Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

New peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll has PVV up 1, SP down 1.



PVV now at 38 seats (roughly 25% of the vote), an official all-time high in this poll.

Geert Wilders thinks many more referendums should be organized, "like in Switzerland": "we need a peaceful and democratic political revolution." Such referendums should be binding, according to Wilders.

Q: Should a corrective (binding) referendum be introduced in the Netherlands?


Q: Should such a referendum be organized about asylum seekers, possibly impeding the decision parliament and the government made?

Amazed at the high number of PvdA voters who say yes.

The official speed limit on motorways has changed from 120 to 130 in 2012, which is something VVD and PVV wanted. However, on most motorways, additional limitations have been introduced, so until now, one could drive 130 only on <50% of Dutch motorways. However, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment has been making changes on many motorways, relating to environmental limitations and noise limitations (e.g. by building barriers), in order to introduce as many "130 km/h zones" as possible. In 2016, some more new "130 km/h zones" will be introduced, maninly in the east and the south of the country, meaning that on 61% of Dutch motorways, one can drive 130 all day OR only at night. The most well-known road on which the speed limitation will be highered, however, is the new A2 from Amsterdam to Utrecht, where there are five lanes on both sides (an airplane can land there) yet one can only drive 100 km/h and there is a "fixed average speed check" on almost the entire trajectory, which is insane and has led to 48 million euros of fines in 2014 alone. Most Dutch have either been fined there or know someone who has been fined there

Q: Do you support the decision to higher speed limits at a number of motorways?


People like to drive fast. Surprise.

The much beloved A2 "fixed average speed check":


Thanks, Mark Rutte

[Cranberry]

Has it already been said that Dutch is just a goddamn adorable language? I'm sitting there laughing my ass off when reading these poll questions - from my, a German speaker's, perspective, it's just seems so hilariously wrong and awkward, in lack of better words. "Geen antword" or "moet het referendum worden ingevoerd" just sounds so hilarious to me. You will probably think the same about German, or it's just my own personal weirdness.

To get back to real topic though, the fall of both PvdA and VVD is quite remarkable. Probably that question has already been asked, but what exactly is the reason for this? Fatigue for the establishment parties? Something else? VVD has lost quite a bit as well this year, so is the further fall since fall 2014 connected to the refugee situation (since that same period saw PVV go up in a similar scope)?

Also, to get back once again to the first thing in this post: Partij voor de Dieren is just about the most hilarious name a party could give itsself, in my opinion. Never change, Netherlands.

[DavidB.]

It is probably the same as when I look at Danish or Swedish German is somewhat different, at least to me, because I actually speak that language quite well. It must be noted that Maurice de Hond's Dutch does not only seem wrong and awkward, it actually is... He makes a lot of spelling mistakes and phrases things extremely weirdly, which comes off as unprofessional.

Unpopularity of VVD and PvdA in a nutshell:
- Both parties were campaigning "against each other" in the 2012 election, leading to a two-horse race and remarkably good election results for both parties, and then ended up in a government together. This led many people to feel betrayed from the beginning: they voted for X in order to keep Y out and got both.
- VVD voters think the party didn't keep its promises ("1000 euros for all working Dutch", "no money to Greece anymore", etc.), and PVV/CDA seem to be good alternatives to many of these voters.
- PvdA voters think the party has sold out to the VVD. To many people on the left, it seems like this government's policy is dominated by the VVD. There are of course many alternatives to the PvdA. The SP seems to fail at attracting disappointed PvdA voters, but many of them have flocked to GroenLinks and D66. Of course, D66 is not a real left-wing party, but there are many progressives who are not necessarily left-wing who voted for the PvdA in 2012 because they don't like the VVD, which was/is seen as shifting the country to the nationalist right. Alexander Pechtold being the "anti-Wilders" attracts this type of voters.
- It should be noted that due to the "two-horse race"/tactical voting in the 2012 election, the popularity of VVD and PvdA was inflated to begin with, especially at the cost of PVV and D66 (VVD) and D66/SP/GroenLinks (PvdA), which quickly went back to "normal" after the election.

And yes, the VVD's decline in 2015 has been largely due to the refugee crisis, which caused the PVV to skyrocket. The eurocrisis also played a role, albeit a less important one: in the 2012 campaign, Rutte had promised not to "give" any money to Greece anymore. This year, of course, he had to backtrack on this.

In regard to the PvdD, they are trying to get the ban on ritual slaughter, accepted by parliament but overturned in the Senate, back on table. I doubt this attempt will be successful for them since I cannot see PvdA and D66 vote for this anymore, but let's see.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Ritual slaughter? So like all halal/kosher slaughter, or merely those deemed particularly cruel?

[Cranberry]

Haha. I also love to hear people speak Dutch: It always sounds like they try to speak German, but hilariously fail at that I'm probably a bit snobbish in regards to that, and I'm sure Dutch is a lovely language; but basically the only Dutch I come in contact with are families going on holiday in their campers with their little, horrible children. So my experiences with your language are limited to its worst application

Thank you for your lengthy explanation; this makes a lot of sense. If I remember right though, VVD is not really the "classical" party of the centre-right in the sense that CDU, ÖVP or Tories are; that role would be the CDA? How did they gain their prominent role of leading centre-right party in the first place, only to seemingly lose it already at the moment, to the PVV?

If I may further ask, which party are you supporting?

My comment on PvdD was more directed at the perceived "Dutchness" of the name ("wrong" spelling, "wrong" declension of the word "Dieren" etc. from a German-speakers POV) and the hilarity I experience when reading/hearing Dutch
From your description I take they are largely a singular issue party? I would guess their constituency is similar to the one supporting GL?

[DavidB.]

Ritual slaughter? So like all halal/kosher slaughter, or merely those deemed particularly cruel?

Currently, unanaesthetized slaughter is already banned, but there is an exemption from this if the slaughter takes place for religious reasons. The PvdD aims to take away this exemption. This would mean that all kosher slaughter would be banned, and likely most halal slaughter (even though I think islam allows for some leniencies in this, but I'm not an expert). Needless to say that Muslims and Jews (even Reform) are very much against this. A few years ago, only CDA, ChristenUnie, and SGP voted for upholding the religious exemption in parliament, but in the Senate, the caucuses of VVD, PvdA, and D66 also decided not to support the initiative because of religious freedom.

The PvdA is very much struggling electorally, and recently it has earned a problematic reputation among many of its Muslim voters because of the way Tunahan Kuzu and Selcuk Öztürk, two MPs, have left the parliamentary group over issues regarding the influence of the Turkish government in Turkish-Dutch organizations and the integration policy (which they considered too assimilationist) of the party as a whole. At some point in the emergency meeting over this, Özturk told PvdA integration spokesman Ahmed Marcouch "may Allah punish you", which led the crisis to deteriorate and MPs Kuzu and Öztürk to leave. All of this has been covered widely, and the PvdA already had enough electoral problems. Recently they have tried to "look better" to Muslim communities and it is unlikely that the PvdA will support this. Meanwhile, D66 has successfully courted many Muslim voters in the Provincial elections this year, and as they try to boost their image as the most anti-PVV, pro-multicultural party (and considering the fact the D66 congress has adopted a motion not to ban ritual slaughter) it seems unlikely the party will support this. However, it depends on the VVD: if they vote for the PvdD initiative in parliament, it might pass. Even then, chances are that it will fail in the Senate again.

Haha. I also love to hear people speak Dutch: It always sounds like they try to speak German, but hilariously fail at that I'm probably a bit snobbish in regards to that, and I'm sure Dutch is a lovely language; but basically the only Dutch I come in contact with are families going on holiday in their campers with their little, horrible children. So my experiences with your language are limited to its worst application

I figure. You see, I used to live a town near the beach. Every summer, the population increased by some 25% due to the influx of Germans, who of course always randomly addressed people in German if they needed any help. Jokes about being occupied by the Germans every summer again were commonplace. Though, to be fair, most Germans were (and are) much more polite than the folks from the big Dutch cities

Thank you for your lengthy explanation; this makes a lot of sense. If I remember right though, VVD is not really the "classical" party of the centre-right in the sense that CDU, ÖVP or Tories are; that role would be the CDA? How did they gain their prominent role of leading centre-right party in the first place, only to seemingly lose it already at the moment, to the PVV?

Well, it might be more accurate to say that, until 1994, the party system looked much more like this: CDA (and its predecessors) in the center, VVD on the center right, and PvdA on the center left. CDA (and its predecessors) had a "pivotal" position and could basically chose whether to govern with the VVD or with PvdA, especially considering the fact that due to vast differences in terms of socio-economic policies (and electoral base) PvdA and VVD declined to cooperate with one another. Since Purple (1994-2002, Christian Democrats in opposition for the first time since the implementation of universal suffrage, losing their "pivotal status"), the CDA has drifted somewhat rightward, and during the 2000s it was, indeed, the main party on the center-right. Due to the party's declining voter base (secularization + CDA voters simply dying), the utter fatigue of Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, and the fact that both the VVD's more right-wing approach and VVD leader Mark Rutte seemed refreshing to many, the VVD quickly gained popularity. A two-horse race with then PvdA leader Job Cohen started to gain traction, the PvdA initially skyrocketing in the polls, so many right-wing voters looked at the polls, considered the abovementioned factors and decided to support Rutte. The Rutte-I minority government led to the further erosion of the CDA base: whereas the VVD was generally okay with government cooperation with the PVV, the CDA was very divided about this (though this division was more something within the party than within the electorate, which is a lot further to the right than the party membership - but it made the party look very bad).

If I may further ask, which party are you supporting?

Voted for four different parties (all on the right) in five different elections. Used to support the VVD but got disappointed in 2012 already, before the election (and I didn't vote for them). It very much depends on the issues that are at stake, and I also take into account tactical considerations. Currently I'd be inclined to vote for VNL, a two-member PVV splitoff that is classical liberal and more moderate on issues regarding Islam, but that could very well change if they support the PvdD initiative (in which case I could see myself voting for the SGP again, like in the Provincials/Senatorial election this year).

My comment on PvdD was more directed at the perceived "Dutchness" of the name ("wrong" spelling, "wrong" declension of the word "Dieren" etc. from a German-speakers POV) and the hilarity I experience when reading/hearing Dutch
From your description I take they are largely a singular issue party? I would guess their constituency is similar to the one supporting GL?

I wouldn't call them a single-issue party, just as the Partij van de Arbeid (another lol-name for you) is not only concerned with labor-related issues. The PvdD has an alternative vision according to which the weakest in society need to be supported, which are, according to them, the animals. But this vision encompasses more than just animals. The PvdD stands for "economic degrowth", is anti-globalist from an environmentalist perspective, is skeptical of European integration because this would drain the environment (and animals), and is the most outspoken anti-TTIP party (not something big in the Netherlands, unlike in the German-speaking countries). The PvdD's vision is more "radical" than GroenLinks': the latter merely tries to combine environmentalism and economic growth, and to prioritize environmental concerns over economic concerns. That is why the PvdD is part of the GUE/NGL parliamentary group in the European Parliament.

There is a difference between the voting constituencies of PvdD and GroenLinks. GroenLinks attracts inner-city creatives, students, and some "young urban professionals". The PvdD has two core constituencies. One consists of largely the same people that GL attracts, minus the students. Add to this first PvdD constituency rich people in rich suburbs (sometimes somewhat older), mainly women, who could otherwise vote for D66 or for the VVD (yes, electoral competition between the PvdD and the VVD is a thing; some rich people love the environment, are "progressive", but don't like to be taxed). This constituency consists of generally highly educated people in the Randstad metro area who are concerned about the environment and animal rights. A second constituency, however, seems to be very different: the PvdD continues to attract a sizeable amount of working-class protest voters in peripherical areas, for instance in Limburg. Many people lost their trust in politicians. Voting for a party that supports animal rights and poses an alternative to "the system" seems both harmless and a signal to "The Hague".


PvdD leader Marianne Thieme in an anti-TTIP dress at the annual ceremony in which the budget is presented.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The PdVD constituency reminds me of the German Pirate clientele during the heydays of that party.

[jeron]

Thank you for your lengthy explanation; this makes a lot of sense. If I remember right though, VVD is not really the "classical" party of the centre-right in the sense that CDU, ÖVP or Tories are; that role would be the CDA? How did they gain their prominent role of leading centre-right party in the first place, only to seemingly lose it already at the moment, to the PVV?

First off, PVV is by no means centre-right.
VVD is usually to the right of CDA. Support for christian parties has been eroding since the 1960s. The VVD benefited from this trend. VVD consists of two main groups: classical liberals and conservatives. Generally speaking the party establishment is more liberal than the party itself and the party is more liberal than its voters. Conservative VVD voters now have an alternative which is called PVV.

[DavidB.]

VVD consists of two main groups: classical liberals and conservatives. Generally speaking the party establishment is more liberal than the party itself and the party is more liberal than its voters. Conservative VVD voters now have an alternative which is called PVV.

Not really, and it all depends on your conceptualization of liberal. In general I'd say there are not many people who could qualify as "classical liberals" in the VVD: this is the Netherlands, the most right-wing people within the VVD still advocate >30% taxation and government intervention in all sorts of stuff.

There is, however, a difference between the more "conservative" (but by no means socially conservative) VVD members and more "progressive" VVD members. The former group focuses on issues like law and order, defense, an Atlantic foreign policy (currently often combined with soft euroskepticism), and lower taxes, whereas the more "progressive" members are the ones who pushed for liberalization of social issues, European integration, et cetera. However, this is much more a scale than a dichotomy: it is not about "two camps within one party". Recently, since Rutte-I, there hasn't been much debate within the party -- in general the VVD is an "applause machine", but in the past, there was more internal debate than now. However, it seems like the more "progressive" VVD members have been more silent. Some former VVD politicians are unhappy with what they perceive as the rightward shift of the VVD, and some of them have become members of D66 instead. It should be noted, however, that the party top is somewhat to the left of the party members and of most of the party's voters. In general, there is not much opposition within the party to the rightward shift. However, shifting to the right might render it harder to form coalitions without backtracking on too many promises and staying credible, which has, of course, gone wrong in 2012.

[Cranberry]

Alright, thank you very much for taking the time to write such a long response to my questions. I'm not at all much versed in the Dutch political system, which is sad, because such extreme cases of party plurality are always extremely interesting to watch - and the Netherlands are obviously the prime example for that - but your commentary gives me certainly some insight.

And yes, I find Partij van de Arbeid just as much a lol name (like practically any Dutch party name, btw )

[jeron]

VVD consists of two main groups: classical liberals and conservatives. Generally speaking the party establishment is more liberal than the party itself and the party is more liberal than its voters. Conservative VVD voters now have an alternative which is called PVV.

Not really, and it all depends on your conceptualization of liberal. In general I'd say there are not many people who could qualify as "classical liberals" in the VVD: this is the Netherlands, the most right-wing people within the VVD still advocate >30% taxation and government intervention in all sorts of stuff.

There is, however, a difference between the more "conservative" (but by no means socially conservative) VVD members and more "progressive" VVD members. The former group focuses on issues like law and order, defense, an Atlantic foreign policy (currently often combined with soft euroskepticism), and lower taxes, whereas the more "progressive" members are the ones who pushed for liberalization of social issues, European integration, et cetera. However, this is much more a scale than a dichotomy: it is not about "two camps within one party". Recently, since Rutte-I, there hasn't been much debate within the party -- in general the VVD is an "applause machine", but in the past, there was more internal debate than now. However, it seems like the more "progressive" VVD members have been more silent. Some former VVD politicians are unhappy with what they perceive as the rightward shift of the VVD, and some of them have become members of D66 instead. It should be noted, however, that the party top is somewhat to the left of the party members and of most of the party's voters. In general, there is not much opposition within the party to the rightward shift. However, shifting to the right might render it harder to form coalitions without backtracking on too many promises and staying credible, which has, of course, gone wrong in 2012.

There are two camps within the party. It might be less clear now, but is was very clear when Rutte and Verdonk were battling for the party leadership. Verdonk represented the more populist and conservative wing and Rutte the liberal wing. Many people who supported Verdonk now vote for Wilders.

[jeron]

Ritual slaughter? So like all halal/kosher slaughter, or merely those deemed particularly cruel?

There is a difference between the voting constituencies of PvdD and GroenLinks. GroenLinks attracts inner-city creatives, students, and some "young urban professionals". The PvdD has two core constituencies. One consists of largely the same people that GL attracts, minus the students. Add to this first PvdD constituency rich people in rich suburbs (sometimes somewhat older), mainly women, who could otherwise vote for D66 or for the VVD (yes, electoral competition between the PvdD and the VVD is a thing; some rich people love the environment, are "progressive", but don't like to be taxed). This constituency consists of generally highly educated people in the Randstad metro area who are concerned about the environment and animal rights. A second constituency, however, seems to be very different: the PvdD continues to attract a sizeable amount of working-class protest voters in peripherical areas, for instance in Limburg. Many people lost their trust in politicians. Voting for a party that supports animal rights and poses an alternative to "the system" seems both harmless and a signal to "The Hague".


PvdD leader Marianne Thieme in an anti-TTIP dress at the annual ceremony in which the budget is presented.

There is hardly anyone from VVD who votes PvdD. De Hond had a poll last year and there were more VVD voters who considered voting Socialist Party than PvdD. PvdD like Groenlinks performs best in the largest cities. People who 'don't want to be taxed' wouldn't vote PvdD as its economic policies are left-wing. In general, PvdD performed best among GL (and to a lesser extent) SP voters

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@cranberry

The interesting thing about the Netherlands is a fantastic example of a hyper-rigid pillar based system collapsing in slow-motion. Before this breakdown urban Liberals, socialists, Catholics and Protestants all had entirely separate parties, media, unions, schools, businesses etc. and elections were fairly staid affairs. After the war, as the Dutch ceded Indonesia and old argie-bargies around Papism faded into the distance, the three Christian parties arranged a comfy consensus, occasionally enlisting the other two pillars (who could never grab a majority on their own) but pretty much controlling the "establishment".

But the Christians' outright hubris in their clinging to power made them the first, and most conspicuous, target of depillarisation. D66 is now a a generic soclib party, but was born as an attempt to outright destroy the pillars and the Christian parties of power that embodied them, via reforms like the implementation of a Presidential system. Young people, now educated and with some amount of disposable wealth had no interest in pillars and did as they pleased. A secularising, increasingly floating (the media was becoming more nationalised in the 60's, remember, leading to a more pan-national electorate) voter base forced them to merge out of necessity, forming the new cross-confessional CDA; but they would never get the same influence in society, despite still clinging to power until the 90's.

Around the same time, elements of the right and left escaped from their respective pillars. The populist Farmer's Party was the first iteration of an angry new anti-establishmentarian right - strongly nationalistic, anti-tax and vaguely Poujadist. They were replaced by the misleadingly named Centre Party, their moderate-split the Centre Democrats and - in the new millennium- the sensational rise of Pim Fortun, and then Geert Wilders.

The left did a similar thing. In the 60's the New Left overtook the party conference of the PdVA, to the consternation of the moderate old guard, who did an SDP and split. They joined up with d66 and a BRTD-esque offshot of the Christian parties to try and make an anti-pillar progressive majority, which they failed at. The 70's were muddled through (like many 70's governments) with awkward coalitions, but eventually the party moderated under "neoliberal" Third Wayer Wim Kok, who finally achieved the unthinkable of evicting the Christians from cabinet. Which is were part of the problem started to crop up. In doing so, Labour had to cede the New Left ground - the progressive Christians, destalinised Communists and pacifists - to the newly formed GreenLeft and, most dangerously for them the old "statist left" to the Socialist Party, an old fringe Maoist party repurposed as a populist left party.

Throughout this depillarisation, the most victorious classic party has been the old liberal party, VVD. Previously a victim of pillarisation (the "liberal pillar" was very much the Hufflepuff of pillars), the VVD has managed to expand into huge sections of the electorate (the working class and rurally) they were previously locked out of by the monolithic socialists and Christians. It has now been repackaged as the "conservative party", while both the CDA and Labour are lost and directionless. Rutte has left a very right-wing agenda in office but I don't think for a moment the party is dead in the water. However, in this volatile age of Dutch politics, i think any predictions on the future is laughable.

[DavidB.]

There is hardly anyone from VVD who votes PvdD. De Hond had a poll last year and there were more VVD voters who considered voting Socialist Party than PvdD. PvdD like Groenlinks performs best in the largest cities. People who 'don't want to be taxed' wouldn't vote PvdD as its economic policies are left-wing. In general, PvdD performed best among GL (and to a lesser extent) SP voters

Sorry, but you're just saying things that are not true. I advise you to read Josse de Voogd's "Bakfietsen en Rolluiken: De Electorale Geografie van Nederland".

PvdD does well in the big cities but also in quite some municipalities outside of the big cities: 1) rich suburbs: e.g. 't Gooi, the Haarlem region and 2) peripherical areas, e.g. the entire regions of Zuid-Limburg, Oost-Groningen. PvdD performs very well in a number of suburbs that are characterized by a strong VVD/D66 vote and a relatively weak GL vote, e.g. in Heemstede.

Regarding electoral competition between VVD and PvdD: the EenVandaag/De Stemming poll has often showed that VVD and PvdD alone are "battling" for one seat, which is quite much, considering that the PvdD only has two seats. I am not denying the fact that most of the PvdD supporters are, indeed, former GL/SP/PvdA/D66 voters -- I'm just stating that competition between PvdD and VVD (in rich suburbs) is a thing. In the peripherical regions, there is also competition between PVV and PvdD among protest voters. My point regarding taxation was not that the PvdD would support low taxation, it was that there is a certain group of people (which is by no means large, but it is a phenomenon that is worthy of discussion in the context of the PvdD) who generally don't like taxes so much and believe in the economic policies of the VVD yet are concerned with the environment and are donors to animal rights organizations etc. In the end, these people might vote for the PvdD, even if they don't like the PvdD's economic plans.

There are two camps within the party. It might be less clear now, but is was very clear when Rutte and Verdonk were battling for the party leadership. Verdonk represented the more populist and conservative wing and Rutte the liberal wing. Many people who supported Verdonk now vote for Wilders.

This used to be the case when the VVD was still in the opposition and to a lesser extent in Rutte-I's earliest of days, yes, but the distinction seems much less clear nowadays.

And yes, I find Partij van de Arbeid just as much a lol name (like practically any Dutch party name, btw )

I already thought so

Crab's analysis, by the way, is excellent.

[Zinneke]

There is a difference between the voting constituencies of PvdD and GroenLinks. GroenLinks attracts inner-city creatives, students, and some "young urban professionals". The PvdD has two core constituencies. One consists of largely the same people that GL attracts, minus the students. Add to this first PvdD constituency rich people in rich suburbs (sometimes somewhat older), mainly women, who could otherwise vote for D66 or for the VVD (yes, electoral competition between the PvdD and the VVD is a thing; some rich people love the environment, are "progressive", but don't like to be taxed). This constituency consists of generally highly educated people in the Randstad metro area who are concerned about the environment and animal rights. A second constituency, however, seems to be very different: the PvdD continues to attract a sizeable amount of working-class protest voters in peripherical areas, for instance in Limburg. Many people lost their trust in politicians. Voting for a party that supports animal rights and poses an alternative to "the system" seems both harmless and a signal to "The Hague".

DO you have a source for PVdD being a protest party? Their vote is almost entirely urban. Their results in Limburg and Brabant are pathetic outside standard progressive cities.

As someone who lived in Limburg let me tell you how people saw Dutch politics from there. There are Hollander parties (VVD, GroenLinks, D66, PvdD) that are not worth voting for. Then there are traditional parties who are good mates with everyone and shake the right people's hands to get thheir solid results (CDA, PvdA). Now there are **** off Holland and globalisation parties (PVV, SP). These will do the strongest in Limburg if it doesn't pick itself up, and the old people who voted for Timmermans and the CDA go six foot under.

[jeron]

There is hardly anyone from VVD who votes PvdD. De Hond had a poll last year and there were more VVD voters who considered voting Socialist Party than PvdD. PvdD like Groenlinks performs best in the largest cities. People who 'don't want to be taxed' wouldn't vote PvdD as its economic policies are left-wing. In general, PvdD performed best among GL (and to a lesser extent) SP voters

Sorry, but you're just saying things that are not true. I advise you to read Josse de Voogd's "Bakfietsen en Rolluiken: De Electorale Geografie van Nederland".

PvdD does well in the big cities but also in quite some municipalities outside of the big cities: 1) rich suburbs: e.g. 't Gooi, the Haarlem region and 2) peripherical areas, e.g. the entire regions of Zuid-Limburg, Oost-Groningen. PvdD performs very well in a number of suburbs that are characterized by a strong VVD/D66 vote and a relatively weak GL vote, e.g. in Heemstede.

Regarding electoral competition between VVD and PvdD: the EenVandaag/De Stemming poll has often showed that VVD and PvdD alone are "battling" for one seat, which is quite much, considering that the PvdD only has two seats. I am not denying the fact that most of the PvdD supporters are, indeed, former GL/SP/PvdA/D66 voters -- I'm just stating that competition between PvdD and VVD (in rich suburbs) is a thing. In the peripherical regions, there is also competition between PVV and PvdD among protest voters. My point regarding taxation was not that the PvdD would support low taxation, it was that there is a certain group of people (which is by no means large, but it is a phenomenon that is worthy of discussion in the context of the PvdD) who generally don't like taxes so much and believe in the economic policies of the VVD yet are concerned with the environment and are donors to animal rights organizations etc. In the end, these people might vote for the PvdD, even if they don't like the PvdD's economic plans.

Some of the things you say are not true either. You claim that PvdD is doing well in Limburg. During the last parliamentary elections PvdD got 1.8 % of the vote compared to a national average of 1.92%. There is no proof for your claim that PvdD takes many votes from VVD, none whatsoever. The largest party in Heemstede in 2012 was PvdA! PvdD's share of the vote in Heemstede was 2.32% (up about 1% from 2010). Meanwhile GL's share of the vote went down from 7.4% in 2010 to 4.0% in 2012. So, it's easy to see where those PvdD votes came from.

[DavidB.]

Some of the things you say are not true either. You claim that PvdD is doing well in Limburg. During the last parliamentary elections PvdD got 1.8 % of the vote compared to a national average of 1.92%. There is no proof for your claim that PvdD takes many votes from VVD, none whatsoever. The largest party in Heemstede in 2012 was PvdA! PvdD's share of the vote in Heemstede was 2.32% (up about 1% from 2010). Meanwhile GL's share of the vote went down from 7.4% in 2010 to 4.0% in 2012. So, it's easy to see where those PvdD votes came from.

I'll reply to this tomorrow. I have ample data to support my points (for instance, I wasn't talking about Limburg as a whole but about Zuid-Limburg, which was very clear -- to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of people misinterpreting what I'm saying in a very clear way) but I don't know if posting it would infringe on certain copyright issues, so I'll look into that. But, ehm, one thing... You're really saying that the PvdA was the biggest party in Heemstede in 2012? Do you have any idea what kind of municipality Heemstede is? It wasn't: the VVD got 41,8% of the vote and the PvdA only 18,7%. Also lmao at the idea that "PvdD went up and GL went down so that must be due to each other".

As to JosepBroz' question, yes, I do have a source for this: see De Voogd's "Bakfietsen en Rolluiken: de Electorale Geografie van Nederland" (2011, 26) to see why and how the PvdD attacts voters as protest party (and no, their vote isn't pathetic outside of progressive cities -- I mean, in most places it is, but there are important exceptions to that). I might elaborate on this tomorrow.

[Zinneke]

If we're talking South Limburg then you have to take into account Maastricht, where animal rights issues have been at the forefront of the community's political debate in recent years. 4% PvdD in the last election there brings their average up.

[DavidB.]

Still had to reply to this. I was not talking about an "average". This is the map for the PvdD in 2012.


The pattern of stronger support in Zuid-Limburg also exists without taking into account Maastricht (of which one would expect the PvdD score to be higher due to the presence of progressives). Their overperformance in Oost-Groningen, the poorest region of the Netherlands and a region that historically is characterized by a strong communist vote and in which SP and PVV are nowadays very strong, also points at the existence of the PvdD protest vote.

In the 2010 map, the same pattern exists. Where is the PvdD strongest? Oost-Groningen (protest vote area), Zuid-Limburg (protest vote area), the "progressive belt" (Alkmaar-Arnhem/Nijmegen), though more in the north than in the south -- both in cities of the progressive belt and in rich suburbs, and the Rijnmond-Haaglanden area, where it's not really sure whether it points at a progressive pattern or a protest pattern (could be both).

Other places that illustrate the protest vote pattern are Lelystad (Flevoland) and Zandvoort (Noord-Holland, where the PVV tends to overperform; this place is demographically very different from the extremely rich places and from Haarlem, by which it is surrounded).

So these maps underpin the idea that it attracts support both from progressive, higher educated voters (which is why it performs well in big cities, university cities, and the "progressive belt") and from lower educated protest voters in peripherical areas (Oost-Groningen, Zuid-Limburg, some white working-class towns in the Randstad), which is also the conclusion at which De Voogd arrives in the publication I mentioned.

[mvd10]

The budget for 2016 included a 5 billion tax cut, however that tax cut might not pass the senate. The cabinet has a majority in the second chamber (house of representatives) but they don't have a majority in the senate.

They either need CDA and D66 (christian democrats and social liberals) or CDA and 2 other small Christian parties. The small Christian parties and the CDA want more advantages for single earner households but the cabinet (and D66) doesn't want it since it wouldn't encourage people to work.

D66 thinks the tax plan of the cabinet isn't ambitious enough, and they don't want advantages for single earner households while the cabinet needs both D66 and 1 or 2 Christian parties for a majority. The cabinet has made a final offer, CDA seems to accept it but they still don't have a majority and the Christian parties made it clear they were not going to support the tax cut. And apparently D66 also is going to vote against it so bye bye tax cut.

EDIT:
Pechtold has said he will vote against it, but he is a representative (and the leader of D66) and while the senators usually vote the same as their counterparts in the house of representatives they can vote different (the original purpose of the senate was to check the new laws) so there still is a chance the tax cut will pass.

[DavidB.]

Highly important (ahem) elections in two new, merged municipalities were held today.

Edam-Volendam (Noord-Holland) is close to Amsterdam, and its most populated town, Volendam, is well-known for its large amount of Dutch singers, fishermen (who sell their products across the entire country), and (recently) PVV voters: it is very (culturally, at least) Catholic and used to vote for the CDA, but in 2010 the PVV became the largest party and in the 2012 two-horse race many voted for the VVD. It merged with a municipality consisting of some small villages.

KRAS 6 -> local Volendam-based party
Zeevangs Belang ("Zeevang's Interests") 4 --> remarkable because Zeevang are the small municipalities which were perceived to simply be "annexed" by Edam-Volendam; apparently this party won a huge share of the vote in Zeevang, indicating that people were scared they wouldn't be represented otherwise.
Volendam '80 4
CDA 4
VVD 3
GroenLinks 3
PvdA 1
D66 0 -> this will certainly be disappointing to them
Proud of the Netherlands 0 (amazed that Rita Verdonk's failed vehicle still exists)
-----
25 seats

Being a very insular fishermen's town, Volendam has historically been very critical of developments outside the village. National parties are not trusted, which is why local parties such as KRAS and Volendam '80 perform well. The success of Zeevangs Belang might point at the fact that many Dutch feel that the forced merger of their municipalities (eventually all municipalities will have over 80,000 inhabitants) hurts both their interests and their identity. Generally I am very skeptical of this trend, although Zeevang was truly an extremely small municipality (without good reasons) and I understand this particular merger very well. Edam, as opposed to Volendam, is actually a progressive city. GroenLinks came first in some polling stations. However, Volendam is much bigger.

Gooise Meren ("Lakes of Gooi") is also located in Noord-Holland, to the southeast of Amsterdam and close to Hilversum, the biggest city in the Gooi area (which is well-known for its affluence, also portrayed in the popular soap series Gooische Vrouwen "Women from the Gooi"). Gooise Meren is a merger of the historical, small, relatively progressive municipalities of Muiden and Naarden, which have beautiful fortresses, and the larger and less remarkable (yet equally affluent) Amsterdam/Hilversum suburb Bussum. Results:

VVD 8
D66 5
CDA 5
PvdA 4
GroenLinks 3
GOP (lol) 2 --> this is the "Elderly Party in the Gooi", the Gooi being the region in which this municipality is located
50Plus 2 (another old people's party)
Local party 2
ChristenUnie 0
Proud of the Netherlands 0 (amazed that Rita Verdonk's failed vehicle still exists)
----
31 seats

Quite a good result for the VVD -- which was to be expected in this municipality, but still I expected the margin between VVD and D66 to be much smaller.

[MaxQue]

Is the Edam cheese comes from there, or it's a word meaning something in Dutch?

[DavidB.]

Is the Edam cheese comes from there, or it's a word meaning something in Dutch?

No, it is indeed from there

[DavidB.]

Pim Fortuyn's brother, Martin Fortuyn (72), will start a new political party, the "Pim Marten Fortuyn". Some of his proposed policies:

- A national cabinet for 12 months: "political parties are unnecessary"
- "Back to the living standard of 2000"
- 30% more money for people with low incomes
- maximum wage of 300,000 euros
- recognizing the Islamic State: "IS is not the ultimate evil. You need to recognize them and just see what happens. Some repercussions, but eventually it needs to stop."
- open borders: "everyone who wants to come and who wants to stay has that right. If they do not want our values, it is their right."

He also talked about his appreciation of Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen

Ummmm... yeah... this wasn't exactly what his brother wanted, so to speak.

[tpfkaw]

I believe the Darwin Awards are now defunct, but whoever accepts the position of Ambassador to the Islamic State will qualify for an interesting one.