Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Klartext89]

Is 50plus (the Partys leadership, not the electorate) closer to the Right (anti-EU, EU-sceptical, against Islam, against mass immigration) or the Left (pro-EU, against own country and People, pro mass immigration, loving Islam)?

In other words, despite rhetoric in the election campaign, is it possible to form a government with PVV, VVD, 50plus, CU e.g.?

50Plus would probably be willing to cooperate with the PVV, yes. Their leadership doesn't have any real views, just a hardon for power. They will do whatever is needed to win votes, and a coalition with the PVV may be a successful way to do so as such a government would give freebies to the elderly anyway. However, a coalition including both CU and PVV is very much impossible. The CU are very much anti-Wilders. They were opposed to the inclusion of the PVV in the Rutte-I government and their left-wing views on issues such as immigration, asylum and the environment really don't match the PVV's approach. And, of course, Mark Rutte has -- for now... -- closed the door to cooperation with the PVV too.

Thank you, always astonishing that These hard-core Christians are doing anything to get their culture abolished and destroyed.

Not really, they have more in common with hardcore Muslims than they do with secular atheists.

Some are thinking that, yeah. But I think that's a myth, cause hardcore Muslims don't allow any other form of religion beside Islam.

[DavidB.]

Not really, they have more in common with hardcore Muslims than they do with secular atheists.

Sewer-tier analysis. CU's type of Protestantism is simply very much influenced by values of tolerance etc and has very little in common with "hardcore Muslims."

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, the VVD is in trouble once again due to the person who is generally considered "the weakest link" in the government, Security & Justice Minister Ard van der Steur (VVD). The timing is probably no coincidence, but a renowned investigative journalist found out that as an MP, Van der Steur had advised then Minister Ivo Opstelten (who had to resign because of this) to not inform parliament about certain facts in a controversial deal with a drugs criminal in which the amount of money that was given to the criminal had been downplayed. Van der Steur, Opstelten's successor, then told parliament an entirely different version of events about his role in this affair. There have been countless incidents with Van der Steur already (often related to this deal), and the PvdA has now threatened to stop supporting Van der Steur, which would cause him to resign in the last two months of the government. D66 even threatened to introduce a motion of no confidence against the entire government, which should be seen as posturing before the election.

This entire affair is extremely embarrassing for the VVD because it has thoroughly undermined the party's credibility as a "law and order" party, which was very important in attracting VVD-PVV swing voters in the 2012 election. As Rutte once again seeks to present himself as someone who "tells it like it is" and attract those swing voters, any more attention for this affair is the last thing he needs.

[DavidB.]

David I probably asked that questions already but what is the approach of SGP or CU on Catholic voters if there are any?

Forgot about this, sorry. Let's first emphasize that the percentage of Catholics that take into account their Catholicism when voting is relatively small. Those who do take into account their Catholicism can generally be assumed to either be more devout/conservative and/or care about abortion. Both the SGP and -- to a smaller extent -- the CU's predecessors have quite an anti-Catholic history, and remnants of that past can still be found in the parties' "mission statements" (though CU intend to change these parts), but both parties have become more open to Catholics in recent years -- CU more so than SGP because that party explicitly intends to be a union of [all] Christians. Some conservative Catholics vote for the CU and some vote for the SGP. The latter's open anti-Catholicism long prevented this, but this has changed under Van der Staaij, and whereas CU is not a natural fit for conservative Catholics because of its "SJW" tendencies on issues like immigration, the SGP fits this type of voter's views much better (in addition to being the most vocal party on abortion). The parties don't actually target Catholics (not that "targeting" like this is common in the Netherlands anyway), but they absolutely don't talk negatively about Catholicism anymore and ties between CU and Catholic institutions have improved markedly.

But keep in mind that conservative Catholics are an incredibly small and at this point irrelevant electorate, a bit like Jews. Most Catholics in the Netherlands are either cultural Catholics or devout, but not too conservative politically.

At this point I suspect most conservative Catholics still vote for CU or CDA with some moving toward the SGP, but I don't know for sure, since we're talking about a very small number of people. A friend of mine is a Catholic priest and usually votes CU, but intends to vote for the SGP in March.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Thank you for the answer.

[DavidB.]

Debate on Van der Steur's political future happening now.

[DavidB.]

Watching the debate. Van der Steur clearly bullsh*tting and still very arrogant, angering MPs once again. Question is whether PvdA will support him: will it help them electorally or hurt them? Entire opposition may vote against VdS and for motion of no confidence, though perhaps the SGP could save him too.

[DavidB.]

Aaaaaand he's gone... despite the fact that Rutte continued to support him. The debate was beyond embarrassing. As an MP, Van der Steur had advised Opstelten on his letter that he would send to parliament. The investigative journalist had found that Van der Steur's comment "very sensitive!" had prompted Opstelten to leave certain facts out of the letter. Van der Steur sought to convince parliament that with "very sensitive" he had actually meant Opstelten should have published it but had to realize the political consequences, but to no avail: the opposition kept insisting on the much more plausible explanation that Van der Steur had advised Opstelten to leave those facts out altogether. This will hurt the VVD in times where this is the last thing they need.

[DavidB.]

As a consequence of authorities waking up to the fact that Berlin Christmas Market terrorist Amri could roam around throughout Europe without anyone knowing where he was, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and France have now decided that ID/passport checks will take place on certain international trains crossing these countries -- mainly the Eurostar/Thalys. Belgian minister Jan Jambon (N-VA) took the initiative for this measure, which I consider to be long overdue.

[DavidB.]

Since free money is always popular, D66 leader Pechtold has now promised 500 euros to every working Dutch citizen. This is pretty lol because it resembles one of Rutte's broken promises everybody still remembers, in which he guaranteed working Dutch people would receive 1,000 euros if he were to be elected. Last year, Rutte publicly apologized for breaking that promise. In 2012, Pechtold dismissed Rutte's claim as populist and not credible, but apparently those objections don't count anymore.

Pechtold also seeks to cut taxes by lowering the second (40.8%) and fourth (52.0%) personal income tax brackets: "families who earn somewhat more than average form the backbone of our society", Pechtold stated, clearly looking to win over D66-VVD swing voters. I'm sure Jesse Klaver doesn't mind: D66 may have much more to lose (to GL) than to win (from the VVD) by doing so. I'm not at all convinced this is a successful strategy. D66 members I am acquainted with are not pleased.

[mvd10]

Most D66 members are to the left of their leadership. Last year a couple of local D66 politicians wanted D66 to become more left-wing and focus on inequality instead of economic reforms. Jan Terlouw (former D66 leader) even criticized neoliberalism.

The most hilarious thing about Pechtold's tax plan is that Pechtold criticized the VVD/PvdA tax cut in 2015 because it was a "dumb'' tax cut that wouldn't increase employment and increase the debt while I fail to see how his tax plan is any different.

[DavidB.]

Most D66 members are to the left of their leadership. Last year a couple of local D66 politicians wanted D66 to become more left-wing and focus on inequality instead of economic reforms. Jan Terlouw (former D66 leader) even criticized neoliberalism.

True, and the same goes for many of their voters. A similar case was when MEP Marietje Schaake, a staunch TTIP supporter, stopped talking about the agreement and didn't want to answer any questions about it anymore because it was so unpopular with their base.

The most hilarious thing about Pechtold's tax plan is that Pechtold criticized the VVD/PvdA tax cut in 2015 because it was a "dumb'' tax cut that wouldn't increase employment and increase the debt while I fail to see how his tax plan is any different.

Yeah, it's exactly the same, lol.

[DC Al Fine]

That raises an interesting question. What are the parties with the biggest and smallest differences between the leadership and the rank and file support?

[Zinneke]

That raises an interesting question. What are the parties with the biggest and smallest differences between the leadership and the rank and file support?

IMO (but the Dutchmen will know better than me) from most to least distant :

PvdA
D66
VVD (rank and file are more right)
CDA (rank and file more left)
GL-SP*
PVV
The religious parties
PvdD

*hard to say about these guys because they are ideologically consistent with the voter base but their leaderships do their back door deals in ivory towers, especially SP.

[DavidB.]

Rogier's post sounds about right, but I'd distinguish between party members and the party's loyal voter base.

This post is not in order of big/small differences, btw.

- The PvdA membership is more left-wing than the party itself but I don't think that is necessarily true for most of its voters (not taking into account the disaster that is currently taking place: even loyal voters are obviously to the left of the current government's policies, but that is to be expected).
- The CDA has a membership that represents the party's direction yet is very diverse and has a relatively loud left wing, whereas the actual loyal voter base is much more right-wing than the party itself.
- The VVD membership is an applause machine (though with a right-wing edge that needs to be appeased) but its loyal voters are either more culturally progressive elitists or more right-wing middle class people.
- The interesting thing with the SP is that their membership is very activist, sometimes in a New Lefty way as well, whereas the party seeks to ignore "intersectional" issues and identity politics ("Class war, not race war", someone in the SP recently said) for obvious reasons: SP voters, while supporting the party on the economy and the EU, are often much more right-wing on immigration and issues that are related to Muslims, and the party knows it. They cannot act on it because of ideological considerations, but they don't want to lose these voters either, so they choose to shut up about it and try to steer the discussion in the direction of the economy/"neoliberalism".
- Both D66 members and D66 voters are to the left of the party. There are not as many D66-VVD swing voters (anymore) as is sometimes assumed.
- Don't know about the CU membership but many of their more religious voters are absolutely to the party's right and probably often don't agree with the party's "soft" stances on issues such as immigration.
- 50Plus voters are typically to the party's right on issues such as immigration.
- I don't think there is a big difference between the GL leadership and either membership or loyal voters.
- For the PVV, I'm going to guess most voters don't actually support a headscarf tax   and perhaps most don't want to close down all mosques either, though "to the left" would be a mischaracterization. As for the leadership and the membership, I expect their opinions to be remarkably similar...

[SunSt0rm]

-PvdA: memberships economically and culturally more left-wing. Base economically more left-wing, but culturally more conservative (want to be stricter on immigrations etc.).
-CDA: Memberships a bit more left. Base: two wings. North, which is culturally similar to the memberships and the catholic south base, which is defintely more conservative.
-VVD: Memberships represents the party (like DavidB says it is an applause machine). Base is right to the party.
-D66: memberships economically left to the party and the base as well.
-GL: Currently correct. In the era of Sap and last years of Halsema, party was right to its base
-SP: Memberships no idea. Base definetely more conservative
-PVV: Base probably less extreme
-CU: Membership seems to be correct. Base probably more conservative

Biggest differences between leadership and base is defintely at the PvdA. Every time the PvdA governs, the memberships rebel and the base move away in the polls.
This difference is also noticable at the SP, where the base is more conservative than the leadership.
Another big difference is at D66 as well, however it seems that its memberships and base doesnt care (or dont know about it). Although I think the base of D66 under Pechtold has changed from 10 years ago. Its base has become more pragmatic and I think the culturally progressive elitists from the VVD have moved to D66 as well like former VVD leader Voorhoeve.

[SunSt0rm]

Since free money is always popular, D66 leader Pechtold has now promised 500 euros to every working Dutch citizen. This is pretty lol because it resembles one of Rutte's broken promises everybody still remembers, in which he guaranteed working Dutch people would receive 1,000 euros if he were to be elected. Last year, Rutte publicly apologized for breaking that promise. In 2012, Pechtold dismissed Rutte's claim as populist and not credible, but apparently those objections don't count anymore.

Pechtold also seeks to cut taxes by lowering the second (40.8%) and fourth (52.0%) personal income tax brackets: "families who earn somewhat more than average form the backbone of our society", Pechtold stated, clearly looking to win over D66-VVD swing voters. I'm sure Jesse Klaver doesn't mind: D66 may have much more to lose (to GL) than to win (from the VVD) by doing so. I'm not at all convinced this is a successful strategy. D66 members I am acquainted with are not pleased.

I agree that this strategy seems to be very odd as there are more GL-D66 swing voters than VVD-D66 swing voters. I think the VVD-D66 swing voters mostly consider D66 for less important elections like provincial, municipality and Europan Parliament, but that this group vote for VVD during general election.
I think if D66 wants to become the third biggest party it has to move to the left and compete for the GL-D66 voters. This can work especially when Pechtold and not Klaver is invited for the Prime Minister debate (this strategy can still be used when the debate consists of VVD, PVV, CDA and D66)

D66 under Pechtold has economically moved to the right. In the past, D66 cooperated more with PvdA, but I get the feeling that Pechtold prefers to work with the VVD now. In the provincial election of 2015, it even seems that D66 was campaigning right to the VVD. The base of D66 has changed a bit as well. Its main base now are more elitist or young people just leaving university having a good paid job or having the prospect of it (as student). And these tax plans would benefit this group most. This group is more pragmatic than the more idealistic base (which is larger). I sometimes got the feeling that only a few people regard D66 as right to the centre. The image of D66 is that it is still regarded as a left party by the media or voters. It seems that many people havent feeled that D66 has moved to the right, which it defenitely has done.

[Zinneke]

Yes, my post was meant for the memberships, but you are both right to make the distinction, especially given the geographical differences you have too that can distance the membership from the voters. We could go through them too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This post is spot on, and what is quoted here is the feel I get too. Also, for example, D66 has been the main benefactor of the PvdA collapse in Hollander inner cities like Utrecht. There is a clear PvdA-D66 swing, but I feel these new D66 voters will soon realise that Pechtold is VVD-lite and they will go back to PvdA (just not under Ascher). I think the new pragmatic D66 voters are social democrat middle class university types at heart but more right-wing economically, they just can't bring themselves to vote for VVD, and felt betrayed when PvdA allied with VVD.

Rutte is the main target of Pechtold though, which might keep the D66 new voters and membership on board until March. I don't think the two like each other, especially given Rutte's answers on Het Oog on Friday. I think Pechtold really wants to take over Rutte's mantle as the leading liberal figure in Europe, painting Rutte as a neo-con fraud.

D66 are the party that are critical of everybody before the election but are willing to co-operate with anybody afterwards, so they will more than likely still form up with VVD and CDA. But I think they are the ones more likely to be pissed off and in internal strife during the coalition.

[DavidB.]

I agree with both of your points related to D66's rightward shift, and Sunstorm's observation related to the changing base of D66 (in some ways almost moving toward the Danish Liberal Alliance's position) is also spot on. I think older D66 voters still remember vividly the slogan "het redelijke alternatief" ("the reasonable alternative") and most people view the party as centrist, which, at least on economic issues, it is really not (anymore). I have some scientific data sets on this, will look into it.

In response to Rogier's good point, I'd also say that we shouldn't underestimate just how middle-class the PvdA's base has become over the last decades. In that light it is no wonder that a) the PvdA has "lost its ideological feathers" and b) people eventually start voting for other parties, such as D66 and GL. I'd argue this may be due to the increasing importance of the green/alternative/libertarian vs. traditionalist/authoritarian/nationalist divide vis-a-vis the traditional left-right divide, which has put parties that are more at the center of the former divide (CDA, VVD, PvdA) instead of at one of its extremes (PVV, D66, GL) at a disadvantage. If you're progressive, highly educated, middle-class and in your forties or fifties, you're often not really going to care about issues prioritized by the PvdA such as economic inequality, but you are going to care about issues prioritized by D66 or GL such as EU integration and perhaps refugees. And non-middle-class voters often left the party long ago, though some did vote for the PvdA tactically in 2012 to keep Rutte out -- but their profile on the "new" dimension is often at odds with the party's relatively progressive stance.

[DavidB.]

I looked this up in the CHES dataset, composed through expert surveys by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. It is conducted every four years and has European parties' positions on tons of issues/variables. The first survey was conducted in 1999. Of course the method of expert surveys has disadvantages (how to take into account compromises, actual policy instead of manifestos, etc.), but CHES is about the best thing there is. On the variable "lrecon" (left-right economy) on a scale from 0 to 10, D66's position has evolved as follows:

1999: 4.9
2002: 5.1
2006: 5.2
2010: 5.5
2014: 6.5

So yes, a clear rightward shift, especially between 2010 and 2014.

[Zinneke]

To what extent are those statistics prelavent in other Dutch parties though, if not the whole of Europe? We have clearly shifted rightwards, and the refugee issue probably exacerbated that.

[DavidB.]

To what extent are those statistics prelavent in other Dutch parties though, if not the whole of Europe? We have clearly shifted rightwards, and the refugee issue probably exacerbated that.

Lrecon is a variable pertaining solely to the economy, so immigration presumably isn't taken into account (even if that, too, has an economic angle, obviously). I agree that the political consensus has moved to the right in general, but I think this is more the case on issues such as immigration and the EU, where RRWPs have pulled entire party systems to the right, than on economic issues, where polarization has started to return after the economic crisis ended the ideological hegemony of Third Wayism (even if neoliberalism is still dominant in terms of policymaking). Many parties will have moved to the right on issues such as immigration (and the interesting question, of course, is how you represent the shift across the entire political landscape in a CHES dataset -- a position representing a 5.0 score on immigration in 2005 may be a position representing a 4.0 in 2015) but I don't think it's that common for other parties to have moved to the right on the economy like D66 has done, though I haven't looked into that too much.

[Klartext89]

Hey David,

hope it's not an unfair question, but why on earth are Dutch polls so different?

You have Peil.nl from DeHondt which expects a large PVV lead, you have DeStemming which says a solid PVV lead, you have TNS NIPO which has a narrow PVV lead and you have Ipsos which have it tied.

Pretty big differences through.

[DavidB.]

Hey David,

hope it's not an unfair question, but why on earth are Dutch polls so different?

You have Peil.nl from DeHondt which expects a large PVV lead, you have DeStemming which says a solid PVV lead, you have TNS NIPO which has a narrow PVV lead and you have Ipsos which have it tied.

Pretty big differences through.

Yes, this is a problem. It is clear pollsters' samples simply aren't representative, and, in contravention of the AAPOR Code of Ethics for pollsters, most of them are very vague about the ways in which they compose their samples. They try to make up for that by weighing, but you have to ask yourself whether they know what they are doing. I personally use the Peilingwijzer to get an impression of where parties actually stand (with the caveat that the Peilingwijzer is inevitably going to be wrong if all polls are) and use the polls only for the trends.

I think the large number of non-small, "competitive" parties and the extremely high volatility of the Dutch electorate (compared to other countries in Western Europe) make polling harder in this country. Polling PVV voters is also very difficult, partly because it's still not a socially accepted choice and partly because it appears to be harder to find these voters in the first place. But yes, the pollsters' "house effects" make it much harder to determine which party is at what level of support.

[Klartext89]

Hey David,

hope it's not an unfair question, but why on earth are Dutch polls so different?

You have Peil.nl from DeHondt which expects a large PVV lead, you have DeStemming which says a solid PVV lead, you have TNS NIPO which has a narrow PVV lead and you have Ipsos which have it tied.

Pretty big differences through.

Yes, this is a problem. It is clear pollsters' samples simply aren't representative, and, in contravention of the AAPOR Code of Ethics for pollsters, most of them are very vague about the ways in which they compose their samples. They try to make up for that by weighing, but you have to ask yourself whether they know what they are doing. I personally use the Peilingwijzer to get an impression of where parties actually stand (with the caveat that the Peilingwijzer is inevitably going to be wrong if all polls are) and use the polls only for the trends.

I think the large number of non-small, "competitive" parties and the extremely high volatility of the Dutch electorate (compared to other countries in Western Europe) make polling harder in this country. Polling PVV voters is also very difficult, partly because it's still not a socially accepted choice and partly because it appears to be harder to find these voters in the first place. But yes, the pollsters' "house effects" make it much harder to determine which party is at what level of support.

Thank you!

Also the fact that the results are presented in seats is a problem. Got a screenshot from a friend yesterday. He celebrated 33% for Wilders PVV, what was really written in German BILD. I had to clearify him that it's 33 seats not percentage... Well... #FakeNews by the media...