Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Verschuiving sinds april" = change compared to April.


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

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

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


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

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

[DavidB.]

how do you say YUGE in Dutch?

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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


Edith Schippers

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

[DavidB.]

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


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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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


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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

Geert Wilders is an atheist.

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

[DavidB.]

Reportedly, VVD, CDA and D66 had pressured the PvdA to select MPs Roos Vermeij or Angelien Eijsink to become Speaker instead of Khadija Arib. However, the PvdA decided to go with Arib nonetheless, also because this would be an anti-PVV political statement, since Wilders complained about her holding double citizenship. Probably in reply to that, CDA MP Van Toorenburg declared her candidacy.

[DavidB.]

The events in Cologne have led to a new PVV all-time high: 41 seats in this week's De Hond/peil.nl poll. Only CDA, PvdA, VVD and now PVV have ever polled more than 40 seats.

General question:

"What role do you think the refugee crisis will play for you when deciding for which party to vote in the next election?" (Doorslaggevend = decisive, belangrijk = important, klein = small, geen = no role, weet niet/geen antwoord = don't know / no answer)
23% percent of the voters say the migrant crisis will play a decisive role for them in the next election; another 43% say it will play an important role for them in deciding for which party they will vote.

Right-wingers leave CDA and VVD for PVV. This poll also seems to indicate that many VVD and CDA voters think the migrant crisis is very important, and since 36% of the voters (something like 55 seats) agree most with the PVV, it seems that many of the voters who agree most with the PVV would at this moment still vote for CDA and VVD. This indicates that the PVV has not reached its ceiling yet.

General question

"Which party's views on the refugee crisis are most similar to your own views?"
In September 2015, 24% said that the PVV's views on the migration crisis came closest to their own views; now, this has skyrocketed to 36%. This poll also makes it clear why the popularity of D66 has somewhat waned over 2015, when the migration crisis became the most prominent political issue: GroenLinks is more popular among progressives who want to take in more migrants, whereas higher educated people on the center right seem to prefer the government's approach, which would lead them to agreeing most with the VVD, the party of Deputy Immigration Minister Klaas Dijkhoff (who has been praised for his humanitarian outlook).

And then there's another poll... On the EU Association Agreement. The first one. And it doesn't look good for the government. The poll is made by EenVandaag/De Stemming, which I find to be the most reliable Dutch pollster, made in close cooperation with Joop van Holsteyn, Leiden University's expert on Dutch voting behavior.

50% indicate they will definitely vote against the Association Agreement, another 25% state they are likely to reject the Agreement. 53% percent say they will definitely vote, another 17% say they will probably vote -- that is 70% altogether. Of course, this stuff is always overstated by more than 10%, but according to Joop van Holsteyn, he still did not expect voting intention to be this high even before the start of the campagin. He says turnout will definitely be higher than the threshold of 30%.

The government has been criticized for not granting municipalities enough money to organize the referendum, less than half the money that is usually allotted to organizing regular parliamentary elections. D66, SP and PVV wanted the government to grant municipalities as much money as in parliamentary elections (which, to be fair, would probably be a bit much), but the government rejected this. It seems to be pretty obvious that the government doesn't want turnout to be too high. Joop van Holsteyn echoes that and says he finds the government's attitude to be "childish and small-minded": "the referendum law exists, citizens can use it. The government should simply make sure, particularly because this is the first time, that the referendum takes place in an orderly manner. If there are too few polling stations, the municipalities will be the ones in trouble." Van Holsteyn says the analysis of voters' current rejection of the Agreement has not been studied in-depth yet. He did, however, analyze this in a more general way, which led him to the conclusion that people's attitudes in this poll are comparable with people's attitudes before the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005. "Just like in 2005, people seem to voice their general discontent on the EU and its undemocratic tendencies. They think there are too many EU member states and are afraid Ukraine will join as well. They don't think decisionmaking on the EU is organized well, and they find the EU to be too expensive."

Happy New Year, Mark Rutte...

[DavidB.]

Media personality and the country's most well-known lawyer, Bram Moszkowicz, is no longer the leader of the PVV splitoff party VNL (Voor Nederland/For the Netherlands). Moszkowicz had no political experience and didn't seem to be particularly interested in a) voicing the party's opinions rather than his own and b) learning things about issues not related to themes regarding justice, law and order. In my opinion, he was always a liability, even if there might be some people who would vote for him just because they like him. It might do the party no good in the short term, but it will be better in the long term (but I'm a party member, so some wishful thinking is involved here).

[DavidB.]

Khadija Arib (PvdA) has just been elected the new Speaker of the Dutch parliament. This was basically the consequence of the VVD's decision to run their own candidate, Ton Elias, instead of endorsing Madeleine van Toorenburg (CDA). The fourth candidate that ran in the election was Martin Bosma, the PVV's ideologist, who is known for his sarcasm, his laziness and his books on the Dutch political elite and on whites in South Africa, to whom he feels connected.

Because of the VVD's decision not to support Van Toorenburg, the final round was between Arib and Elias. Many MPs felt that it was not appropriate for the VVD to select their own candidate because of the fact that Van Miltenburg, the previous speaker, had screwed up. For this reason, and because of the fact that the PVV abstained rather than voting for Elias, Arib was eventually elected. She had pledged that she would not allow Wilders to say that the parliament is a "fake parliament" -- other candidates deemed this within his freedom of speech, like Van Miltenburg had done.

Immediately afterwards, Wilders tweeted the following:


"What a FAKE PARLIAMENT! The best candidate -- Martin Bosma -- is not elected and we end up with a Moroccan Speaker. #fakeparliament"

Needless to say the debate is currently about Wilders' response and he will hit the headlines tomorrow morning.

[DavidB.]

In response to the unfortunate events in Cologne, Geert Wilders seeks to legalize pepper spray in order for women to be able to defend themselves against, as Wilders likes to call them, "Middle Eastern testosterone bombs". In order to raise awareness for his plans (and to get attention...), he will organize an event in Spijkenisse (a rather depressing "white flight" working-class suburb of Rotterdam where the PVV performs extremely well) where he will distribute what he calls "resistance spray"; apparently there is a spray containing coloring agents that is currently legal and is a (weaker) substitute for real pepper spray. Of course, this is sure to cause more controversy, and people will be outraged, and Wilders will get attention and go up in the polls.

I myself find the wording "resistance spray" to be rather unfortunate (since it contains a WWII connotation that is definitely intentional), but that is just my opinion.

[DavidB.]

It will be very difficult for VNL to get a seat. That's why they asked Moszkowicz to be their leader. He's well known an people would vote for him because of that. Several people tried to position themselves to the right of the VVD and they were more widely known and more popular than the current VNL party leaders. Despite that Rita Verdonk only received about 50,000 votes in 2010 and Hero Brinkman got less than 10,000 votes in 2014. If VNL continues like this, it'll get quashed between VVD and PVV and end up with zero seats.

I don't disagree. However, we have to keep in mind that in 2010, Verdonk had already been discredited by the larger public due to her bizarre tv ads, her hissy fit within the VVD and most of all her un-Dutch, bombastic presentation of her new party. Still, she came fairly close to obtaining a seat, and this in an election that both proved to be the "perfect storm election" for the PVV and generated a lot of pro-VVD tactical voting, which might have hurt ToN. Meanwhile, Brinkman has always been a drunk-driving loser in public perception. Another precedent is EénNL, which came really close to obtaining a seat in 2006.

Let's be clear, I don't think it is going to be easy for VNL to obtain a seat and I agree with you. However, the next election will not be comparable to the 2012 or the 2010 elections. The VVD has been hurt by incumbency, the public perception of not being principled, and the idea that they have shifted to the left (even if this might not be true). Meanwhile, the PVV has shifted to the right. There is some electoral space for VNL that didn't exist in 2012 and 2010. Moreover, VNL MPs Van Klaveren and Bontes have been working hard in parliament. I am quite sure there's people out there who noticed this (I am one of them). They are not new. You know what you get when you vote for them. Add up the fact that VNL will have the opportunity to spend a lot of money on setting up a professional organization this year, due to the fact that they are entitled to all the government subsidies that were meant to go to the PVV, and I think they will have a fair chance in the next election, even without Moszkowicz, who was really a liability (I advise you to read this interview, sadly only in Dutch but that'll be no problem for you).

[DavidB.]

Sigh. Trying to stay neutral in this thread, but this kind of stuff makes it rather hard for me: Geert Wilders proposes that all male asylum seekers be detained. 77% of online voters in a poll at the website of De Telegraaf, the Dutch Daily Mail, agree.

[DavidB.]

1. Referendum threat
This afternoon, a video was published in name of the "Azov Batallion", a far-right Ukrainian group, in which Dutch voters are threatened to vote for the Association Agreement. The video is actually comedy gold.

"Dear Dutchmen. Don't you dare go against Ukraine. It will end very bad for you. We will bring chaos, not only in your brain but in your very homes. You will see to regret this. We will find you everywhere. In the movies, at work, in your bedroom, public transport. We have our guys in the Netherlands and they are ready to obey any order."

And afterwards they burn a Dutch flag -- or something that looks like that, because the shade of red definitely doesn't correspond with that of the real Dutch flag. Not a single soul in the Netherlands will care about that.

Immediately afterwards, another video was published, in which the leader of the Azov Batallion distanced himself from the first video and said that the video was fake. Of course, the speculation circus started instantly, with the Ukrainian government accusing the Russians of making this video in order to make Ukraine look bad and to make Dutch more skeptical of the Association Agreement. Some weapons expert said the arms in the video are real, not fake. Interesting stuff. But I don't really feel threatened...

2. Migrants
The Dutch government announced that they expect 90,000 migrants to apply for asylum seeker status in the Netherlands in 2016. This is going to be a turbulent year.

3. Interest in this thread
I have been spending quite some time on updating this thread and I like to do so, but I seem to be almost the only one posting here. To me, this begs the question: do people actually read this? If you do and simply don't post, it's okay, and I very much understand that because I am a lurker in so many threads. However, I like to think I'm not writing these posts just for myself, and lately I have been thinking that maybe I am. In that case, I will update this less often. Let me know.

[DavidB.]

This thread is excellent...I hope you keep it up! It's great to learn more about the intricacies of Dutch politics.

If I can ask a question: where do the voters of D66 (as opposed to party members/elites) belong on the political spectrum? It seems that D66 fills a lot of the role that Green parties do in, say, Germany or Austria, while being quite a bit further to the right on economic issues.

Thank you very much On the left-right scale, I'd say most D66 voters are very centrist (some of them center-right), but definitely to the right of PvdA and GroenLinks voters, and while they would prefer the PvdA to the VVD on issues regarding Europe, multiculturalism, and law and order, they would generally prefer the VVD to the PvdA when it comes to the economy. These are people who believe in the "Third Way", to whom socialism seems outdated yet who find economic liberalism (in the European sense of the word) too shallow. The party itself is more economically right-wing than its electorate, but that does not cause many problems for the party, simply because it generally does not affect D66 voters directly, because they tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent. In terms of geographic distribution, some political scientists speak of a "progressive belt" which goes from Alkmaar via Amsterdam (and its suburbs) and Utrecht (and its suburbs) to the Arnhem-Nijmegen region. Add to that the obvious university towns (Leiden, Delft). Recently, they have overperformed by much in many big and medium-sized cities outside the Randstad metro area as well. The places where D66 does well generally correspond with those where GroenLinks does well, with the important exception that D66 has much more support in the suburbs (affluent, higher educated voters) whereas GroenLinks relies even more on voters in the big cities. GroenLinks also does better with low-income voters than D66.

People tend to think of D66 as a somewhat elitist party. While people's impression of a GroenLinks voter is some "edgy" hipster in Amsterdam, with not such a high income, people's impression of a D66 voter is a judge or maybe an academic with a much higher income, who either lives in a good neighborhood in a big city or in a well-off suburb (or they think of a student). As always, stereotypes need to be taken with a grain of salt, but in this case, there is also some truth in it.

[DavidB.]

1. Referendum threatAnd afterwards they burn a Dutch flag -- or something that looks like that, because the shade of red definitely doesn't correspond with that of the real Dutch flag.

Probably the pre-2006 Serbian flag. Which is the type of thing Russian propagandists would be likely to have on hand.

Haha, you're right! That's hilarious.

Also, thanks for your replies, kataak and Oak Hills!

[DavidB.]

I'd say D66 as a whole is centre-right.

Oh, D66 as a party is definitely center-right, but bmw1503 asked specifically about the party's electorate, which is known to be a tad to the left of the party... maybe somewhere between centrist and center-right but that's why I went with centrist, not as classification of the party itself, but as classification of its electorate.

Lol @ Zanas, thanks

Actually, I was thinking about the early years of D66. They had the fabulous idea that the Netherlans would be a lot more functionable if it looked more like the USA (lol) and so they supported a directly elected President. Which made me think - were (are) the party republicans? Or did they want to keep the King as head of state, and the "President" be merely an elected head of government?

They supported a directly elected Prime Minister as the head of government.

[/rant] They also supported the implementation of a "district electoral system" (districtenstelsel), which is the maddening term all Dutch people use for FPTP (which is what D66 meant; I'm not for it, but my rant is not about this; this proposal might be legitimate) and more generally all non-proportional electoral systems, which is really disgusting... but that's what you get in a country where people don't understand you can have PR and districts. [/end rant]

Anyway, yeah, they were definitely republicans and also supported an elected President (ceremonial only). So what they wanted was basically the situation as it was in Israel for some time, but with an FPTP system.

However, D66 has managed to implement half their "crown jewels" and basically decided (though unconsciously) to give up on the rest. Nowadays they want the monarchy to be ceremonial only. Of course, as strange as it sounds, the aloofness of the monarch in the Dutch government formation process is a novity: Queen Beatrix was still involved in the formation in 2010. D66 took the initiative to let parliament decide on the formation instead of the monarch. However, when it comes to the ceremonial status of the monarch, party leader Pechtold recently stated: "The monarchy is an important symbol to our society." They are still critical of the relatively high costs of the monarchy, though.

Queen Beatrix was seen as someone who was against populism and, even if this is disputed, against the PVV's influence. In some of her Christmas speeches, she seemed to be critical of the PVV, although of course she formulated this very implicitly, implicit enough for the Prime Minister to be okay with it. Therefore, many people who used to be critical of the Queen as part of a more progressive part of society (some used to be part of the New Left in the past) found themselves on the Queen's side all of a sudden, which was remarkable and strange and which explains many D66 voters' ambiguity on the issue. However, with King Willem-Alexander, no such things are to be expected. But opposition to the monarchy has become something very fringey anyway. Unlike in the past, nobody (particularly Millennials) seems to care about the issue anymore (but, to be sure, that doesn't mean everybody loves them).

[DavidB.]

Yes, D66 used to be very much in favor of the elected mayor, but has toned it down a little: this is one of their "crown jewels" they don't seem to care so much about anymore, even though they are still in favor of it.

Currently the mayor is officially appointed by the monarch, but selected by the municipal council (which is a rather recent development). However, since the implementation of the 2002 dualism law for municipalities, according to which aldermen cannot be members of the municipal council anymore, the position of mayors within the local government structure has changed, and some (experienced) mayors have proved to be not flexible enough to deal with these changes. Moreover, scholars argue that the new situation does not create an equilibrium when it comes to mayors' tasks and duties (mainly when it comes to law and order) on the one hand and their democratic legitimacy (which is lacking) on the other hand. On the one hand, a directly elected mayor might solve this problem; on the other hand, the mayor's position might become too strong. The current situation, however, is far from ideal.

[DavidB.]

Yes, I agree. Many mayors are very good at "managing", yet are simply not connected to their communities (though this might become better due to the new selection procedure in which the municipal council has a more important role).

del

Wat seksistisch