Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[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.

[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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

Ah I see. I figured there would be silence from VVD, but I'm a bit surprised that CDA haven't gotten upset. I assume they must

It's bittersweet to hear the predictions of my old (Dutch) pastor vindicated :/ More to the point, I think this sort of thing highlights a cognitive dissonance in certain parts of the left where a completely deregulated labour or healthcare market is rightly looked on with suspicion but an extremely deregulated sex or life and death market is given a free pass.

As society increasingly liberalizes, how to deal with the side effects of legal prostitution, drugs etc will be an interesting new set of issues.

[DavidB.]

Time for an update.


The PVV has presented its flyer for the "no" campaign.

"On April 6th, vote against the agreement between the EU and Ukraine. Your vote against the agreement means a vote:
- against even more European Union
- against billions for a bankrupt country
- against cooperation with a corrupt regime
- against visa-free travel
- against the elite in Brussels"

Meanwhile, the PvdD has successfully pushed the government into proposing a law that would make it illegal for people with a history of animal abuse to have animals.

Yesterday, a "Blackfish"-like documentary about the "Dolfinarium" was broadcasted. It became pretty clear that the Dolfinarium is lying through its teeth about the conditions in which the dolphins are kept, and that the Dolfinarium is more of a circus than a zoo (the difference being the educational goal -- clearly dolphin shows are entertainment). This same government has outlawed circuses keeping "wild animals", so here's to hoping that these shows will end. The PvdD, of course, has already requested a parliamentary debate on this.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

David a question. When most people think of the Netherlands, after they think of clogs and bikes, rhetll think of drug laws. But as I understand the government is walking back on the liberalisation of the Kok years? Is this true? What are the different parties perspective on the drug issue?

[DavidB.]

David a question. When most people think of the Netherlands, after they think of clogs and bikes, rhetll think of drug laws. But as I understand the government is walking back on the liberalisation of the Kok years? Is this true? What are the different parties perspective on the drug issue?

The liberalization policy does not stem from the Kok years. It was already introduced in 1976, by the center-left Den Uyl government (under KVP minister Van Agt, remarkably). In recent decennia, starting in the early 1990s, there has been a tendency to restrict the freedom of "coffee shops" (places that sell soft drugs) to operate. In that sense, as on many other political issues, the focus has shifted more toward "law and order". Especially from 2002 onward, the police have been pursuing a "war on drugs" to prevent people from growing weed on an industrial scale themselves. Apart from the shift toward more "law and order" oriented policies in general, this has to do with the fact that the Justice portfolio has generally been in the hands of CDA and VVD. The CDA is against the "toleration" policy altogether (note that the KVP was more progressive on this in 1976 than the CDA now) and the VVD supports the current policy, but is against legalization and mainly focuses on combatting crime and annoyance that is linked to the policy.

The low point in this story has been the Rutte-I government's proposal to introduce a "weed pass", which would mean that coffee shops were to become "clubs" for members only; foreigners would not be able to purchase any soft drugs anymore, and Dutch nationals would have to have a weed pass in order to do so, which would also mean one could not purchase weed anonymously anymore. It was introduced in the southern border regions as a pilot and would theoretically reduce drug tourism in these border regions, but in practice it led to a lot of street drug dealing, crime (people are simply going to buy drugs from Moroccan gangs instead of coffee shop owners) and annoyance for people in residential neighborhoods. The policy was a spectacular failure and the Rutte-I government fell before the policy was introduced nationwide, and it has now been scrapped altogether. The Rutte-I government did succeed in outlawing "growshops" (because some tourist jumped out of a window and died): psychedelic mushrooms are now illegal. Also, coffee shops closer than 1 kilometer to schools have closed (which, as you can imagine, is pretty nonsensical in the city centers of Amsterdam and Rotterdam).

It must be said, however, that the recent Dutch "war on drugs" was mainly the shtick of former Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten (VVD, 2010-2015) and his deputy minister Fred Teeven, who both had to step down last year. The new minister, Ard van der Steur, seems less interested in being a hardliner on this issue. The Rutte-I government was "anti-drugs" altogether and the parties in the Rutte-II government have not compromised on issues, but instead chose to let the VVD decide altogether on some issues while the PvdA gets to decide on other issues (but weirdly, this doesn't necessarily correspond with having a minister of that party; Foreign Affairs is VVD controlled but has a PvdA minister). On Security and Justice issues (to which the drug policy belongs, which is already quite telling) the VVD is in charge, so the PvdA, which is in favor of legalization, doesn't get a say in the government's policy.

All parties on the left + D66 are in favor of legalization. The VVD is in favor of the toleration policy but focused on law, order and restricting the "space" in which coffee shop owners can operate. The PVV isn't clear on the issue, presumably because it doesn't want to come across as "soft on crime" (so it is officially against the "toleration policy") while not really being interested in outlawing coffee shops altogether either (most people don't want that, though according to polls outlawing drugs seems to be remarkably popular among PVV voters, presumably because using soft drugs is still seen as something "left-wing"/middle-class/progressive/"hippie-like" by many). CDA, CU and SGP are for closing all coffee shops and making drugs illegal. Though indicative of the political atmosphere regarding drugs, all recent policy changes (except for the failed weed pass policy) have been relatively minor. The toleration policy isn't going to be reverted, but I don't think soft drugs will be legalized soon either. The generational gap on this issue is quite large (a recent number 1 hit's line "all teenagers say yes to MDMA" sparked minor outrage in The Hague but has some truth in it), so eventually it will probably be legalized, but it might take another decennium or so.

And apart from the theoretical perspective, it is probably also good to keep in mind that soft drugs are already readily available for everyone living in a city; the nearest coffee shop is closer to my house than the nearest supermarket. Therefore, changing the status-quo doesn't have so much priority for people. Legalization would change much for coffee shop owners, but not for most people.

[DavidB.]

The VVD doing clickbait and edgy memes: "10 instances of nanny statism that are so yesterday. Especially the third one you will not believe."

"1. Free plastic bags? No, they are outlawed! Good luck at the Chinese restaurant!
2. With your old car in the city center? Forget about it!
3. Launching balloons on your birthday? Illegal!
4. On Meatless Monday, everything in the cafetaria is vegetarian!
5. Setting off fireworks on New Year's Eve and having fun? Nope!
6. The government wants you to share your clothes.
7. You cannot ride a scooter anymore.
8. ... and you will be freezing at the terrace.
9. Mandatory flags in your snacks so you know where the meat is from.
10. The shop is open, but the door has to be closed to protect the environment.

It is nothing new: politicians think something is not right and immediately want to ban it. But we think the rest of the Netherlands should not be bothered by politicians' opinion of balloons and beautiful old cars. Let's keep it a bit fun, shall we?"

People probably like this, but I find it cringeworthy (most of these ridiculous things are just ideas that one party -- generally the PvdD -- has, not actual policy).

[DavidB.]

Just for fun: election results by polling station (on a map) for Provincial/Senatorial elections 2015: click. NRC had this for the 2012 and 2010 Tweede Kamer elections too, but if I click on the polling stations I don't get a result anymore, so I did not include them here.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is the scooters in relation to the weird habit the Dutch have of riding scooters in bike lanes? Because that really needs to be clamped down on tbh

[DavidB.]

Is the scooters in relation to the weird habit the Dutch have of riding scooters in bike lanes? Because that really needs to be clamped down on tbh

I think some parties in Rotterdam wants to ban scooters in the city center because of the environmental issues (and the noise), the safety aspect being less relevant (but they might care about that too).

Generally, within built-up areas, scooter drivers drive on the road instead of in bike lanes, whereas outside built-up areas they drive in the bike lanes. However, municipalities have the authority to decide on this and the rules, indeed, frequently differ, which is very confusing. As a cyclist I find sharing the bike lanes with scooters, who often drive at a speed more similar to cars, annoying and at times dangerous, so I totally agree with you.

[DavidB.]

Latest EenVandaag referendum poll (end of February) has No at 58%, Yes at 42% among people who are sure to vote. 22% of the electorate (including yours sincerely) are still undecided.


Reasons for people to vote for: against Russia, good for the economy, for the EU, trade, support, better ties, and cooperation.

Reasons for people to vote against: against Russia (in the sense that our ties with Russia will deteriorate if the Agreement will become reality), EU critical, corruption, EU enlargement, the Agreement will cost us money, and Greece (presumably people are still angry that the government decided to vote for the latest deal to save Greece).

Another poll (published today) has No at 57 and Yes at 43, so roughly similar numbers.