exactly what the Hollanders need so we can rightfully reclaim North Brabant and North-east Limburg.

[DavidB.]

Since last election I am not going to trust anybody who says the PvdA are a dead party. All it takes is Rutte or the CDA to repeat that they will never join in a coalition with SP and the PvdA will soar in the polls under a new left-wing politician. What needs to happen is that people need to stop voting tactically. 5 parties on 20% would be beautiful.

I just cannot see a scenario in which they won't lose badly in the next election (though it is true people have been saying this since, like, 2009), but that doesn't say anything about the scenario afterwards. If they go into opposition and pick a new leader, they could be the largest party in the polls within three months after the formation of a new government. They are certainly not dead. "Onkruid vergaat niet", as we say

And I'd entirely agree that it'd be great to have 5 parties at 20 seats (but not at 20%).

Anarchy is exactly what the Hollanders need so we can rightfully reclaim North Brabant and North-east Limburg.

Hmmm, I'd say it's even more likely that we can partly correct the mistake of 1830. Will cost us millions and millions on those roads though...

Because they agreed to this?

Irish Labour might be able to plead that they were one-third of the government. PvdA and VVD are roughly 50:50.

Symbolically certainly bad for the PvdA, but this didn't entail any new policies (apart from the reforms the government had agreed on earlier) and I'd wager most Dutch already forgot about this (though they'll remember the often scorned term "participation society"). But you're right in that last regard.

[DavidB.]

Ben Bot (CDA; this name means "I'm rude"), former Foreign Affairs Minister (2003-2007), stated that he is scared "a situation like in 1939 could emerge" if the majority of Dutch voters choose to reject the Association Agreement with Ukraine. Bot thinks allowing Putin to expand his territories is similar to Europe's inaction over Hitler's expansion. Bot "hopes that sane thinking will prevail", but doubts it, and thinks the country will vote against the Agreement. A "no", according to him, would also mean that the Dutch "reputation" would be damaged. He blames the government, which claims it is "down to earth" and "pragmatic" on issues regarding the EU, for talking about Europe with little enthusiasm.

It is amazing how Ben Bot, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 2005 referendum on the EU constitution, hasn't learned anything from the mistakes the "yes" side (i.e. he) made in that referendum. If the Dutch would vote "no", politicians told the electorate, we would get new Auschwitzes and Srebrenica's, and fascism would prevail once again. Of course none of this even remotely made sense, and Bot's Godwin will doubtlessly backfire. Also, the rather condescending notion that the government should be more enthusiastic and "explain things better" was repeated endlessly, without ever asking: do voters really want this ever closer union? Of course, this referendum is a different case as it's more about horizontal European integration, but I truly don't understand why some yes supporters (but, truth be told, not the ones who are actually still in national politics, who have learned their lesson; this time it's more the former politicians and EU politicians who are deluded into thinking this will work) think the exact same tactics as in 2005 will work.

[DavidB.]

Lol: not enough money for a reasonable number of polling stations, but the government did actually find money to allocate 47,973 euros to producing toilet paper (!) with arguments for and against the agreement on it, and to distributing this. Literally flushing your tax money down the toilet. What a joke country we are.

(To be fair, this decision was made by the referendum commission, which has 2,000,000 euros to distribute... while the polling station fiasco is the national government's fault... but still it is ridiculous that there are not enough polling stations, which would be too costly, while money is allocated to producing toilet paper.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That is quite possibly the most Dutch thing ever.

[freek]

Lol: not enough money for a reasonable number of polling stations, but the government did actually find money to allocate 47,973 euros to producing toilet paper (!) with arguments for and against the agreement on it, and to distributing this. Literally flushing your tax money down the toilet. What a joke country we are.

(To be fair, this decision was made by the referendum commission, which has 2,000,000 euros to distribute... while the polling station fiasco is the national government's fault... but still it is ridiculous that there are not enough polling stations, which would be too costly, while money is allocated to producing toilet paper.)

A few exceptions aside, it is completely sensible to lower the amount of polling stations. At the province elections of last year, there were on average 650 votes/station, in 13.5 hours.  And that is with a turnout of about 50%. Double that amount is doable, especially since the ballot is not the typical 1x1 metre size this time.

Even though I think the referendum is a ludicrous waste of money, I am volunteering again (but abstaining to vote).

[DavidB.]

A few exceptions aside, it is completely sensible to lower the amount of polling stations. At the province elections of last year, there were on average 650 votes/station, in 13.5 hours.  And that is with a turnout of about 50%. Double that amount is doable, especially since the ballot is not the typical 1x1 metre size this time.

Even though I think the referendum is a ludicrous waste of money, I am volunteering again (but abstaining to vote).

Sure, it is sensible to lower the number of polling stations by somewhat. I'm not saying it should be the same as in Tweede Kamer elections, but I am saying the number should be reasonable. This is also not solely about "voters per polling station" (no one is arguing this in the first place, afaik), it is about access to polling stations. It is ridiculous for the government to make this a discussion about money. We are a rich country and democracy is worth something. Political scientists like Joop van Holsteyn have criticized the government for deliberately lowering the number of polling stations too much for a reason.

I will probably be volunteering again too, since the municipality where I usually do this has apparently decided to keep the number of polling stations the same (even though I haven't received a message from them yet). I will definitely be voting, but am not sure yet whether to vote for or against. Am in favor of the agreement but against the EU, which is a bit awkward.

[freek]

A few exceptions aside, it is completely sensible to lower the amount of polling stations. At the province elections of last year, there were on average 650 votes/station, in 13.5 hours.  And that is with a turnout of about 50%. Double that amount is doable, especially since the ballot is not the typical 1x1 metre size this time.

Even though I think the referendum is a ludicrous waste of money, I am volunteering again (but abstaining to vote).

Sure, it is sensible to lower the number of polling stations by somewhat. I'm not saying it should be the same as in Tweede Kamer elections, but I am saying the number should be reasonable. This is also not solely about "voters per polling station", it is about access to polling stations. It is ridiculous for the government to make this a discussion about money. We are a rich country and democracy is worth something. Political scientists like Joop van Holsteyn have criticized the government for deliberately lowering the number of polling stations too much for a reason.

I will probably be volunteering again too, since the municipality where I usually do this has apparently decided to keep the number of polling stations the same (even though I haven't received a message from them yet). I will definitely be voting, but am not sure yet whether to vote for or against. Am in favor of the agreement but against the EU, which is a bit awkward.

On average it is lowered by 8%. Not that much. I am slightly worried about Oldenzaal and Rhenen, who plan to have 5000 registered voters per station. A 30% turnout is manageable, if it will be 50% there might be some problems.

I don't think access to a polling station is a problem. Maybe this is because I grew up in a rural area in the middle of nowhere, but our country is so densely populated that no one lives unreasonably far from a polling station.
I already have confirmation that I am volunteering again, with the same people in the same primary school. I could have been chairman in a different district if I wanted but I have refused.

[DavidB.]

Don't you agree it's a bit ridiculous that only 50% turnout would be problematic already in some places? Turnout in the referendum in 2005 was 63.3%. This topic is much less important, but I wouldn't be surprised if turnout would still be over 50%, which is roughly the turnout figure for totally uninteresting elections for the Provinciale Staten. Meanwhile, the number of polling stations is around 10% lower compared to Provinciale Staten elections (and also lower than in the 2005 referendum -- why?).

Anyway, for me it's more about access than about anything else. Our country is surely densely populated, but if people always go to the same place and suddenly it doesn't exist in the referendum then they'll be less inclined to go and vote. For you and me this doesn't matter, but for many people it does.

I think I will be sending the municipality an e-mail about volunteering again (also in a primary school). Don't want to miss out on an opportunity to earn some money

[mvd10]

Apparently former Christian Democratic PM Balkenende (2002-2010) once smuggled beer into a palace of some Gulf state emir (alchohol wasn't allowed in that state). Tbh Balkenende is the last person you expect to do this, this is the guy who campaigned really hard on norms and values and even wanted a commission for norms and values.

And the government's campaign strategy leaked out. They want a whole lot of organisations to campaign for the yes side (including LGBT rights groups, small business organisations and unions. They even want famous actors/footballers/whatever with an Ukrainian background to campaign for it. And the standard answers for certain questions also leaked out.

This referendum sadly will end up being a referendum on the government instead of a referendum on the association agreement and that isn't good. Dutch pollsters usually ask for grades instead of approvals but I think Rutte's approvals probably would be high twenties/low thirties at best.

[DavidB.]

Wassila Hachchi was a D66 MP since the 2010 election. All of a sudden, even without properly informing party leader Alexander Pechtold, she resigned in order to go to New York to "campaign for Hillary Clinton". Weird, since people voted for her and she's not even an American, but people could understand the story, according to which Hachchi had gotten a job. She then wrote a terribly bad resignation letter, in very childish Dutch, which went viral.

However, now it turns out she was lying through her teeth about working for Hillary Clinton. She is in fact using the money ex-politicians get as long as they don't have a new job (which she had promised not to take) to have fun in the US and hand out Hillary leaflets. She doesn't get any salary. Zilch. Nada. LOL.

D66 is obviously very angry about this: it's a hilarious story, but it also shows the sad state of affairs in which Dutch politicians see politics as a good step in their careers -- this is an extreme example, but "job hopping" happens a lot.

Apparently former Christian Democratic PM Balkenende (2002-2010) once smuggled beer into a palace of some Gulf state emir (alchohol wasn't allowed in that state). Tbh Balkenende is the last person you expect to do this, this is the guy who campaigned really hard on norms and values and even wanted a commission for norms and values.

Haha, no, he's a dirty bastard. Ever saw the video in which he made a sex joke about Formula 1 and rubber? Though it would probably fit much better with the stereotype of Catholic CDA politicians.

This referendum sadly will end up being a referendum on the government instead of a referendum on the association agreement and that isn't good.

I don't really agree with this. It is true that this referendum will not be about the Association Agreement, but it will not just be about the government (although it will also play a role) -- it will mainly be about people's dissatisfaction with the EU. People find the EU to be expensive and undemocratic, and they think the Netherlands has been the "good kid" for too long. Most people don't necessarily want to leave the EU, but they want an opportunity to vent their dissatisfaction and this is going to be that opportunity.

Dutch pollsters usually ask for grades instead of approvals but I think Rutte's approvals probably would be high twenties/low thirties at best.

I'd still say they are in the 33 to 38 territory (though probably on the lower side)... but you could be right, of course. No way to know

[DavidB.]

Weekly peil.nl poll has PVV 1 seat down (to 40), VVD 1 seat up (to 21).

More interesting:

"Do you want the Netherlands to also [like the UK, DB.] organize a referendum on whether the Netherlands should stay in the EU?"
A majority are in favor of a referendum.


"If a referendum would be organized in the Netherlands on whether the Netherlands should stay in the EU, how would you vote?"
For leaving = 43%
Against leaving = 44%
Don't know / no answer / wouldn't vote = 13%.

Meanwhile, only 37% hope the UK will leave, while 48% hope the UK will stay in. The UK is an important ally of the Netherlands within the EU, on financial, strategical and integration-related themes. The UK leaving would weaken the Dutch position within the EU. And since it is not too likely that the Netherlands will leave as well, it makes sense for people who want the Netherlands to leave to hope that the UK will stay in.

[DavidB.]

The debate on euthanasia in the Netherlands has been started again by consequence of a tv documentary in which a woman with semantic dementia, for whom it was obvious that she did not remember signing the document in which she agreed to euthanasia (which she had signed in 2010), was euthanized. This clearly happened under pressure of her husband: all the time, the motto was "let's do this!" (but in a more 'popular' Dutch version), which was literally uttered. It was clear she still enjoyed her life. When she almost received the lethal injection, she finally said "this is terrible" -- upon which the euthanasia still took place and her husband said that "it was good that it happened so quietly". Absolutely terrifying, and it sparked a debate that was held before, in which experts who had initially advised the government to legalize euthanasia now said the Netherlands might have gone too far. In an op-ed in De Volkskrant, it was stated that "the documentary might have been a turning point in the debate about euthanasia." In the NRC Handelsblad, someone wrote that "in the Netherlands, the formula "Let's do this!" is considered a legitimate argument to diagnose 'unbearable and hopeless suffering'."

At this point, the vast majority of the population agree that euthanasia should be legal in some form; the debate is about whether we have gone too far in allowing euthanasia and whether we are too quick in seeing euthanasia as "the legitimate way out". An expert also stated he thinks Dutch palliative care is less developed than in other countries because of the Dutch tendency to euthanize.

[DC Al Fine]

I assume SGP and CU are going ballistic over this?

What is the reaction of the other parties?

[DavidB.]

SGP and CU are not really the parties to go "ballistic" over anything, but yes, they were shocked, and both CU and SGP wrote parliamentary questions to Health Minister Edith Schippers (VVD) about it. Apart from that, political parties have mainly been silent about it, apart from D66 MP Pia Dijkstra, who wrote an article that defended the Levenseindekliniek. I get the impression that this is sort of an awkward topic for the secular political parties, because euthanasia is seen as part of the package of Dutch "progressive acquirements" (in the category of abortion, gay rights, prostitution) that should not really be debated. Which is a shame, I think, because what happened in the documentary (and what happens in the Levenseindekliniek) is a legitimate subject for debate even if one is in favor of legal euthanasia.

Ironically, the documentary ("De Levenseindekliniek" = "The End of Life Clinic", referring to an organization that euthanizes people whose doctor doesn't want to do it) was partly meant to create public support for extending the circumstances under which euthanasia is legal; in that regard the documentary has proved to be an epic fail.