Talk Elections

()
The Dutch Houses of Parliament in The Hague


I haven't seen a thread on Dutch elections and politics yet, so I decided to start one. The next Dutch elections will be held in March 2017 - if the VVD-PvdA government, which doesn't have a Senatorial majority, survives, that is.

The government, which has been ruling since the end of 2012, has almost done everything that's in its coalition deal, which is pretty impressive, even if you don't agree with (parts of) it. The only thing they still need to do now is to reform the tax system. However, it remains to be seen if the two parties will be capable of 1) agreeing on a new system and 2) finding support among the so-called "constructive opposition parties", needed in order to secure a Senatorial majority.

At the moment, Greece is the number one political issue, but all mainstream parties will eventually agree on a bailout deal, even though the VVD is pretending to be critical of it.

Average of polls from http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html

Results shown in number of seats (compared to 2012 election, compared to 2012 election poll minus tactical voting)

VVD 26 (-15, -8)
PVV 22 (+7, +4)
SP 21 (+6, -2)
CDA 20 (+7, +5)
D66 20 (+8, +6)
PvdA 11 (-27, -15)
GL 10 (+6, +5)
CU 6 (+1, =)
PvdD 5 (+3, +2)
SGP 4 (+1, +1)
50Plus 4 (+2, +1)
VNL 1 (+1, +1)

VNL (VoorNederland) is a new party created by ex-PVV members. They want to return to what PVV was originally; i.e. liberal in the economic policies, whereas PVV has moved to become much more left wing in its economic policies. They are allied with UKIP in Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe.

I guess the PvdA would like the government to finish its term in order to postpone what looks like a horrible result for as long as possible. Whether that's politically possible in a situation where most of the political programme has been carried out, and where building senate majorities is difficult is another question.
The polls currently suggest a messy result where at least four parties would be needed to form a majority; perhaps a return of the Kunduz (VVD, CDA, D66, CU, GL) in some form. The PVV has isolated itself, the PvdA probably needs some time outside government, and I'm not sure enough parties will cooperate with SP, but I think the remaining parties can be combined in almost any thinkable way.

The polls have been incredibly volatile in the Netherlands for some time, with every major party leading in at least a handful of polls. At the moment the trend seems to be random rise in GreenLInks, which I notice have a hot new leader (could explain things). If the Dutch dithering disease continues, I assume next government will be led by Party for the Animals in coalition with the Reformed Political Party or something.

Some questions:

What is the SP's perspective towards Syriza and the crisis?

Could PVV support Rutte as a minority? They can't be that far apart on the migrant issue at this point in time...

Why have the D66 lost their record high polls they had earlier in the parliament? Scandal or typical social liberal snobbery?

2010-2012 was VVD+CDA with PVV minority support, so it wouldn't be out the questions I'd think

On the SP: they take a stance comparable to that of Die Linke in Germany. They will probably oppose the bailout deal because they think it's not fair to Greece. They think Syriza is being pushed into accepting a German dictate that doesn't represent the will of the Greek people. They think Rutte is too harsh on Greece.

Migration is not really that big of an issue at the moment. Even if the PVV would be ready to support the VVD, Rutte won't be willing to associate himself with Wilders anymore, who has really become toxic. And even if the VVD would be pragmatic enough to do so, then no other party will - the CDA has drifted rightward while in opposition, and it also drifted toward populism, but cooperation with the PVV is something that a majority of its members will most definitely not consider acceptable. Wilders truly closed any doors to government cooperation with his "Fewer Moroccans" speech in March 2014.

D66 is still high in the polls, but if there is going to be any "two-horse race" before the elections, then it is to be expected that many potential D66 voters will jump ship. It is entirely possible that the PvdA sack Samsom, choose Asscher as a new leader, and create a new "two-horse race" against the VVD. Regarding D66: I guess they lost a bit of their 2014 gains due to GroenLinks electing a new leader, Jesse Klaver, who is considered young and fresh, and to the perception (especially among D66 voters) that Prime Minister Rutte is handling the crisis with Greece in a responsible way. Actually, this government is more popular with D66 voters than with VVD/PvdA voters, which is entirely logical, since compromises between the government parties are often right down D66's alley. Still, D66 is popular with many younger, highly educated people, who think that the government has not done enough to structurally reform Dutch economic policies. In an interesting move, D66 presented itself to the right of the VVD when it came to the economy during the Provincial (and, indirectly, Senatorial) elections in March this year, advocating more budget cuts than proposed by the government.

Meanwhile, Rutte is having a problem within his own party and with his own voter base. Before the elections, he promised that no more money would be spent to save Greece. This week, Rutte admitted that he cannot keep this election promise. Fairly honest, but unpopular with the majority of the VVD voters, who would rather see Greece leaving the eurozone. Rutte already had an image problem with many VVD voters, who consider him weak when it comes to protecting Dutch sovereignity in Brussels, and this week's "incident" has caused the VVD to lose some virtual seats in the polls - which is good news for the PVV and for VNL.

On the right of the VVD, Halbe Zijlstra, former Secretary of State for Culture and Sports (who was responsible for lots of budget cuts in the cultural sector during the Rutte-I cabinet), will probably emerge as a threat to Rutte's position within a few years. He doesn't consider himself a liberal. At the moment, however, Rutte's position seems to be safe. Many people don't necessarily agree with everything he does, but they have the idea that he is handling things responsibly - and if not, Zijlstra is not nearly high-profile enough to be a real threat anyway. The VVD's "number two", Health Minister Edith Schippers, has always been loyal to Rutte, and will probably remain his biggest ally within the party.

If it will be too difficult to make an agreement on the reform of the tax system, then it might be beneficial for the PvdA to bring down the government, find a new leader (most likely Asscher, who is widely considered capable and who was on the election posters for the Provincial/Senatorial elections in March 2015 already...), and take a leftist stance (although Asscher is on the "right-wing" of the PvdA). Surely, they will lose many seats, but it doesn't have to be nearly as bad as the polls suggest right now.

There is much talk about a coalition with VVD, CDA and D66, which is something all three parties seem to want, except for the fact that the VVD can't actually say this in public; that would cause many people on the party's right to vote for the PVV instead, since D66 (and especially its leader Alexander Pechtold) is seen as elitist, out-of-touch, and overly progressive by much of the VVD's voter base. However, these parties don't have a Senatorial majority and it is considered common wisdom that it has been a mistake to form a government without a Senatorial majority, so they won't make that mistake again, meaning that other government partners are needed. Everything depends on the next election results and a lot could change in the meantime, but at least it seems clear that the VVD and the PvdA won't be together in the next coalition. GroenLinks has taken a turn to the left, flirting with ideas like the basic income etc., and it seems improbable that they would be ready to make economic policies to the right of the current government's policies. CU and SGP could support a VVD-CDA-D66 government, but they would want to have their way on some immaterial issues, which will be hard for D66 to compromise on. And even these five parties are not sure at all to be having a parliamentary majority. However, a lot can happen in the meantime.

I think you provide excellent analysis DavidB, apart from the bit where you talk about a potential two-horse race forming up. Given how unpopular the coalition is (which has its roots in the 90s "purple" nightmare and the rise of Fortuyn) rather than the individual parties, Dutch voters won't be fooled again into a two-horse race and tactical voting, only to see the dichotomy enter coalition together. So SP and D66, who are the mirror parties of PvdA and VVD, might actually make the projected gains. They need to get their supporters to the poll booth.

With the above paragraph in mind, and to elaborate on ''mirror'' parties, it is important to note that all parties are competing for several sections of Dutch society and focusing their resources accordingly. Grosso moddo, the groupings are
 
VVD-D66 : mainstream liberal middle class in Randstad

 PvdA-SP-(GroenLinks) : "forgotten" peripheral regions of the Netherlands and the inner-cities,

PVV-CDA this is controversial given the split in the CDA due to their time in government with PVV but I stil think they are essentially competing for the same electorate or electoral base.

CU-SGP : Bible belt.

Those are where the real battles are fought and therefore they can't be seen to associate themselves already with each other.


There are anomalies for sure, mainly because PVV is a catch-all party, and therefore represents a threat to each patch if you like. In Limburg for example they are competing with VVD in Venlo, CDA in Sittard, SP-D66 in Maastricht and SP in Parkstad. In the latter two's case they came joint first, vote for vote, with SP. Limburg is an anomaly in itself though.

Not sure if you're talking to Diouf or to me, but I'll reply anyway. The government is definitely unpopular, but I don't think a new two-horse race between VVD (with Rutte, who is very good in electoral campaigns - see the Provincials) and PvdA (with Asscher) is implausible, both parties being the largest on their side of the political spectrum - however, these two parties should then rule out any cooperation with each other. Anyway, it is of course also possible that the electoral landscape will actually become a total mess, much like the polls are predicting right now.
As a Dutch citizen, I'm aware of this - but it is a good analysis :)

Regarding the PVV-CDA thing: the CDA's electorate tends to be to the right of the party. Even though cooperating with the PVV is not popular with the CDA's members anymore, many potential CDA voters still like Wilders' politics. Rural, right-wing voters (especially in the South, but also in other rural areas, e.g. the north of Noord-Holland), the CDA's former core voter base, have switched often in the last elections. Coming from the CDA, many of them voted for the PVV in 2010 and (often for the first time) for the VVD in 2012, in order to prevent Samsom from becoming Prime Minister. Now, some of them are prepared to return to the CDA, while others will vote for the PVV again or will consider voting for the VVD again. It looks like the VVD will remain the biggest party on the Dutch right, enabling them to attract undecided right-wingers - especially with Rutte as PM, being considered capable by many right-wing voters, at least more so than all of the alternatives.

That being said, there are also a lot of CDA voters who would never vote for the PVV, e.g. Protestant (PKN) voters in the North.

What influence has PvdA had over the government's agenda?

I think you get different answers if you ask different people. One example: The government allowing many asylum seekers' children to stay in the Netherlands has been a large win for the PvdA.

In general, left-wingers think the PvdA has sold out to the VVD entirely, while right-wingers think the VVD has sold out to the PvdA entirely. Instead of compromising on each policy areas, both parties have simply decided that both parties will get all they want on certain issues while not getting anything on other issues. However, along the way, compromises have been made on both sides. I (as someone who is clearly to the right of the VVD), for one, think that the government's programs are fairly balanced, maybe slightly edging toward the VVD. That being said, the PvdA has had much more trouble "selling" the deal to their voters, which is why they are in dire straits right now.

Often, the issues for the PvdA have been symbolical. Within the party, there has been a lot of opposition against the penalization of illegality (something that the VVD already wanted to implement during Rutte-I), which has been scrapped. Within the VVD, there was a lot of opposition against a PvdA plan that would make health costs dependent on one's income, basically making health care a lot more costly for the VVD's voting core. This has been scrapped as well.

The PvdA are gonna get Clegged basically?

Not necessarily, but this is probably the most likely scenario, yes. Their problem is that there are so many parties on the Dutch left that it is easy for PvdA voters to find their own kind of leftism somewhere else. However, the VVD is also bound to lose a significant chunk of its 2012 voters - they won't pull a Cameron, methinks.

Possibly stupid question: why are the purple cabinets of the 90s so widely regarded as "a nightmare"?

No, its more like if Labour campaigned on a populist platform, then formed a coalition government with the Tories. I use this analogy lightly because the last election was presented as a two-way battle towards the end, with Samson seen as the "man of the people" and Rutte as the "safe pair of hands" to choose between. It was a sh**t election because it was based on characters and fear politics ("don't let xyz into government!") rather than policies and people convienently forgetting how Dutch politics works. Remember that your vote is rarely wasted here unlike in Britain and France so there is nothing to lose by voting for a minor party. I guess people got tired of big coalitions. That worked out well.

PvdA need to regain the peripheral regions and industrial communities they gained from SP towards the end of that election, largely thanks to Samson. They used to have the North tied up to a tee and they used to get solid results in Limburg and Brabant industrial cities and towns. They still have somewhat good results in Ranstad inner cities that can be recovered once people remind themselves what the point of D66 is.

DavidB is very positive and upbeat about VVD for obvious reasons, but that won't change is the fact that they will still have lost half their seats as things stand. In the old ways of doing Dutch politics you reward the "winners" and punish the "losers", according the net seats they have gained or lost. Losing 20 seats counts as a loss IMO. If they are the ''largest'' party as Rutte's fratboys will tell you, it will be because the left is totally fractured.

I think Rutte's biggest mistake was ruling out another coalition with the PVV. He only has one option now and that's VVD-CDA-D66. He'll be going into negotiations as a "loser", the other two on his left as big winners, and his core electorate are generally speaking the right-wing of his party.

So yeah, DavidB is pushing the two-horse race more in hope than expectation I imagine...


Because Fortuyn wrote a book about it called "the Purple Nightmare" and Fortuyn is God.

EDIT : My mistake, here is the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_puinhopen_van_acht_jaar_Paars

Yeah, I thought Wim Kok was super popular?

Again, I would say its less the individuals and parties in question that are unpopular and more the configuration and having to share government with the class of society you think is responsible for all of the NL's problems.

Keep in mind the VVD during the 90s wasn't nearly as conservative, and D66 joined midway, so Kok's supporters thought they were getting the good deal out of it, while some core VVD were pissed. Many voters had switched to VVD from CDA too, so they didn't mind Purple at the time, thinking it would move the country's politics into the 21st century (and it did).

Today, it is the opposite. The PvdA is structurally a more right-wing party so VVD voters, while annoyed at having to share power with lefties, think they are getting a good deal on it, particularly on the socio-economic level. Either way unlike in the nineties people didn't expect to vote for the two parties only to realise they are going to enter coalition together. The last election was all about making sure Samson beat VVD from the PvdA's perspective. Once all the Kunduz club made it clear that they would not enter coalition with SP, Samson went into every election debate with his stupid lightbulb and said "let's make sure we beat the VVD on a moderate left platform so they can't let in the fascists again". There's your reason why PvdA are crashing right now.

Purple just doesn't work, whichever way you look at it. When Kunduz called themselves Paars+ every man and his dog went apesh**t in the NL and called for Fortuyn to be revived from the dead. In flanders they had purple for about the same length of time and it brought about first record gains for Vlaams Blok and then De Wever-mania. In Wallonia last year people were expecting MR to get a look in due to their improvement (net seat gain is important) only to realise how much PS and MR despise each other on a personal level.

Huh? I'm not a big VVD fan at all. I didn't vote for them in 2012 and I will most certainly not vote for them in the next election, so by all means continue criticizing my perspective on the political situation, which might be perfectly legitimate, but please do so without assuming things about my position that simply aren't true. My perspective on the Dutch political situation has nothing to do with me wanting the VVD to "win" the elections or something like that.

And yeah, the VVD obviously has a big electoral problem as well. If there is not going to be a new "two-horse race", which is not something I would predict but also not something I would rule out, then the whole political system will be fractured indeed. Meanwhile, I'm not so sure that for the VVD, ruling out a coalition with the PVV was such a stupid thing to do strategically. The PVV has truly shifted too much toward the "right" in order to be an acceptable coalition partner in the future: not ruling out cooperation with the PVV might (have) scare(d) off a lot of undecided VVD-D66 voters (these people still seem to exist...).

He was. It is funny how people's perception of Purple was actually positive during the Purple period and then turned 180 degrees when Fortuyn entered the stage. In addition, Kok has had a lot of criticism from the left for earning lots of money at some Chinese bank and having all kinds of lucrative jobs - I guess that is considered illegitimate for a social democrat. On the political level, he is criticized by the left for his "third way" politics, which caused the PvdA to "lose its ideological feathers", a phrase Kok himself introduced in the 90s as something positive. Of course, the whole Dutch political spectrum has shifted to the right ever since, so this criticism might sound a bit hollow.

Woah sorry, I thought I had read above that you were a VVD-supporter.

A lot of their militants around here push the Right vs Left, two horse race line around here, unaware of the irony...

On a lighter note, does the Party of the Future still exist?

How do you vote exactly DavidB?

I try to separate my political opinion from my analysis of the political situation as much as possible, and I feel that more people should make this distinction. So, to be clear: everything I'm writing in this post is purely based on my opinion. However, while analyzing the political situation - which is what I will do mostly in this thread - I take off my "opinion" glasses entirely.

I voted for a myriad of parties (all on the right), from Libertarian to SGP. It depends on the election and on the issues that are at stake. I don't feel particularly attached to one party. I'm too much of a right-winger (with regard to the economy) and a Eurosceptic for the VVD. I really hated Wilders' "fewer Moroccans" speech, which reminded me of our German neighbours' dark past. The PVV's extreme statements on the Islam add to the tensions in our society and alienate moderate Dutch Muslims while we should build bridges instead (and I don't like the PVV's quasi-leftist positions on the economy). Even though I would be a conservative in the American landscape, I am too libertarian for the SGP. And while I believe in the first part of their Bible, I don't like the second part - however, that part is the one that really influences their politics. Meanwhile, I wouldn't vote for the Libertarians anymore: too much on the fringe, too many conspiracy crazies, too ideological - your average libertarian party, I guess. So in the next elections, I'll probably vote for VNL, even though I have lots of doubts about their leader, Bram Moszkowicz, who would be a total joke in parliament (as opposed to their number two, Joram van Klaveren, whom I consider a truly capable and intelligent politician).

On-topic now. On July 1, a new law regarding the referendum has been enacted. It comes down to this: if a "popular initiative" is supported by 300,000 people, an advisory referendum will be organized.

Well-known, right-wing Euroskeptic weblog GeenStijl is now trying to gather (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/07/faq.html) the needed signatures in order to hold a referendum about the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. GeenStijl argues that this Association Agreement will be the first step toward full EU membership (which is a really doubtful "analysis" in reality, I think). Given the general (lack of) popularity of EU integration as well as the crisis in Greece, it is likely that such a referendum would have a clear "no" as its outcome, which would be pretty embarrassing for the government. However, it is doubtful whether GeenStijl will find 300,000 people to sign the initiative, as doing so takes quite some time. I won't count on it.

I myself won't be signing the petition, as the underlying geopolitical implications (which most Dutch won't immediately recognize) don't fit my pro-NATO/pro-Western worldview.

First column: percentage of the votes in the 2012 elections
Second column: percentage of the votes according to this poll
Third column: maximum voter potential according to this poll (the sum obviously exceeds 100%)
Fourth column: losses/gains in voter intention compared with 2012 results
Fifth column: losses/gains in voter potential compared with 2012 results (which obviously shows net gains overall because the sum of "voter potential" can be higher than 100%)
(source: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond)

()

An interesting chart. While the VVD would be the biggest party (according to peil.nl's poll, which has been released on July 19), CDA and SP (!) have the greatest potential to grow. D66's big voter potential is not something special, as it's in the center of the political space. During elections, the party has great difficulty to capitalize on this big potential.

Also interesting is that the VVD's entire voter potential seems to be lower than the party's actual election result in 2012, indicating disappointment with the government among right-wing voters, who are now inclined to vote for CDA, PVV, or even VNL.

The problem for the PvdA is even bigger, the poll indicating 13% as the party's maximum voter potential - in 2012, 24,8% voted for the PvdA. As of now, 5% would vote for the PvdA (although peil.nl has a tendancy to underpoll the PvdA).

It would be interesting to see if similar charts exists from some time before the 2012 elections, and if parties exceeded their potential in the elections. My gut feeling is that the potential for PvdA might have been below 25% in such a poll in 2011 or early 2012.

And unrelated: what VNL is has been explained above, and PP is the Pirate Party.

I found this:
()
(source: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond)

My gut feeling was also that the potential of the PvdA would be arond 20% in 2011, maybe even lower, but it hasn't been below 21% - now, it's 13%...

A quick calculation of the changes in electoral potential, comparing 2011 to now:
VVD -9%
PvdA -11%
PVV -4%
SP +1%
CDA +10%
D66 0%
ChristenUnie +4%
GroenLinks 0% (wow)

All other parties weren't in the 2011 chart.

The most hilarious figure in the 2015 chart is the compared potential votes of PvdD and PvdA.

No changes in the new peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll. Nothing is going on at the moment, so that's normal, I suppose.

There were some questions on the downing of the MH17 airplane in Eastern Ukraine, leading to the death of 193 people from the Netherlands. These questions were also included last year.

On the question "Who shot down the MH17 airplane in Eastern Ukraine last year?", 56% now answered "Eastern Ukrainian separatists", compared to 78% on July 26, 2014. Last year, only 6% thought that the Russian army had shot down the airplane; now, 29% hold the Russian army responsible. Like last year, only 3% thought that Ukrainian army was responsible. There are not many outliers with regard to support for political parties, but 12% of PVV-2012 voters now think that the Ukrainian army shot the plane down.

Like last year, 61% think that Ukraine has not been responsible for the disaster in any way; 20% think that they hold at least some responsibility, compared to 19% last year. 35% of PVV-2012 voters chose this option. In 2014, 78% thought that Russia has had some responsibility in the downing of the airplane. Now, this is 79% (in both years, 9% didn't think Russia has had some responsibility). 20% of PVV-2012 voters don't think Russia has been responsible.

50% are in favour of sanctioning Russia, 41% are against (10% don't know). Support for (and opposition to) sanctions is distributed pretty evenly among the parties. 45% of PVV-2012 and 48% of CDA-2012 voters are against sanctioning Russia. The CDA is the only party with a plurality of 2012 voters being against sanctions. I have no idea why, because the party's stance on the issue hasn't been really remarkable. Perhaps some old Christians think Putin is cool? :P

Sanctions harm Dutch farmers?

Hadn't thought of that reason. Sounds plausible.

Only in the Netherlands...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185723/Soldiers-forced-shout-bang-bang-training-ammunition-shortages-Dutch-army.html

New poll from Maurice de Hond/peil.nl:

Party (compared to last poll / compared to 2012 election):
VVD 24 (0/-17)
PVV 22 (+1/+7)
CDA 22 (0/+9)
SP 22 (0/+7)
D66 17 (0/+5)
GroenLinks 13 (-1/+9)
PvdA 9 (0/-29)
ChristenUnie 6 (0/+1)
Partij voor de Dieren 5 (0/+3)
50Plus 5 (0/+3)
SGP 3 (0/0)
VNL 2 (+2/0)

PVV 1 seat up, GroenLinks 1 seat down. Not much has happened this summer, politically.

To what extent did the current government contribute to the improvement of the economy?
In sterke mate = to a large extent
In redelijke mate = to some extent
Amper of niet = to a small extent or to no extent (source: www.peil.nl)
()
44% think that this government didn't contribute much to the growth of the Dutch economy. 43% of PvdA-2012 voters think this, which is of course problematic for them, playing directly into the hands of SP, GroenLinks, D66, and PvdD.

It is expected that the economy will improve in 2016. The pollster asked the respondents where this "surplus" (of course we still have a deficit...) should go, giving each respondent 3 votes out of 17 potential measures. These are the first three preferences by party vote in 2012:

PVV-2012 voters want to lower the VAT, to lower the income tax, and to lower excise-duty on gasoline. They want the government to "give back" Kok's "25 cents". Wim Kok, former Labour leader and Prime Minister (1994-2002), introduced a 25-cent tax on every liter of gasoline. This "kwartje van Kok" is not only being used for the maintenance and improvement of the roads, but also for all kinds of other things which have nothing to do with infrastructure.

VVD-2012 voters want to lower income taxes, to lower the VAT, and to spend more on defense.

CDA-2012 voters want to spend more on defense, to lower the budget deficit (something one would expect VVD voters would choose), and to lower the VAT.

D66-2012 voters want to lower income taxes, spend more on education and lower the budget deficit.

PvdA-2012 voters want to lower the VAT, increase old-age pension spending, and increase spending on education.

SP-2012 voters want to lower the VAT, to lower the income tax, and to spend more on social welfare benefits.

GL-2012 voters want to spend more on refugees, on education, and on social welfare benefits.

50Plus-2012 voters want to lower the VAT, they want a specific tax cut for elderly people (WTF), and they want to increase spending on old-age pensions. 50+ is clearly the "f*** the world as long as I get more money" party for egotistical elderly people.

Overall, lowering income taxes (45%), lowering the VAT (41%), spending more on education (22%), and spending more on defense (21%) are the four most popular potential measures. Increasing spending on art and culture (3%), increasing spending on public servants' salaries (5%), lowering capital taxes (8%), and increasing spending on refugees (9%) were the four least popular options out of the list of 17.

Wait the Socialists want to lower the income tax as their second priority? Not even "raise the threshold" or "lower income tax on low brackets"?

LOL at the tax cut for elders. How would that even work?

Different brackets depending on your age group, a tax credit for those over retirement age.... It's actually pretty easy to implement even if its terrible policy.

Options like "raise the threshold" and "lower income on low brackets" weren't among the 17 options given, the latter presumably because decreasing income inequality (the "leveling" of incomes, as it's called) has been the hardest issue to agree upon for VVD (strongly against) and PvdA (strongly in favour), and in general, this has truly been the most divisive issue in 2012 -- both for parties and for voters --, so this unstable government (76 out of 150 seats, no Senatorial majority...) won't seek to change the status-quo on that anymore during this term.

I have no idea how the tax cut for elders would exactly work (probably what DC Al decribes, seems the most logical), but 50Plus is making elders angry with a government statistic projecting that purchasing power among elders will decrease in 2016, while the economy will do better.

Regarding the VAT: it should be noted that this government has also increased the VAT rate. One of their less smart policies, because it has hampered economic growth after the crisis, leaving the Netherlands as one of the worst-performing economies in the eurozone (together with Finland) for a long time, although there has been some recovery recently. Therefore, lowering it seems logical if there will be economic growth again. Both PvdA and VVD have already committed themselves to doing this.

50+ and Senior parties all over the land gaining ground, as well as a disastrous young voter turnout, have obviously pushed parties such as VVD, PVV, PvdA and SP to swing towards them with bribes while they cut education. CDA and SGP are already comforatble appealing to traditionalists. Politics is a competitive market and votes are their currency. The scared, elderly vote is gold in times like these.

Deplorable frankly.

While I totally agree with your sentiment, I don't think it's that bad in reality. SP and PVV have always been keen to give money to the elderly in order to win their votes (although the PVV's 180 on rising the pension age - a few hours after the polling stations closed, in 2010 - was a bit embarrassing). Government parties VVD and PvdA will likely not be in favour of something as rigorous as special tax brackets for elders, and they haven't changed their positions on pensions. As far as I know, since 50Plus entered parliament, CDA and SGP haven't changed their stances on pensions either. What's more, D66 will likely be part of the next government, which almost guarantees that no such policies will be implemented (people joke about D66 being 50Minus - and rightly so, I think they will wear that classification as a badge of honor). 50Plus is mainly ignored -- apart from their intra-party scandals, which have led to a splitoff and a dispute on the issue of who was the real 50Plus representative.

On Wednesday, our parliament will vote on the Greek bailout deal and the new "aid package" of 86 billion euros. It became clear that the conditions for the bailout, which were intended to be confidential, were leaked to the German press. By consequence, VVD and PvdA think the whole document should be made public, so that parliament can debate it.

PvdA and D66 will vote in favour of the deal. PVV (no more taxpayer money to Greece), SP (banks should have to pay, not "we the people" + anti-austerity), GroenLinks (anti-austerity, think this is too harsh a deal for Greece), PvdD (same as GL + general euroscepticism), ChristenUnie (eurosceptical, pro-Grexit), SGP (same as CU), and 50Plus (dunno why) will vote against the deal. VVD and CDA are still on the fence. The government doesn't need a majority to pass this, but it will be embarrassing for Prime Minister Rutte (VVD) and Finance Minister Dijsselbloem (PvdA) if they don't get one. Everyone expects the VVD to backtrack on its initial scepticism with regard to this deal, which will give Rutte and Dijsselbloem their majority. The CDA, historically the most pro-European party before it went in opposition, might vote against, probably just to attract disillusioned, eurosceptical VVD voters.

If this cabinet falls Zijlstra could become a real threat for Rutte I think. Zijlstra got his time in the national spotlights with the coalition crisis about the rejected asylum seekers. If this cabinet falls Zijlstra might beat Rutte in a tea party-esque way because a lot of right wing vvd'ers already aren't too happy with this cabinet because they think it's too left wing and if this cabinet falls they might think Rutte's bipartisan approach has failed and go for Zijlstra who is (atleast perceived) as far more right wing than Rutte (and Schippers).

I think Rutte, Zijlstra and Schippers probably are the only realistic options for the vvd leadership. Perhaps van Baalen who probably will steal some votes from the christian parties. But I don't know if van Baalen will be popular here, my parents the other family members who somewhat know him all despise him for some reason, even the somewhat right wingers. And he might be a bit too right wing for the Netherlands, apparantly he once said he hoped Mccain would win the 2008 election and the general consensus in the Netherlands is that the average democrat is farther right wing than the vvd (the economically most right wing big party here, only VNL and the libertarian party are more right wing on economic issues but they are pretty small). That probably isn't completely true but I highly doubt Rutte or even Zijlstra would be republicans in the USA. Mostly because of their social views but economically they would be very moderate republicans at best, but probably still democrats.

Zijstra could definitely be a threat to Rutte's position in the future, but I don't think it is likely that Rutte will step down if this cabinet falls, and Zijlstra will not (yet) have strong enough a position within the VVD to topple Rutte. Rutte has the full support of the party establishment. Edith Schippers will undoubtedly support him as well. What's more, Zijlstra's "conservative" views are definitely popular among (potential) VVD voters, but that doesn't mean that his positions are more popular than Rutte's among VVD members. The conferences of the VVD tend to be applause machines, perfectly orchestrated by the party top (as opposed to those of Labour, of course, which are known for rebellion, backstabbing, and genuine disagreements). And while Rutte might not be so popular among the general electorate anymore, in VVD circles he's still considered the man. Which is quite comprehensible, for Rutte achieved the best result for the VVD ever in the last general election. He is really good at campaigning, of course, so I have no doubt that the VVD will come first in the next general election, which will ensure Rutte's position as party leader - at least for the time being. I agree that Schippers and Zijlstra seem to be the only options to succeed Rutte when he steps down.

I can't see Van Baalen as VVD leader. He has the exact elitist/rich/"Wassenaar"/"don't care about the poor" image that the VVD has tried to get rid of - and to a large extent it succeeded in doing so, thanks to the "populist" election campaigns and "hands-on" politicians like Fred Teeven. I simply don't see Van Baalen attracting PVV-VVD(-CDA) swing voters, and his image as "Verhofstadt's buddy" in ALDE doesn't help him a bit.

Zijlstra would probably a Republican in the US, by the way - although he'd be smart enough not to say that in public. He said he doesn't really consider himself a liberal (in Dutch terms), which is really, really unusual for a VVD politician. He also wrote an op-ed that was really critical of the Iran deal. I think Zijlstra is further to the right than Van Baalen, albeit in a different way.

Exactly as I thought, VVD Finance spokesman Mark Harbers just declared that his party will vote in favor of the deal with Greece, which will ensure a majority for it. Before the 2012 general election, the VVD promised not to do so.

This is going to hurt the VVD, mark my words.

Edit: And CDA will, as I expected, vote against the deal. Bunch of opportunists...

Debate is taking place right now. VVD, PvdA, and D66 vote in favour of the deal.

Nijboer (Labour): "A Greek bankruptcy is a spurious solution. There are no easy solutions, and whoever says there are is deceiving people."
Pechtold (D66) to VVD MPs: "You shouldn't play with people's trust" (referring to the fact that the VVD had initially promised not to support a new Greek bailout, but will now vote in favour of it; strange criticism, since Pechtold supports the bailout as well). "Would a Grexit have been better? No."
Buma (CDA): "Europe needs to finally draw a line [for Greece]."
Slob (ChristianUnion): "Here we are again. The previous bailouts didn't teach us anything."
Harbers (VVD): "Voting against this bailout deal causes too much fuss in national politics. We don't think that's worth it."

There is much attention for the fact that the VVD has done a 180. This is not going to look good.

I was in parliament this afternoon to follow this messy debate on the aid package for Greece and the Dutch contribution of 5 billion euros. Statements from the parties:

Geert Wilders (PVV leader): "The Netherlands believed him [Rutte]. Rutte won the election with it [the promise not to give any more money to Greece]. But who will be ready to give the Greeks aid package number three, tomorrow? Prime Minister Rutte, the Pinocchio of the Low Countries. His nose reaches Athens."

Henk Nijboer (Labour Finance spokesman): "Out of conviction, Labour has consistently been in favour of helping out countries in financial troubles in recent years. This helping hand does not come unconditionally. Greece needs to take drastic measures. But the alternative, bankruptcy, would have been a disaster. Countries like Ireland, Spain, and Portugal have showed that austerity and reforms work." Emile Roemer's (SP leader) reply: "Poverty has risen in Greece. Why do you force Greece to sell their airports and their harbors?"

Alexander Pechtold (D66 leader): "A united Europe keeps our currency stable, keeps our borders shut, and keeps Putin out. The question is: will we be hijacked by someone like Varoufakis or some True Finn once again next time? This crisis has showed us that the eurozone doesn't function without a political driving force behind it. Am I glad with the fact that Greece will get extra money? No. Has this been the last time that we're talking about Greece? I'm afraid not. But would a Grexit have been better? My answer to that question is no, too."

Sybrand van Haersma Buma (CDA leader): "In 2000, the CDA voted against Greece's accession to the eurozone. During the last years, we fought to keep Greece inside the eurozone because we were afraid other countries would collapse afterwards. That danger has passed. This aid package is not good for Europe and not good for Greece. The CDA advocates a credible euro. Agreements must be kept. Europe needs to draw a line: these are the requirements to be a part of the eurozone. If you don't comply, you're out."

Arie Slob (ChristenUnie leader): "Here we are again. Again, we choose to increase Greece's debts. This didn't help Greece in the past and it won't help Greece now. There are no easy solutions, but why is debt reduction taboo? The government can talk with us when it proposes solutions that truly help the Greeks. Parts of the existing debt need to be written off. Greece needs to leave the eurozone."

VVD parliamentary group leader Halbe Zijlstra was absent. It seems like he doesn't want to defend voting in favour of the deal, while having been pushed to do so by Mark Rutte and the party top. Eventually, the VVD parliamentary group was in favour, but Mark Harbers (VVD Finance spokesman) debated in Zijlstra's place: "It doesn't make sense for the Netherlands to vote against this proposal, as the only country. The Netherlands cannot stand alone in Europe. For us, chaos in Greece isn't worth political chaos in the Netherlands." Harbers got a huge amount of criticism for taking this position and for not at all debating in favor of the deal. It seems like there has been a great amount of pressure from the government to the VVD parliamentary group to vote in favour of this deal.

Emile Roemer (SP leader): "Greeks feel as if they have been cheated, and the Dutch also feel as if they have been cheated. Again and again, they are asked to transfer billions of euros. Not in order to support the Greek people, but in order to save European banks. The Greeks had to choose between a bullet and a noose. The troika has caused a "clearcutting" in Greece. The pile of debts and the austerity measures are scragging Greece. Our Finance Minister should find a medicine that actually does work."

Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks leader): "I'm a European in heart and soul. Yet this summer, I saw a Europe that forced one country on its knees. The pragmatism of this Finance Minister is an excuse for ruthless neoliberalism, for austerity and an even greater debt. This agreement has been reached by threatening Greece, it has been reached by insulting the Greek people. This is not my Europe, this is not social, this is not solidary, and this is certainly not democratic. GroenLinks doesn't say no to Greece, we say no to Europe's "economism".

Kees van der Staaij (SGP leader): "There are many policies in the agreement that raise a lot of questions. There are conditions that are not supported in Greece, such as forcefully allowing shops to be open on Sundays. I don't trust Greece to behave in the future. We are against the agreement and we need to find a solution outside the eurozone for Greece."

Small parties:
50Plus: "There is no guarantee that this package won't turn out in throwing billions of euros in a bottomless pit once again."
VNL: "The eurozone has been a failure of historical proportions. Greece needs to leave the eurozone."
PvdD: "This government is willing to do everything in order not to admit that the experiment of the monetary union has failed. Greece will not be helped by creating new debts, but only by drastical debt cuts."
2 Turkish-Dutch MPs who split off from the PvdA in an embarrassing row have started their own political party, DENK ("Think", although it also seems to have a meaning in Turkish). Their group leader Tunahan Kuzu's statement: "This [agreement] is imperialism 2.0."

Subsequently, PM Rutte and Finance Minister Dijsselbloem had the opportunity to answer these questions. Geert Wilders immediately interrupted Rutte: "You lied to the Dutch people. If you had told the truth during the campaign in 2012, you would not be standing here. You lied yourself into 'het Torentje' ['the little tower', PM's office], and if you're a man, you admit that". Rutte: "I admit that I didn't keep my election promise [not to give money to Greece anymore]. In politics one has to take responsibility, even if things go differently than forseen. This is part of politics. I'm being here in the national interest to do good things." Pechtold (D66): "No, this doesn't have to be 'a part of politics'. It doesn't have to be like that. You threw dust in the eyes of the voters." Rutte answered to Roemer (SP) that he couldn't rule out a fourth aid package for Greece.

Dijsselbloem: "It wasn't an easy choice for us to agree with yet another aid package for Greece. When a country is on the edge of the abyss, pragmatism is the only solution. This package will tackle corruption and tax fraud. It will stimulate privatization in order to better the Greek financial situation. We cannot guarantee that the IMF will be on board with the agreement yet, we will only know for sure in October."

Geert Wilders introduced a motion of no-confidence against PM Rutte, which was only supported by the PVV MPs. Alexander Pechtold wanted parliament to explicitly support the aid package, but PM Rutte said that this wasn't necessary and that this motion had a shaky basis in constitutional law, since parliament doesn't have to vote for this at all: it can only vote against the government introducing the aid package. Eventually, the VVD didn't vote in favour of Pechtold's motion because Rutte had ensured that their support wasn't needed in order for the package deal to be implemented, and a parliamentary majority for the motion would have problematic implications with regard to constitutional law. Only D66, PvdA, and DENK voted for the motion. One VVD MP voted in favour of a CDA motion against the aid package, which was supported by 51 MPs (81 MPs voted against).

So this was DavidB. reporting live (ah well, sort of...) from The Hague :)

Great summary, thanks. Multiparty politics is fascinating.

Thanks for the positive feedback!

Some more analysis of this debate (and I'll throw in some more 'subjectivity'): PM Rutte, like many succesful politicians, has the image that he's "made of teflon". No scandal really seems to wear on him. However, it didn't look well for him today. His VVD seems to be highly split on aiding Greece, and his rebuttal of the opposition's idea that Rutte had deliberately lied before the September 2012 election was not very spirited. In the election debate before the general election, Rutte pushed - together only with Wilders - the red button instead of the green one when asked if he would support a new Greek bailout. The Finance Minister of his first government, Jan-Kees de Jager (CDA), had already warned that this might be necessary in March 2012. In November 2012, FM Dijsselbloem also warned parliament about Greece's problematic financial situation. Rutte argued that Greece's financial situation in 2012 was entirely different from its financial situation now, that Greece is only in need of a third aid package because of Syriza's mismanagement, and that the second aid package had been highly succesful. Yet Arie Slob's rebuttal that the very question on Greece in the election debate "didn't fall from the sky" was more convincing to me: after all, nobody really thought that the Greek financial situation was A-OK in September 2012, including all the other party leaders, who didn't rule out a new aid package in 2012. Rutte, of course, won lots of votes with his statement, so for other politicians this must have felt like "payback time".

However, the focus on "Rutte lying" somewhat overshadowed the debate on the deal itself, which was a shame. It became a little childish. Even though I don't support the aid package myself, I really wanted the opposition to move on and to bring up constructive, critical questions, i.e. about the negotiations and about the specifics of the deal. Admittedly, the debate became better (and more boring, which is good, I suppose) when Dijsselbloem was questioned. However, I was shocked by the low level of knowledge on the specifics of the deal of some MPs. Jesse Klaver can't be a dumb guy, but his questions showed a genuine lack of understanding of Dijsselbloem's (indeed somewhat technical) talk about debt haircuts, debt restructuring, the IMF, eurobonds etc., which is conceivable for ordinary citizens, but not for a party leader in parliament. I feel that MPs in, for instance, the UK have much more knowledge of the issues they debate.

On an entirely different note, the extent to which Labour MPs and Dijsselbloem advocated austerity was almost surreal to me. How on earth do these people consider themselves social democrats?

In conclusion, not much will happen to the government, but Rutte's image has become a little more damaged yet again, and he will have to go even further to the right in the next election in order to regain trust of the people he alienated by supporting this deal - and in order to preserve unity within the VVD, especially on his right.

Gamechanger: people can now sign the petition for a referendum on the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine online. Under the new referendum law, a referendum has to be organized if 300,000 Dutch citizens over 18 sign a petition (if this petition is in accordance with the requirements, of course). I was sceptical about GeenStijl's/Burgerforum EU's chances to get 300,000 people to sign their petition on paper. However, they might actually reach their target if people can sign the petition online. Many people would, of course, treat such a referendum as a referendum on the EU as a whole. The deadline for the 300,000 target is September 28.

The campaign for a referendum is organized by GeenStijl, the most popular "shocklog" in the Netherlands and also one of the most well-known Dutch websites, and by eurosceptical organization "Burgerforum EU", led by the controversial right-wing intellectual Thierry Baudet.

Remarkably, high-profile D66 ex-MP Boris van der Ham already declared support for the initiative and signed the petition. Historically, the implementation of the referendum has been one of the most important issues for D66 ("Democrats 66"). Recently, however, D66 seemed to have changed their minds on this, presumably because the majority doesn't agree with D66 - especially when it comes to the EU. Boris van der Ham is very much pro-EU and also in favour of the Association Agreement, but says he supports an "open debate" about it, which is why he supports a referendum on it. A praiseworthy attitude, I think.

I don't know if I'm going to sign the petition myself, but I lean toward a no. I am in favour of the Association Agreement.

()
The picture one sees after signing the petition. "You just made Alexander Pechtold [D66 leader] very sad. THANK YOU!"

I'm intrigued as to when the transformation of D66 from democratic pluralism to a rather fervent brand of social liberalism occured, was it in tandem with the PvdA's swing to social liberalism in the early 90s?

Yes, the Purple period shifted D66's focus to being a social-liberal party first and democratic-pluralist as a distant second, D66 calling itself "social liberal" for the first time in 1998. But democratic pluralism and social liberalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive: one could say that being a social liberal implies favoring an open, democratic, pluralist political culture. Still, in theory, D66 has also been in favor of institutional reform even after this change. It has been a change that occured gradually.

The real change to the party D66 now is, however, occured when Pechtold became leader and developed his strategy to be the "anti-Wilders". This has become quite an essential "feature" for the party. After Wilders, Pechtold might be the most polarizing politician of the Netherlands, and that includes D66's outspoken advocacy for a "United States of Europe".

D66 has been created in order to transform the Dutch political system. Concretely, this has been translated into some positions for "institutional renewal/reform", the so-called "crown jewels":
- directly elected Prime Minister
- directly elected mayors
- a new voting system with electoral districts
- the referendum
- dualism, both institutional and political

The latter, institutional dualism, has been realized on the local level (and in parliament there has of course always been institutional dualism; here, D66 advocates more political dualism). The implementation of the referendum was part of the Purple agreement, but it fell short of a majority by one vote in the Senate (VVD Senator Hans Wiegel voted against in what is called "Wiegel's night"), resulting in a coalition crisis. Similarly, implementing the direct election of mayors required a constitutional change, which was outvoted by PvdA Senator Ed van Thijn in "Van Thijn's night". The new referendum law might be considered a victory regarding D66's initial ideals, even though it doesn't care about its "crown jewels" so much nowadays. D66 was one of the staunchest supporters of a referendum on the European Constitution, but this obviously "backfired" for the party, which has dealt a blow to D66's advocacy of referenda and, one might say, to D66's trust in "the majority".

Latest polls pre-vote, for future reference (changes since previous poll, changes since last election.)

Peil

VVD -- 24 seats (nc, -17)
PvdA -- 9 seats (nc, -29)
PVV -- 22 seats (+1, +7)
SP -- 22 seats (nc, +7)
CDA -- 22 seats, (nc, +9)
D66 -- 17 seats (nc, +5)
CU -- 6 seats (nc, +1)
GL -- 13 seats (-1, +9)
SGP -- 3 seats (nc, nc)
PvdD -- 5 seats (nc, +3)
50+ -- 5 seats, (nc, +3)

Ipsos

VVD -- 29 seats (+1, -12)
PvdA -- 13 seats (nc, -25)
PVV -- 21 seats (-1, +6)
SP -- 19 seats (nc, +4)
CDA -- 20 seats, (nc, +7)
D66 -- 23 seats (+1, +11)
CU -- 5 seats (-1, nc)
GL -- 8 seats (nc, +4)

TNS

VVD -- 28 seats (+4, -13)
PvdA -- 12 seats (+1, -26)
PVV -- 23 seats (-1, +8)
SP -- 22 seats (+1, +7)
CDA -- 19 seats, (-2, +6)
D66 -- 18 seats (-3, +6)
CU -- 7 seats (+1, +2)
GL -- 5 seats (-4, +1)
SGP -- 4 seats (+1, +1)
PvdD -- 5 seats (+1, +3)
50+ -- 7 seats, (+2, +5)

The differences among the Dutch pollsters are remarkable. I distrust them and like to use Tom Louwerse's "Peilingwijzer", an aggregate model of all polls that takes into account the "house effects" of the polls (i.e. Peil.nl's tendency to overpoll PVV): http://peilingwijzer.tomlouwerse.nl/.

Dutch journalists (in fact, most journalists all over the world) don't understand nuances. Dutch polls are useful to see how the parties trend, but the exact seat estimations are worthless, as is the idea of a party "leading" in a poll when other parties are just a percent behind. On the other hand, when Maurice de Hond published a nuanced prediction model for the EU elections with ranges like "3-4 seats for party X", "4-5 with a slight chance of 6 seats for party Y" etc., some journalist stated on Twitter that "this is worthless because it can be anything". Uhm, no, it can't "be anything"...

PVV in first place according to latest poll:

()

Though this is peil.nl/Maurice de Hond (tendency for underpolling VVD and overpolling PVV) and the seat differences among VVD, PVV, SP, and CDA are probably all within the MoE.

Still, the trends are interesting - albeit not too surprising. It seems that Rutte's performance has, after all, indeed hurt him. He's been criticized a lot in the media, more than normally. The VVD can't afford losing the quite big chunk of the electorate that's somewhere between PVV and VVD.

Some other questions:
"Would you have voted in favour of the PVV's vote of no confidence against the government?"
In favour - 45% (among VVD-2012 voters: 44%)
Against - 47% (among VVD-2012 voters only 51%)

"The CDA is opposed to the new aid package for Greece. How do you think about this?"
Positively - 49% (among CDA-2012 voters: 59%)
Negatively - 30% (among CDA-2012 voters: 21%)
Neutral - 19%

"How do you evaluate the Prime Minister's position in the debate?"
Positively - 15% (VVD-2012: 31%)
Negatively - 58% (VVD-2012: 43%)
Neutral - 17%
Don't know - 10%

"After the next general election, do you want Mark Rutte to become Prime Minister again?"
Yes - 18% (VVD-2012: 43%)
No - 73% (VVD-2012: 47%)
Don't know/no answer - 9%

Mark Rutte should really, really be worrying about these figures. There are rumors, however, that he wants to succeed Donald Tusk as President of the European Council in 2017. As a liberal who is not as controversial as Verhofstadt and who has been around for quite some time, he seems to be fit for the job.

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

The what?

wtf. I meant to type SP, I have no idea where "SocPol" came from.

Oh, okay. But no, the SP isn't. It has 22 seats in the poll of today, 22 seats in the poll of last week. The PVV has 24 seats in this week's poll and 22 in last week's. Again, all of this is within the margin of error, but stating that the SP is in first place in this poll is clearly not true.

Oh, Christ. Wtf was with my comment. Was there anything I didn't screw up?

The petition for a referendum on the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine has been signed over 50,000 times in the first three days. In order for the referendum to be organized, 300,000 signatures are needed before September 28. This is going to be interesting.

No changes in the new peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll: PVV still the biggest at 24 seats.

New ipsos poll of August 27 (previous poll on July 30):
Party (last poll, election 2012):
VVD 30 (+1, -11)
D66 23 (-1, +11)
PVV 20 (-1, +5)
CDA 20 (nc, +7)
SP 18 (-1, +3)
PvdA 14 (+1, -24)
GroenLinks 8 (nc, +4)
ChristenUnie 6 (+1, +1)
SGP 4 (nc, +1)
PvdD 4 (-1, +2)
50Plus 4 (+1, +2)
VNL not polled.

Ipsos overpolls VVD, D66, and PvdA and underpolls SP, PVV, and CDA.

From now on, I think I'm going to stop posting polls from De Stemming, peil.nl/De Hond, and ipsos, and instead will give you the trends that political scientist Tom Louwerse's Peilingwijzer ("Poll Indicator") finds on the basis of his aggregate model of the polls, which takes into account the polls' "house effects" with regard to underpolling and overpolling. The polls are simply too useless and differ too much from each other to give you a clear (and factual) view of the situation, but Louwerse's aggregate model is truly accurate.

Some questions in the peil.nl poll:
- In 2012, the right-wing Rutte-I government has increased the speed limits on highways from 120 km/h to 130 km/h. The PvdA now introduced a proposal (which doesn't have any chance of passing) to lower it again, back to 120 km/h. 57% of Dutch voters are against this, only 33% being in favour. The PvdA is the only party with a majority of 2012 voters in favour of the proposal.

The current situation is an absolute mess, based on a typical Dutch moderate hero compromise. VVD and PVV wanted to increase the speed limits very badly, but CDA wasn't too happy with increasing the speed limit on all highways because of some plants and animals nobody knows, so the compromise was to introduce the following zones: 100 zones, 120 zones, 130 zones, 100-120 zones depending on the time (night = higher speed limit), 120-130 zones depending on the time, 100-120 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened, 120-130 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened, and 100-130 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened... So while 130 is the standard, on almost half of the highways the speed limit is lower than 130 at least at some point of the day. In short, after a few years, everyone has now finally gotten used to the "new normal" and changing this will only confuse people even more.

- A majority of voters (53%) are against Sander Dekker's (VVD, Undersecretary for Education, Culture and Science, responsible for the public broadcasting system) proposal to force the public broadcasting unions to make fewer entertainment tv programs and more educational, informative, and cultural tv programs. 41% support the proposal. The VVD is the only party with a majority of 2012 voters in favour of the proposal. Only 29% think that the public broadcasting unions shouldn't broadcast any entertainment programs anymore, while 65% think they should keep broadcasting such programs.
- A majority of voters (61%) think that youth trolling broadcasting union "Powned", associated with the well-known shock weblog GeenStijl.nl, should lose its broadcasting time on the national tv and its subsidies. (Yes, this really exists...). However, only 33% of PVV voters think this should happen. There are also (albeit narrower) majorities to defund humanist broadcasting union "HUMAN" (56%) and right-wing, (Dutch Daily Mail) Telegraaf-associated WNL (52%).

Tl;dr: nothing happened.

I think the refugee crisis is one of the few issues that can drive PvdA to collapse the government. There was a controversial decision to withdraw right for refugees after an absurdly short amount of time. Anything happening on that front?

Every issue that pops up might lead to a new coalition crisis because of the parties' radically different outlook on the world, which is of course very, very different from the way VVD and PvdA used to govern during Paars (1994-2002), but issues about refugees, asylum seekers and the like are especially subject to fierce debate, because PvdA members care very much about these issues while the VVD needs to court VVD-PVV swing voters and show its "law and order" face. (I know you know this, but others might not ;))

The crisis you describe took place in May, and it was actually about asylum seekers who had been rejected and are now staying in the Netherlands illegally - which might, for many, feel like "the same thing" as refugees, but there is a difference. Rejected asylum seekers used to get some basic facilities in municipalities: they could sleep somewhere, get something to eat and then leave the next morning, to show up late in the evening again. However, the VVD wanted to scrap this after a month or so: illegals should leave the Netherlands instead of being helped by the government, they argue. The PvdA wanted to keep the status-quo. Eventually, after a coalition crisis of a week, they managed to find a compromise: only six municipalities (the "big four" cities + Eindhoven, big city in the south + Ter Apel, a rural hellhole bordering Germany in the north east, where the most important asylum seeker center is - and therefore many rejected people hang around there as well) will be giving aid to rejected asylum seekers, and the asylum seekers need to agree to leaving the country (but there are no guidelines for the required timeframe of leaving yet). It seems like not really much will change in reality (apart from the fact these people will now move to the cities even more often; but most of them already are there anyway), because some (mainly left-leaning) cities already declared that they won't stop aiding the rejected asylum seekers, and some judge already decided that illegals should be helped by the government with facilities that count as human rights, regardless of their compliance in leaving the country. So that's the situation right now.

The issue, by the way, was called "bed, bad, brood" ("bed, bath, bread") in the Netherlands, because these are the facilities that municipalities offer to illegals. Many Dutch people don't have a bath at home, so the wording seemed quite "generous", even though the facilities are certainly not (and don't really include baths, only showers).

With regard to the refugee crisis: due to our geographical location, we're not a top target, like Austria, and we're not really renowned for being the most easy country to get in (we aren't), like Sweden and Germany, so while it is definitely the number one issue in the news and it's certainly debated in parliament, there is no real urgency to change domestic policy (yet).

---

Another topic: the EU Association Agreement Referendum petition has now been signed 100,000 times. They need 300,000 before September 28. There is barely anything about this in the news.

The SGP launched a campaign against... adultery. Party leader Kees van der Staaij warns for the dangers websites like SecondLove and Ashley Madison pose to families, communities and society. It shows that the SGP and its media-savvy leader are increasingly comfortable with using modern platforms to communicate their ideas regarding society. Under their last leader, the SGP was often called the "polder Taliban" by critics, but now Van der Staaij was invited to the most serious political debating program in the Netherlands (whereas most SGP members don't have a tv...) to discuss this topic, and I believe many people were positive about his performance. To be sure, this doesn't have to do with politics or proposals to limit these websites' activities (which would have no chance in liberal Netherlands): the SGP simply wants to draw attention for the devastating consequences adultery has.

()
A billboard on the beltway of Utrecht, the fourth city in the Netherlands. Text: "Adultery: the family game in which there are only losers!"

The SGP financed this campaign privately, through donations. Within a few days, they already raised 50,000 euros: many devout Reformed Protestants have extremely successful businesses in the Bible Belt (Max Weber was right...).

Fascinating reading by the way.

Would you say the SGP is to the right of the PVV ? I mean on economic policies it's obvious, but on social matters, how would you place both of them on a spectrum ?

I'd definitely say that the SGP is to the right of the PVV on social issues, although I'd like to call it "conservative" rather than "right". The SGP is as Christian conservative as parties could possibly get. They are vehemently opposed to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution et cetera. They understand that nothing of this is going to change, but that doesn't change their positions. In their party manifesto, they still claim that the Netherlands ought to be a theocracy (let that sink in for a moment...). The SGP is also anti-islam, based on theological grounds. Recently, on a local level, the SGP tried to block a controversial new mosque in provincial city Gouda from being built because of "idolatry". (The PVV would simply have said that islam is incompatible with Dutch values, the neighborhood doesn't want it, etc.)

The PVV, on the other hand, has never made a real point of abortion and they see themselves as pro-LGBT. In a liberal, secularized country as the Netherlands, Christian opposition to LGBT rights/abortion etc. is not going to fly with non-Christians and with "cultural Christians", who happen to be the vast majority of the Dutch people. The PVV stands within the tradition of the Northern European new-right and of Pim Fortuyn in articulating its opposition to multiculturalism from a liberal perspective, even though the PVV sometimes looks inconsequent in doing so (just like many Scandinavian new-right parties). This is a big difference between the PVV on the one hand and Front National/FPÖ on the other hand, and it has to do with the fact that the Netherlands is a lot more liberal than France and Austria. The average potential PVV voter, even if lowly educated and low-income, is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, et cetera. It makes no sense for the PVV to take a controversial stance on that, and I don't even think Wilders and his MPs are against gay marriage or abortion themselves.

The SGP doesn't have to worry about this. As a "testimonial party", the SGP is not primarily interested in getting as many seats as possible. Its Reformed "sub-pillar" is still in tact: we're talking about people living in the Bible Belt who are part of the same kind of organizations, go to the same kind of schools, go to the same kind of churches, listen to the same Christian music, and will always vote SGP (and they will always turn out). Every non-Reformed conservative who votes for the SGP is a plus, but they will always have the Reformed basis and they're in parliament to represent these people, no matter in which direction the rest of society shifts. Not many people are leaving this sub-pillar, and because of the high fertility rate, it is actually a growing (albeit slowly) part of Dutch society, both in a relative and in an absolute sense.

(Rectification on an SGP-related issue: earlier in this thread, I rebutted someone who said that most SGP voters don't want to vaccinate their children, whereas I said this was an exaggeration - I thought it was only a minority. To be sure about that, I asked a friend of mine who knows a lot about this "world", and he said that a vast majority of people in the Reformed "sub-pillar" still don't vaccinate their children. So the other poster was right and I stand corrected.)

()
The newest Peilingwijzer. As said before, the Peilingwijzer is an aggregate model of all Dutch polls, taking into account polling firms' tendencies to over- and underpoll certain parties. This leads to a somewhat realistic model of the current situation.

In other news, a Dutch combat soldier decided to trade the Dutch military for the Islamic State. At least he will now be able to use real bullets during trainings... Prime Minister Rutte said that he'd rather see this guy being killed in Iraq/Syria than seeing him return to the Netherlands. In March, he said something similar about Dutch IS fighters in general, which sparked much debate with Alexander Pechtold (D66). This time, Pechtold again said he was "shocked" by Rutte's "populist stance".

(Since D66 voted in favour of bombing IS, along with the parliamentary majority and the government parties, Pechtold's opposition to Rutte's statement sounds somewhat hollow to me, voting for bombing IS and now being "shocked" by the consequences.)

Pechtold made the point that the Netherlands is home to many international organisations with some sort of legal apparatus, including the ICC. He was basically saying Rutte had abandoned the fundemetal belief in (neo-)liberal institutionalism that the Netherlands has almost enshrined in its constitution. I mean Rutte saying he'd rather the guy got shot up in Syria rather than return to the Netherlands pretty much confirmed what everybody knew : VVD foreign policy is not liberal.

Theoretically, you can look at it in two ways, I think. It is of course true that adherence to liberal institutionalism (and respect for international law in general) has historically been one of the Netherlands' pillars in foreign policy. However, the current war against the Islamic State is taking place in a framework of international law and cooperation with likeminded states. The idea that Islamic State fighters will die by consequence of the war we are currently waging is just logical, and that's Rutte's point. Pechtold's point is also rooted in the very same Dutch tradition of institutionalism and international law, but it focuses on the individual rather than the war situation in the region. I don't really agree with you that the VVD's stance is not liberal (even though I'm not a VVD fan and I'm not a liberal myself); its stance is understandable from a conservative liberal perspective, whereas D66's stance is conceivable from a progressive liberal perspective. These are both legitimate forms of liberalism.

In practice, however, I wouldn't focus too much on the parties' ideologies: both Rutte and Pechtold are just looking to gain votes. Of course the VVD is populist. Everybody is always acting as if this is something new (I'm not accusing you of this, btw ;)) but the VVD has always been "two-faced", even when Wiegel ("Santa Claus exists, he's sitting over there!") and Bolkestein led the party. In the 2000s, the party might have reached a low point regarding its populism, but that changed when the PVV started to quickly win VVD voters. Rutte's statement is populist and it has no consequences for politics whatsoever, so it is an easy issue for sounding like the tough guy. Pechtold's "reasonable", "humanist", "legalist" stance is a ploy too: this is an easy issue to be "shocked" about in order to win votes from highly educated left-leaning people, who often don't like Rutte's Wilders-light style.

Not going to give any attention to the new peil.nl poll regarding parties and seats, but the separate questions might be interesting for you. (I have to say that my opinion of Maurice de Hond's polls is colored by the fact that he makes tons of spelling mistakes in Dutch, which is just embarrassing for a professional polling company and which is something I'm allergic to in general. His methodology, however, isn't worse - or better - than the methodology of the other pollsters: they all have "house effects". His separate questions tend to be irrelevant or misleading sometimes.)

Note: The results for GroenLinks 2012 voters - all three of them ;) - are not shown in any of the questions - it is to be expected that GL voters are against intervention, pro-refugee, and pro-EU - the latter two even more than D66 voters.

On ISIS:

Do you think the coalition against ISIS [in which the Netherlands takes part] should let ground troops enter Syria?
Yes - 61%
No - 27%
Majorities with every party's 2012 voters (though this could be different for GroenLinks). Smallest majority among D66-2012 voters and SP-2012 voters (54% each).

On issues regarding refugees and migration:

Do you think Schengen countries should reinstate border controls?
Yes - 66%
No - 29%
100% of PVV-2012 voters want this. Majorities with every party's 2012 voters except for D66 (only 29%, while 65% being against). Narrow majorities among PvdA and CDA voters (53%). More support with SP voters (70%), VVD voters (78%), and 50Plus voters (88%).

Do you think the Netherlands should take in more refugees than announced?
Yes, many more - 13%
Yes, more - 26%
No - 54%
Dunno - 7%
Majorities with voters of most parties to take in more refugees. The first two answers combined: 55% PvdA, 69% D66, 53% CDA. But: 2% PVV, 21% VVD, 39% SP, 13% 50Plus. 98% of PVV-2012 voters said no.

Would you be willing to take in refugees in your own house?
Yes - 13%
No - 79%
Dunno - 8%
24% of D66-2012 voters, 19% of CDA-2012 voters, and 18% of PvdA-2012 voters said yes. This means that 300,000 Dutch would be willing to take in refugees - if this poll is representative (I doubt that, because it's Maurice de Hond...).

On the EU and the petition for the referendum on the Association Agreement with Ukraine:

Do you think Ukraine should join the EU in the future?
Yes - 18%
No - 73%
Least unpopular with D66 voters (35% yes) and CDA voters (28%).

Do you think people should have more say in giving more power to the EU?
Yes - 83%
No - 14%
Least popular with D66 voters (31% no) and CDA voters (28% no). Most popular with PVV voters (94% yes), SP voters (93% yes), and VVD voters (93% yes) - a clear sign to the VVD...

Do you think there should be a referendum about EU enlargement? [this is a strange question because the current referendum petition on the Association Agreement with Ukraine is not about EU enlargement per se; it is also not specified as to what countries this referendum should apply; typical peil.nl trash question, imo, because this means absolutely nothing, it doesn't even translate into support for the current petition]
Yes - 61%
No - 33%
Least popular with D66 voters, which is somewhat ironical, since the implementation of a consultative referendum used to be one of D66's "crown jewels". However, this is not really surprising, since the outcome of such a referendum would likely not match the preferences of D66 and its voters. Only 26% of D66-2012 voters said yes. No majorities with CDA voters (46%) and PvdA voters (40%) either. Most popular with PVV voters (96%), SP voters (84%), 50Plus voters (79%), and VVD voters (71%).

If a referendum on EU enlargement will be organized, do you think the government should act in accordance of the outcome? [again a totally irrelevant question, because nobody even proposes to organize such a referendum]
Yes - 74%
No - 18%
37% of D66-2012 voters think that the government should not act in accordance of the outcome of a referendum. I have a hard time not to voice my opinion on that particular stance... However, still, a majority of D66 voters (52%) support this. Most popular with PVV voters (92%), SP voters (91%), 50Plus voters (85%), and VVD voters (77%). Support with PvdA voters (68%) and CDA voters (63%) is more lukewarm.

It strongly depends on the denomination:

()

(Table is from the PhD thesis Acceptance of Vaccination among Orthodox Protestants in The Netherlands (http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/98582/98582.pdf?sequence=1))

Apart from 2 smaller denominations: Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands / Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland and Old Reformed Congregations / Oud Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (of which Van der Staaij is a member), a majority of members of each denomination allow their children to be vaccinated. In total, there is also a majority of about 60%.

Interesting, Freek :)

A new round of PvdA backstabbing has started. Felix Rottenberg is the former party chairman and a long-standing party coryfee in general. He has the reputation of being quite a backstabber and his position as a regular political commentator for the popular daily infotainment program De Wereld Draait Door enables him to do so. In addition, he is also in charge of composing the PvdA list for the next general election (but the party leader is elected by its members). In Vrij Nederland, a centre-left serious political magazine, Rottenberg openly criticized party leader Diederik Samsom.

Rottenberg: "I expect our next parliamentary group to be much smaller after the next election. In this group, there have to be five to six new MPs who will be able to clearly express the PvdA point of view to the Dutch public." According to Rottenberg, Lodewijk Asscher should be the next party leader. He is "very keen on becoming party leader. He has it in him." Rottenberg on the negotiations that led to the current government: "Incautious and thriftless. This cooperation agreement leads to the closing of "social entreprises" [for disabled people] and worsens the position of young disabled working people." According to Rottenberg, Samsom's weak performance led to the dramatic losses in the municipal and provincial elections. "We need to draw radical conclusions from that. Men like Samsom and [Finance Minister] Dijsselbloem have committed themselves to this government. They still think the PvdA will afford to do it this way. That is not the case! As parliamentary group leader, Samsom has chosen to play the defensive role instead of attacking the government. He has become the "store manager" of this government." Rottenberg "has never understood why Samsom immediately accepted the fact that the VVD didn't want to negotiate with the SP as well".

Perhaps the most passive-aggressive thing he said: "Samsom is an ecologically driven man who has it in him to make a great minister for sustainability in the next government." Wow...

Party chairman Spekman called Rottenberg's criticism "silly". (Meanwhile, Spekman called out Education Minister Bussemaker (PvdA) for thinking too much in terms of "efficiency". According to him, she needs to be "put in her place" by the parliamentary group...) Samsom himself said that the party has a long-standing tradition for "correcting each other".

Some interpretation: as usual in social democratic power struggles, much more is going on than ideology. Rottenberg and Asscher are both part of the powerful Amsterdam faction within the party. Spekman and Samsom are not from Amsterdam and they are clearly on the left within the party - even Samsom is, which makes his current position only more painful. Asscher is much more of a technocrat and a manager in general. I don't take too seriously the talk about Asscher being able to negotiate an agreement more to the left of the current one. Rottenberg just wants the Amsterdam machine to be in charge.

It is funny that Samsom is more criticized than Asscher, because Samsom is parliamentary group leader and Asscher is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Affairs... But Rottenberg is partly right: Samsom chose to be outside government in order to be able to criticize it and to keep the PvdA to the left, and he clearly didn't succeed in doing so - instead, he staunchly defends unpopular government policies, especially those that are unpopular with PvdA members/left-wingers. That's an honest thing to do if you're responsible for these policies anyway, but it doesn't make you more popular.

Today, the debate on the refugee crisis took place. The positions of most parties are predictable, I think, so I won't elaborate too much on that, but if you have questions about parties' stances, of course feel free to ask them and I will answer asap :)

The PvdA says the Netherlands will take in more refugees, the VVD says that this will happen only under certain conditions. The coalition agrees on "the necessity of European quota" - the VVD presumably wants this because it would mean that the Netherlands would take in fewer refugees.

Wilders said that the "Islamic invasion of Europe is an inconvenient truth". He says that Gulf states should take in the refugees. D66 leader Pechtold replies with a classic ad-hominem: "what is the difference, a man with a beard or a man who dyes his hair?", referring to Wilders' excentric hair color - this is probably the "contribution" to the debate most people will remember. The Netherlands is so lucky to have politicians who act responsibly and treat each other like adults... Oh wait.

I think the moment our countries politics took different paths in this respect was when Fortuyn increased the use of sensationalism and media to get his point across rather than traditional electoral means. Even in death, he managed to attract publicity to the overall political scene, which allowed people like Wilders, Pechtold and to a certain extent Roemer to thrive on image rather than substance. Even someone like Samson was parachuted in based on image and how well he did in debates (reinventing the lightbulb, etc...).

Here in Belgium, we are still very rigid across party lines, everybody has their own little electorate that they are satisfied with, and the only sensationalism comes from the cross community debate. The N-VA were more of a success due to the eclectic nature of their political philosophy (nationalism can be bent so many ways) and De Wever comes across as more credible than the three characters above, hence why he has the keys to power and a certain degree of influence. Wilders is an isolated populist who reacts to news items. He is box office for media but he will never be trusted with power again, and will probably fade. Conversely, I don't think we will see the N-VA under 20% for the next 20 years unless something major happens.

I wonder what you think of it.

What are CU and SGP views on current situation with mass influx of Albanian, Afgan and Syrian immigrants?

SGP's position is that helping refugees "is a part of Christian culture that has left its mark on our continent", but is against "opening all doors for asylum seekers". Party leader Kees van der Staaij said that we should help anyone who genuinely needs help. However, the government should continue to stay critical and reluctant: "Whoever doesn't really need to be here, needs to be discouraged." He thinks it's problematic to select refugees who are already in our country on the basis of religion, but if we are inviting people who aren't in our country yet, we should prioritize Christians.

ChristenUnie is clearly more to the left on the issue. Helping people in their own region is a long-term solution, party leader Arie Slob said, but at this point, the government should take a greater responsibility in solving the crisis - which presumably means taking in more people. It proposes establishing a way for citizens to take in asylum seekers into their homes.

There are not many Albanians or people from other non-EU Balkan countries coming here illegally, by the way. I think that's more of a problem in Germany and Austria, illegals often have relatives in these countries.

O tempora, o mores :O
I agree with radical heretics.

Pim Fortuyn undoubtedly changed Dutch politics forever, and politics has become much more polarized ever since. I disagree that his popularity was mainly based on sensationalism, for movements like his were popular in many European countries: this was a time when FPÖ was in government, DF started to be a government partner, etc. Not because of sensationalism, but because there were many issues voters considered "unaddressed", which led to the emergence of new parties. Fortuyn used a different style than the other Dutch parties, a style one could call populist (even though the meaning of this word is often unclear), but the issues he addressed were real in the eyes of many voters. The degree of shock in the "establishment" was enormous, because Pim Fortuyn's popularity was considered unthinkable in a country that saw itself as the moral leader of the world (people really thought this), the most tolerant place on earth - it was a rude wake-up call for so many people who thought this was only possible in Belgium and in Austria.

Then Fortuyn got killed and the idea that left-wing "demonization" had been the cause of Fortuyn's murder led to a movement in which "the people's will" suddenly started to matter (or at least politicians tried to make it look like that), as opposed to the Purple period, when parties ruled more technocratically. This is also why the Netherlands has become one of the countries with the most "politically incorrect" culture, for better or for worse (both, I think). While the Flemish cordon sanitaire against VB worked quite effectively and VB did little to make itself more acceptable to other parties, leading to a situation in which other parties didn't feel the necessity to rethink/shift their positions and in which parties have their own stable electorate, the Netherlands saw the rejection of the European Constitution (which fuelled polarization) and the popularity of the newly formed PVV (which fulled polatization as well), which led to the current polarization.

I don't agree with the statement that Roemer, Pechtold, Wilders, and other "populist" politicians win votes more on image than on substance. The political debate in the Netherlands has simply become more polarized than in Belgium since Fortuyn entered the stage (I agree that this is the moment everything changed), and Dutch voters have many more options in terms of parties than Flemish voters, leading to an incentive for parties to make their positions extra clear and to voice them in a more pronounced/extreme way. This led to the greatest electoral volatility in Western Europe, but I would argue that this isn't necessarily bad for the functioning of our democracy.

The place of the new-right in our political system is fundamentally different than in Belgium, where VB has its own (quickly declining) base and the N-VA attracts people who want a VB-light-but-not-really with a slight populist tone. The fact that Pim Fortuyn got killed implied, for many people, that politicians from other parties would have to take seriously the ideas he addressed. When parties didn't really succeed in doing so, Wilders' popularity eventually forced the VVD tot the right and led the VVD to take the PVV on board of the Rutte-I cabinet. Now, the PVV has shifted too far to the "right" to be a serious party for cooperation: the "fewer Moroccans" speech will forever enable other parties to ignore the PVV.

It remains to be seen what happens next, because there is still space to the electoral right of the VVD. Maybe a new movement will be successful (a Dutch N-VA to the right of the VVD?), maybe the PVV will slowly decline VB-style (which is inevitable if they stay "untouchable" for other parties for a longer time), maybe the PVV will eventually get a new leader and become more of a "moderate" party, like the Finns Party or the Danish People's Party. Time will tell, but the VVD will undoubtedly be pushed to the right even more.

Regarding the new-right's position I have to add that the countries' history with nationalism is very different, which has as well rendered different the way people look at this phenomenon. Flemish nationalism is considered somewhat "brown". It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a political scientist ;)) to see that the Flemish independence movement, at least in VB/fraternity circles, is filled with racists and anti-Semites, who do little to hide these positions (look, for instance, at the people who go to the IJzerwake). In the Netherlands, the image of "being Dutch" is much more rooted in resisting occupation and being independent (even though it's sort of "double", because Dutch nationalism is still considered wrong and something of the past in which people shouldn't engage). The positions of quite "mainstream" people within the Flemish independence movement are really, really to the neo-nazi fringe in the Netherlands. Dutch right-wing nationalism is more subtle, not openly racist or anti-Semitic, which also makes it more acceptable for others - and which makes it more popular in general (of course I'm not saying there is no racism among Dutch new-right supporters, but if it's there, it isn't as inherent to the movement's history as in Flanders, and it's somewhat more hidden than in Flanders). I would argue that these historical differences and their consequences made it less problematic for the Rutte-I government to work with the PVV than for Flemish parties to work with VB.

3,100 migrants have come to the Netherlands last week, so I think it's safe to say that the crisis is starting to directly affect the country.

In the latest Peil.nl poll, the PVV won two seats. SP lost two. GroenLinks won one and CDA lost one. Interesting indicators. Probably working-class SP/PVV swing voters valued Wilders' approach to the migrant crisis in the parliamentary debate more than the SP's open borders approach. Pechtold's attacks on Wilders might have helped the PVV and indirectly hurt the SP: Pechtold, who is seen as elitist, is extremely unpopular among this type of voters.

24% of the voters think the PVV has the best plan regarding refugees, 14% say VVD, 7% say CDA. SP 6%, D66 5%, GL 5%, PvdA 5%, other party 4%, no party 8%, dunno 22%.

44% of the voters think the government should not have accepted the European quota to take in 9000 refugees. 51% agree with the government.

I have a hard time seeing how any plausible, let alone remotely stable, coalition could be formed if an election would result in anything resembling the current polls. The closest I can come up with is a VVD-CDA-D66 minority government. For that reason alone, any reasonable person should hope the next election is still far away.

I might be dead wrong, but I highly doubt that the field will be as fragmented in terms of seat distribution as it is now one week before the next general election. This was what we thought last time as well, but the television debates etc. changed the dynamics and the polls dramatically. But yes, the fact that the Dutch party system has come to consist of six middle-sized parties and then some small ones doesn't do wonders for political stability and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

I don't think there will be a minority government. We don't have such a tradition. Both the Rutte-I coalition (minority in parliament and senate; led to instability) and this coalition (minority only in senate; leads to instability) are seen as "mistakes". It is widely acknowlegded that the next government will need a senatorial majority, so it will probably have to consist of 3+ parties - and in all likelihood it will not be really stable, indeed. Fun, fun, fun.

On the third Tuesday of September the government - as always - presented the budget for next year. There is an entire ceremony in which the King makes a speech. Afterwards, the plans are officially published (MPs get to know it some days before, much of the content is always leaked to the press before the actual third Tuesday of September) and there are some days of parliamentary debate about it - historically, these have been the most important debates of the year.

Big shocker: the government parties support the plans, the opposition parties are sceptical. Debating experts have analyzed the debates and, as every year, gave the "most clear debater" an award. This time, Geert Wilders has been considered the most clear debater. Last year, Alexander Pechtold won the contest.

The debates have been pretty unfriendly, even for modern Dutch standards. Maybe I'll post some soundbites tomorrow, if people find that interesting. Pechtold Godwinned Wilders. Wilders said that not only the government, but also parliament doesn't represent the Dutch people anymore and talked about "the dumbo's of D66". He said that the Dutch people are being replaced by "islamic invasions" and says that the country is slowly transforming into one big asylum center.

Without personally judging the content of his speech (which is highly subjective anyway, this is not Individual Politics/Political Debate), I think this was both one of Wilders' strongest performances in terms of debating and also one of his most controversial speeches - and his bar in doing so was already pretty high.

New peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll after the debates on next year's budget:
PVV +3, GroenLinks +1
VVD -1, SP -1, CDA -1, D66 -1.

I expect the PVV to overtake the VVD as largest party in the next "Peilingwijzer". In the peil.nl/MdH poll, the PVV is already the largest party (PVV 29, CDA 21, VVD 20), but they tend to underpoll VVD.

What is your opinion of the government's budget for next year?
Positive - 26%
Neutral - 32%
Negative - 35%

VVD (37%) and D66 voters (34%) most positive.

Which of the two government parties' stance is most visible in the budget for 2016?
VVD - 50%
PvdA - 13%
Both equally visible - 22%
Dunno - 15%

56% of PvdA-2012 voters think that the VVD's stance is most visible. This is worrisome for the PvdA.

Should Wilders be allowed to state in a parliamentary debate that Parliament is a "fake parliament"?
Yes - 68%
No - 30%

Most "No" among D66 voters (54-44) and CDA voters (48-44). PVV voters (98-2), VVD voters (79-19), 50+ voters (74-21), and SP voters (71-26) are most "yes".

Do you agree with Wilders that Parliament is a "fake parliament"?
Yes - 39%
No - 57%

I am worried by this high percentage. 94% of PVV voters, 51% of SP voters, and 40% (!) of VVD voters say yes.

Breakdown by education level:
High: Yes 25%, No 72%
Average: Yes 42%, No 53%
Low: Yes 55%, No 41%

The mainstream parties (non-PVV/SP) are increasingly having a hard time representing the lower classes.

What's "fake parliament" mean?

Not representing the will of the people.

Yes. Forgot to say that this became an issue because D66 leader Alexander Pechtold complained about the fact that Speaker Anouchka van Miltenburg (VVD) allowed Wilders to say this. Pechtold's reasoning was that parliament is democratically legitimized and therefore one cannot say parliament is not legitimate or "fake".

Van Miltenburg replied that it is a constitutional right for MPs to be allowed to voice every opinion they want in parliament. She also said there was space for everyone to discuss or rebut Wilders' remark. Prime Minister Rutte stated that Wilders' comment was inappropriate and nonsensical, but he has the right to say it, and we shouldn't give the comment too much attention.

Meanwhile, the petition for a referendum on the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine has been signed 220,000 times. The organizers have until September 28 to reach 300,000 and then the referendum will be organized. I don't think they will manage to get to that number, but it's going to be close. The tempo in which they are collecting them has gone up again, after some weeks of almost no progress. Maybe it's gone up because it was mentioned by Geert Wilders in the parliamentary debate on the budget.

Referendum proposal at 273k. Contrary to my previous posts, it's probably going to happen, because there is suddenly much attention for it. They only need 27k more, in four days. At this rate they will get there, especially since the "offline" signed petitions aren't even included in the count. I'm impressed. This is going to be interesting.

()

286k now.

The proposal was at 289k this morning.

The biggest Dutch tabloid, De Telegraaf, revealed that the government isn't happy with this. A referendum would likely be organized in the first months of 2016 - the Association Agreement will already have come into force by then... - and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte will then be the President of the Council of Europe on behalf of the Netherlands, which will lead to an awkward situation if Dutch voters say "no" to the Association Agreement.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants the government to endorse the Association Agreement, but the cabinet is not sure about that, considering the fact that the government enthusiastically endorsed the European Constitution in 2005, which led to an extreme backlash and the rejection of the Constitution. A high Dutch EU diplomat has called the potential referendum "a fishbone in the throat" of the government.

Given that PVV only has two members: Geert Wilders and the Geert Wilders foundation, how is that gong to happen? It seems unlikely he would anoint a moderate heir.

For all their top-down management and leadership intolerance of critics both DPP and the Finns Party do have an actual membership.

Yeah, the only possibility for this to happen would be if Wilders steps down voluntarily and allows this to happen - he could then make this person a party member as well. To be sure, I don't really see this happening in the near future. I'm thinking about the long-term future for the PVV.

Unlike the N-VA and Vlaams Belang, as well as other 'new right' forces in Europe, Wilders has no base whatsoever in local and regional governments. People forget that Wilders' party was born out of a parliamentary defection that attracted a lot of attention. He then started a complete path of political stunts to attract various types of electorates that I went into detail at the start of the thread. He still has no local party organisms, and his strong regional results probably coincide with the same election of a national chamber on the same day.

At best the typical structures he can rely on are the scared elderly, the people who still believe in Fortuyn's core anti-Islam message and the intellectual baggage around it (which is far from a flawed political philosophy given current events, but not enough to constitute a genuine reliable electorate in the long run), and anti-globalists who are also anti-leftist. There's no way the Netherlands hasn't benefited from globalisation.

I know it is clichéd to say the 'new right' movement is a flash in the pan in Europe, but in the Dutch case the PVV will probably not exist in ten years time. Another party will take its place, that is either currently standing or will be born out of another round of VVD defection and crucially, the growing number of local parties that adopt a few 'New Right' ideas. This started with the Leefbaar movement.  

Possibly heading off-topic, but why is it that Flanders has a heavy amount of populist-rightism, but Wallonia doesn't?

They are the rich partner in an unpopular union with "southern poors" (see Northern Italy).

A lot of interesting statements. I'm going to try to reply to most of them.

Let's start with the main point of your post. I always find it hard to "predict"; I don't have a crystal ball. Ten years is a very long time. I truly don't know what will happen to the PVV (or to this PVV). It might be replaced by another new-right party, or it might continue under the name "PVV" in a direction that seems electorally fruitful - with or without Wilders. I suppose the PVV won't exist as it exists now in ten years, with Wilders as leader and the same "direction" in terms of policy/harsh statements, but even that I don't know for sure.

Ten years ago, the VVD was also a very different party. So even if I doubt the viability of the current course of the PVV in the long term, I also doubt if that conclusion about this specific party is necessarily relevant. What seems a sure thing to me is that the Dutch new-right will be an important political force in ten years time, as important as now or possibly stronger.

I think you are overestimating the importance of local party organizations to be a successful new-right party in terms of vote seeking, office seeking, or policy seeking. The PVV was perfectly able to have influence when it entered Rutte-I.

I think not establishing local party organizations has strengthened the PVV rather than weakened. It is hard to say this in an objective, neutral way, but there don't seem to be so many capable PVV politicians. The PVV can truly miss the loonies, the loudmouths, the racists, and the gaffe-prone people who will embarrass the party and hurt its chances on the national level.

I think this part of your post is pretty POV, as they call it on Wikipedia. First of all, the PVV's core electorate of disappointed voters or voters who want "change" seems substantial and, indeed, sustainable. I do think that the Dutch new right will have a genuinely reliable electorate in the future. Of course, "reliable" is subjective and the new right will continue to struggle with problems regarding turnout and disillusionment with all political parties, including new-right ones. Secondly, as the "culture wars" and value-oriented issues (immigration, refugees, EU, "globalization" in general) might have become the most politically "salient" ones, there will always be a party to fill the gap on the end of the political spectrum. Islam is simply quite important to Dutch politics and to Dutch political discourse, and it plays an important part in people's conception of the current state of affairs in the Netherlands. I am confused by your use of the word "still", because the influence of these issues doesn't seem to diminish (even if it temporarily seemed so after the collapse of the Rutte-I cabinet in 2012): the refugee crisis and the amount of talk about IS - and their effect on the PVV's popularity - prove that.

I think it is hard to reply to such statements. What is "globalization"? I don't know. I think I may agree with you, but it is too generalizing a term. More importantly, it is irrelevant. What matters if voters think the Netherlands has benefited from the developments that have also affected the Netherlands. If 30% think the Netherlands hasn't become a better country to live in, and that might very well be the case - for conceivable and less conceivable reasons to us - then this can become politically relevant, even if "globalization" has been "all positive, all the time".

For me, even if I agree that "globalization" as a whole has had a positive impact on the country, that answer will not be an unequivocal "yes" or "no", and I think this will be the case for most people. There are inherently some developments that have hurt people in the Netherlands. The country might have benefited greatly from Schengen and the free movement of goods and persons (I think it did), but it has, for instance, caused rampant problems with drug trafficking in Limburg, affecting people's lives negatively as they experience an increase in crime and a decrease in the feeling to be secure in their own neighborhoods. People's jobs are on the line because it is cheaper to produce cars in Poland than in the Netherlands. Do you see where I'm going? Personally, I find it too easy to "look down upon" these people. To be clear, I am not saying you are doing so, but many people do, and many people in The Hague do. As strange as it sounds for someone who is "privileged" in many respects, I feel for these people, who don't seem to be taken seriously by the parties that were created in order to represent them.

By the way, add to the potential "PVV voter coalition" the young, married, double-income, middle-class couples who live in the new "Vinex" neighborhoods (built in the 1990s and the 2000s) in suburbs or satellite towns. In 2012, these people swung heavily toward the VVD, because they are right-wing (they feel economically insecure) when it comes to the economy. However, they are very critical of developments regarding Islam, even if Wilders sometimes takes it too far for these people, and even if the VVD sometimes satisfies these people with populist statements regarding "law and order", it is not enough. If the election will be primarily about the economy, these people will swing to the VVD, as was the case in 2012 (and less so in 2010). But if the election will be more about immaterial issues, and these issues are the issues which make the PVV skyrocket in the polls (such as now), then the PVV or any other future new-right party which plays its cards the smart way is going to win.

I don't want to ignore you, because it is a good question. I just don't think I'm qualified to answer this question because I don't really know so much about politics in Wallonia. Maybe Belgian posters could help.

I am not entirely convinced by politicus' answer. It is logical that most Wallonians want Belgium to remain one country, but a Wallonian far-right or new-right party doesn't necessarily have to be secessionist (or extremely pro-Belgian) - it could also simply ignore the "polity" issues and focus on things like "Islamization", law and order, and distrust of the existing political parties. Still, it doesn't really exist (only some insignificant marginal groups do), whereas Wallonia seems to have an extremely fertile soil for the new-right.

The referendum proposal, by the way, was at 298k a few hours ago. More elections = more fun :P

300k has been reached, but mistakes will have been made: people inadvertently giving wrong addresses, signing multiple times etc, but also trolls. The Electoral Council will take a sample of 4,000 of which more than 90% has to be valid in order for the referendum to be organized. Therefore, GeenPeil is still urging people to sign, in order to increase the percentage of valid signatures.

()

A few factors i can think of :

1/ No Walloon identity. You will find it hard to find anyone who responds ''Walloon'' when you ask them where you are from here. Completely different to Flanders, which is a homogeous nation. Very little ethnic nationalism, Walloons seem to me to be adherents to the moderate Castillan ''poquito nacion'' concept of only caring about your close environment rather than grandiose forms of nationalism.

2/ Previous "Front National" was a total shambles and dissolved before it could ride on the "Bleu Marine" wave (which is popular here in Belgium, more than you think). Its successors were ''La Droite'' (mainstream new right but claims to be the equivalent of the French centre-right, which is essentially political suicide in Wallonia), Parti Populaire (Wilders-esque rank and file populism with Modrikamen as their cult leader, anti-Islam), Debout Les Belges (Laurent Louis leading the anti-Zionist charge). Basically they are too busy arguing who to hate more (muslims or jews) to form a united ''New Right'' party with at least a degree of sane rhetoric a la Wilders, Le Pen.

3/ In many ways, Walloons who lost out due to globalisation realise that the problem wasn't European integration (that if anything preserved their coal and steel industries), but global capitalism as whole. The conservative right-wing parties like Partie Populaire are openly free market liberals.

4/ Masterful politicking by the de facto party of government, PS, who play any Walloon inferiority complex to a tee on the federal level.

1. Flanders is wealthier but thats a more recent thing, Wallonia used to be the industrial heart of Belgium and was more wealthy, However post 1970s when deindustrialization in most of the west became a long-term trend. It was flipped, the flemish who weren't dependent on industry and developed a better Services economy to compensate, flourished in the aftermath.  More wealthier = more right of centre leaning.

2. Because of #1,  Flemish tax revenues has been forced to be used to subsidize welfare for wallonians, since their unemployment is higher when they didn't diversify from industry when globalization became a thing.  Rightful anger at this means more support for right of centre parties in general.

3.  History of flemish culture being hold down by the Culturally french-Wallonians.  Resulting in distrust of government in general more-so in flanders.

1+2+3 = Unpopularity of the left(70% of Flemish voted for right of centre parties in the last General and Regional elections) and Flanders being right of centre dominated.

Mind you Wallonia is very left leaning so as it goes in many many countries, popularity of X in one region can cause a reaction in support for the opposite of X, in another region.

The left might of been more popular in Flanders had they not kept sucking Wallonia's....  uh... and had more of a flemish nationalist flavor. And less willing to sign away tax revenues to Wallonia whichgiven the history of Wallonia having the majority of investment poured in from both foreign and domestic spending.  From the Industrial Revolution times, up to WW2.



Capitalism giveth, Capitalism taketh away.

If you think switching to Communism/Socialism would of preserved wallonian industry. I want to cry of laughter.

All of this might explain the popularity of the new-right/far-right in Flanders (even though I wouldn't even call the N-VA truly new-right), but it doesn't explain the absence of a new-right/far-right party in Wallonia, which is what Crab asked about.

Of course I know about VB and of course I know that N-VA (which I still do not consider new-right, even if it has some tendencies that could be qualified as "populist", a term I, however, normally like to avoid because of its vagueness) has absorbed much of VB's former support in recent years. I speak Dutch, you know. I actually know a guy who is active in VB. The point is that Crab's question didn't relate to Flanders or to Belgium as a whole, but specifically to Wallonia, where the far-right/new-right doesn't really get support.

Yes, this is partly true, I forgot to mention this. Flanders skipped its industrialisation phase and specialised in services and developing its port in Antwerp (with Walloon funding). Its agrarian roots explain why the CVP (Catholics or ''Tjeven'' as some like to call them) were so dominant until the early 2000s when Flanders' urban service economy took off. CD&V (CVP's successor) transformed themselves for the farmers party into a standard right of centre, light nationalist party to compensate this.

Walloon socialism has its roots in old school marxist theory in places like Liege and Charleroi (mainly the former), that Marx himself used as an example of working class exploitation. Since there ain't much else in Wallonia apart from the 3 big cities and the small mining and steel towns surrounding them, its very hard to look past Marxism as a way to emancipate yourself from industrial conditions.



Why exclusively Flemish? Wealth redistribution is something that happens all over Europe in some shape or form. Transfers from Flanders to Wallonia only became a thing because the Flemish demanded a federal state. Very easy for them to paint it as transfers between two nations that they constructed rather than redistribution of wealth.


Ah, we've arrived at the ultimate confusion of a Francophone Bourgeois Fleming and ''Wallonians'' who while the Flemish were living in agrarian misery, were down in the coal mine living their own form of misery, with disgusting housing conditions. But because the coal miners spoke the same language as the Flemish elite, they are obviously the same people.


Yes, but there are reasons for this, and this has nothing to do with the fact that there hasn't been a 'New Right' party that has made considerable gains in Wallonia, given that industrial communities in neighbouring Pas-de-Calais, Flanders and Limburg have all swung from left to New Right parties.


I don't personally believe in preserving old inefficient industries, hence why I voted Ecolo in the last election rather than the PTB/PVDA, despite the stigmatisation the Greens got for their  ups in the regional government.

I do think however you are fairly clueless as to how the average Walloon in places like Borinage, Liege and Namur feels. It is the same feeling the people in Genk has when they lost Ford. The Walloons are french-speaking, and Genkies are flem..whatever that is they speak, people like to paint ridiculous narratives about the lazy Walloon socialist vs the hard working middle class Fleming. But them Walloons deserve that given that they speak the same tongue as the Flemish elite.

Therefore I understand totally why PS and PTB's scores have only gone up despite them being in some form of government for the good part of 3 decades. Poor people vote for parties that look after the poor. Shocker. What we're trying to figure out is why a New Right party hasn't tapped into this working class electorate in the same way FN and PVV have.

Good contribution :) I found it especially interesting that you said that Marine Le Pen is popular in Wallonia. I didn't know that. To me, it just seems like the conditions for a successful new-right party are present in Wallonia.

Except for the fact that the political focus continues to lie on economic/material issues such as unemployment and poverty (which, indeed, seem to be Wallonia's biggest problems) rather than immaterial issues such as multiculturalism, immigration, Islam and preserving one's identity, which makes working-class people more inclined to simply vote for the PS or PTB rather than a new-right party: after all, it is not as if they are disillusioned with the socialist economic ideas of these parties. The fact that the political party system operates on the Walloon level (even in federal elections) yet there is no real distinct Walloon identity might reinforce this focus on material issues: "identity politics" isn't as powerful when you haven't really figured out what your own identity is.

I wouldn't say the Le Pen family are popular in Wallonia, rather the New Right movement in France being seen a legitimate political force in the face of mass PS, Ecolo, Cdh and MR disgust with the New Right movement and populism in general. If there were still an FN party in Belgium they would get something like 5-10% (based on what the split far right got last time), which given the high voter turnout (Belgians are forced to vote) is really impressive.

On this subject, scholars like Simon Hix who say voter turnout doesn't matter ought to look at Belgium and Luxemburg and see just how static some parts of the electorate are. Belgium may seem like a volatile place but overall we haven't seen massive changes apart from the rise of the N-VA, which as I explained is as much down to them setting up a proper, functioning political party from top to bottom, adapted to the modern world.



Yep, hundred per cent agree with this. It was the Flemish parties who decided to split from their Walloon counterparts and create parties specifically tailored to flanders (with 'Flemish' in their names...CD&Vlaams, Open Vlaams liberalen democraten, etc). None of the Walloon parties employ any kind of identity politics. FDF in Brussels is the only one I can think of, and their party leader announced today that they will drop the Francophone in their name to target Flemish speakers in Brussels (and as much as I respect FDF, good luck with that...).

The official GeenPeil referendum count has been sabotaged by GeenStijl all the time. They have now published the real count, and it has been signed 443,055 times (and counting) :P This referendum is definitely going to happen.

()

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dutch ratification of the Agreement will be suspended until the referendum will be organized. The Agreement can only come into force if all EU member states have ratified it, meaning that the Agreement cannot come into force on January 1, 2016, as scheduled.

High-profile former VVD MP Arend Jan Boekestijn, who had to step down after a series of embarrassing gaffes (which are often called "Boekestijntjes" now - for a reason...), is already extremely angry about this on Twitter. I'm already looking forward to the fear-mongering during the campaign, even though I support the Agreement. Let's see if the political establishment can top the scare-campaign before the referendum on the European Constitution in 2005, when the VVD published the following - truly bizarre - video, featuring pictures from the Holocaust, Srebrenica, and the Madrid terrorist attacks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv715js9_TA #tbt

Text: "Never again! Start European cooperation in 1952."
Text 2: "The danger is always present! Better cooperation is necessary."
Text 3: "Future with peace, security and prosperity. One European constitution."
Jan Mulder MEP: "If you want to check European regulations in a better way, then you need to vote for the European Constitution."

1. Poll

New EenVandaag/De Stemming (http://destemming.eenvandaag.nl/) poll, which I consider to be quite good, even if it usually slightly overpolls PVV/D66 and slightly underpolls VVD/PvdA. But the trend seems clear. PVV (+7) and GroenLinks (+3) have won big during the last month, mainly at the cost of SP (-> PVV) and D66 (-> GL). The migrant crisis will, of course, have had a big role in this. This might be an all-time high for the PVV in a non-peil.nl poll. It is clear that people who stopped supporting the party after the "fewer Moroccans" speech in March 2014 are now willing to return.

Seats (election 2012, last poll August 31)
PVV 34 (+19, +7)
VVD 23 (-18, -1)
D66 19 (+7, -2)
CDA 19 (+6, =)
SP 18 (+3, -3)
PvdA 11 (-17, -1)
GroenLinks 9 (+5, +3)
ChristenUnie 6 (+1, -1)
50Plus 5 (+3, -1)
SGP 3 (=, -1)
PvdD 3 (+1, =)
VNL 0
---
Total = 150 (76 for majority)

Note that the big parties on the (center) right, VVD+CDA+PVV, have a majority of 76 seats, probably for the first time since July 2010. It is caused by SP voters switching to the PVV. The fact that this combination has a majority in the polls doesn't mean anything in reality, because VVD and (especially) CDA don't want government cooperation with the PVV anymore, but it is still interesting.

One of the PVV's strengths is that it seems able to attract support from many parties. Not only from the obvious parties:
- SP (working-class anti-immigration/anti-Islam voters, often in peripherical areas in the Randstad/the Catholic south/the northeast)
- VVD (middle-class anti-immigration/anti-Islam right-wingers, often in "Vinex" neighborhoods/suburbs in the Randstad, also some people in the Catholic south)

... but also from
- CDA (mainly people in the Catholic south),
- PvdD (the PVV is a strong supporter of animal rights; these are of course the people who vote for the PvdD as a protest vote, not the inner-city/rich suburb hippies/vegans),
- SGP (orthodox Protestants who think the SGP is too "naive" on Islam - admittedly, there aren't too many of them),
- 50Plus (elderly people who don't like immigration + PVV is seen as a party that protects the economic interests of the elderly).

According to De Stemming, there are even people who doubt between D66 and PVV, but I'll take that with a grain of salt...

2. It's all about the South...

()

It is worthwile to consider the enormous difference between the North and the South (Noord-Brabant and Limburg). The religious divide that has influenced Dutch history and the formation of the state still matters, even though it has become more of a cultural issue. Secularization took place quickly in the south (where the Catholic People's Party, the most important predecessor of the CDA, used to get >95% of the votes in many places during pillarization), which rendered the KVP/CDA (in the past necessary for the emancipation of the Catholics) unnecessary in terms of emancipating Catholics. The South has long been a depoliticized area, in which there was a homogeneous Catholic majority (90%+). Therefore, the relation between politicians and citizens was more clientelistic, especially on a local level.

Secularization (people often continued to be "culturally Catholic") and the closing of the cole mines (in Limburg) led to quick changes. Because of this sudden collapse of religiosity, which had stood at the heart of people's lives in these areas for centuries before, a vacuum has come into being: people miss the social cohesion of yore. At the same time, they have been passive, because that had been their attitude before: in the Catholic South of the nineteenth century, one who was born poor would always stay poor. The deteriorating social-economic conditions in the South (mine closing, de-industrialization, outsourcing) led to a perception of being neglected by The Hague, which, of course, is rooted in a long history in which Catholics were "second-class citizens" and Northern Protestants ruled the country. This causes popularity for anti-establishment parties in the Southern provinces: PVV, SP, and to a lesser extent PvdD and 50Plus. (Ironically, the in my opinion disproportional Northern left-wing outrage about the high percentage of PVV votes in Limburg in 2010 - 26,6% - might have strengthened this perception.) Social cohesion is low in the South: for instance, the percentage of people who do volunteer work is lowest. By contrast, many areas in the most northern provinces (Friesland, Groningen) are also quite poor, but high social cohesion and a tradition of quite "liberal" Protestantism and Socialism causes many people to vote for either CDA or PvdA. The PVV is weak in these provinces, especially in Friesland.

There is an important difference between Noord-Brabant and Limburg: Noord-Brabant has been modernizing rapidly and is now the leading area in the Netherlands when it comes to IT/technology development (concentrated around Eindhoven), whereas Limburg doesn't seem to be able to catch up with the changes in the global economy (even though it is situated well, close to the Ruhr-Rhine-metropolis, Brussels, and Liege). This is why the VVD has recently become quite popular in relatively prosperous Noord-Brabant (see the 2012 election result), whereas PVV, SP, CDA (the de-alignment of Catholics is a very gradual process, the older generations still being inclined to vote for the CDA), and PvdA dominate in poorer Limburg. Still, Brabant, too, is very clearly electorally part of the South: the same patterns exist, it is just that its prosperity makes people more inclined than in Limburg to vote VVD when an election is mainly about the economy.

Tl;dr: Overall, the main difference between the North and the South is the extreme degree of electoral volatility in the South, rooted in its Catholic past, its culture of clientelism, and its anti-establishment sentiments that have increased and become politically relevant after the rapid secularization. In Limburg, social cohesion is low and unemployment/poverty are relatively big problems. In Noord-Brabant, this is much less the case: it has become quite prosperous, even though there are some problematic areas in the southwest of the province (Bergen op Zoom, Roosendaal; in rural Rucphen, the PVV always gets the highest vote percentage in the entire country) and in the far east (drug crime-ridden Helmond, one of the worst places in the country; Venray; the Cuijk area, from where SP leader Emile Roemer hails). Still, both provinces vote are alike in favoring anti-establishment parties and high volatility.

()
The SP's results in the 2012 general election, breakdown by municipality. It is clear that the South votes differently than the North. The South-East of Gelderland is also historically Catholic, with a strong KVP in the past.

Latest meta-poll:
()

PVV with a huge jump in a single month...the migrant crisis is really reshaping European party systems:

()

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/24572538/__PVV_wint_opnieuw_zetels_in_peiling__.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=twitterfeed

It is caused by SP voters switching to the PVV.

I assume that's because SP voters don't care much for the parties (presumedly) pro-refugee stance? I think in Germany the Left Party could eventually also face some problems in the east if the AfD establishes itself as a viable force because of the former's position on immigration and the increasing salience of the topic vis-à-vis economics.

Regarding the poll: I think it's safe to say that the PVV is around 31-32 seats now (De Stemming and peil.nl overpolling them by a little), and all other parties are only around 20. Given the notorious volatility of Dutch voters that doesn't necessarily say anything about the next elections, which might take place only in March 2017, but this anti-establishment sentiment among the population might definitely influence the outcome of the EU referendum, which will take place no later than in March 2016.

Also interesting is that while 22% say, in De Hond's poll, that they would vote for the PVV, another 8% say they could vote for the PVV. That's quite a high ceiling (the 1989 election was the last time a party got over 30% of the vote), probably as high as in their best days. Common wisdom has it that the PVV's ceiling is around or somewhat over 35 seats, meaning that their result would be quite "maxed out" now, but the poll seems to suggest that the party's ceiling goes up when its polling result goes up, which seems plausible, at least for now.

Yes, definitely, although the PVV attracts people from other parties than the SP as well, so your explanation - while entirely true - doesn't explain all of the hypothetical votes the PVV gained.

Note that Die Linke might be more openly pro-immigration than the SP (for reasons related to Germany's history and the influence of this history on the ideological development of the German left), which would render the party even more vulnerable if it would operate in the Netherlands. To be sure, the SP is not critical of immigration or the Netherlands taking in refugees, they basically hold the same position as GroenLinks (although they have been more critical of immigration from Eastern Europe, but on economic grounds, not with nativist arguments). Many people on Atlas seem to think that the SP is this populist party that also tends to play the nativist card, but that's really not true, they hold the same "internationalist" positions as most of their European counterparts - the real difference is that they don't talk about it too much, because that would lead to an even bigger loss in potential voters.

The simple truth is that the Dutch working class likes the SP when it comes to economics, but not when it comes to identity issues. So you're right: it all depends on the salience of identity issues vis-à-vis material issues. That is why the VVD and the PvdA have, recently, always tried to frame elections as if they were solely about the economic course of the next government. This enables them to attract voters from both PVV and D66, the parties with the clearest profile on identity-related issues.

In a controversial decision, the government has purchased two Rembrandt paintings in cooperation with France. Each country pays 80 million euros. The paintings will be owned both by France and the Netherlands, being half of the time in France and half of the time in the Netherlands. Initially the Netherlands would buy both paintings, but now France wants to have them as well, and since they are in France, apparently a compromise had to be made. So PM Rutte and French president Hollande have reached a deal now. The paintings are currently owned by the Rothschild family, so all conspiracy crazies have gathered on an online hatefest (the utterly irrelevant Libertarian Party taking the cake in this competition, surprising absolutely nobody). Today, the Senate approved of the deal: only PVV and SP voted against. However, a peil.nl poll suggests that the majority (56%) of the Dutch population is against this deal, only 36% supporting it.

Initially, when the Netherlands would buy both paintings, the Netherlands would contribute 80 million euros and the Dutch State Museum in Amsterdam would contribute 80 million euros: the paintings would be permanently at the State Museum. Now, however, the State Museum is angry with the fact that they won't be able to have a "monopoly" on the painings since they will be in France for six months every year, so it's not sure if they will be contributing anything. This rather "entitled" attitude of the State Museum - something many people will connect to the general attitude of Amsterdam's cultural elite - has led SP leader Emile Roemer to suggest that if the State Museum doesn't want to contribute anything, then the paintings could go on loan to a museum in (for instance) Enschede (a medium-sized city in the far east of the country) as well, which, in my opinion, was the exact right thing to say.

()

()
Finally, Ipsos falls in line as well: it has the PVV as the largest party. Ipsos tends to overpoll PvdA (by a big margin) and VVD (by a smaller margin) and it underpolls the PVV by a rather big margin, so that's good to take into account. This confirms the existing view on the PVV's popularity: it is likely around 31-33 seats and somewhat over 20% of the vote. Remarkable about this poll: SGP at 5 (!) seats.

By the way, if you guys have any questions regarding Dutch politics not related to the current political situation, please do feel free to ask these as well and I'll do my utmost best to answer them.

Why is VNL not polled? Or is it part of the 0.3 Andere ? Then why is it so low ? Is it dead already?

And is SP losing to PvdA a thing again, or is it just Ipsos being Ipsos ? SP is taking quite a blow from the passed weeks and months in this one poll.

It is part of 0.3 "andere", yes. It's not dead, but it's losing support to the PVV because of the migrant crisis, an issue on which the PVV seems to be more convincing to some than VNL: after all, being against immigration in the Netherlands has a face and it is Geert Wilders'. When Wilders was making speeches in villages where asylum seeker centers will be opened, VNL MP Joram van Klaveren wrote a policy paper in which he outlined what legislation, according to him, ought to be changed, including a detailed analysis of the existing legal framework. That probably doesn't make a politician more popular. What's more, VNL leader Bram Moszkowicz isn't an MP, the buzz about him being VNL's leader has died, and he seems to be in the media for all sorts of silly things - he's well-known to the public as a good, yet shady lawyer who is also often a guest in showbizz television programs - but not for anything political. It is clear that Van Klaveren is the one who decides on the party's program and its future. In general, it seems to be very hard for VNL to attract media attention.

Not sure if the PvdA winning some voters is something real/significant, other polls show the PvdA being stable and the SP losing. However, it seems more likely that the PvdA is winning these voters from GroenLinks (which goes down in this poll) whereas the SP just keeps bleeding votes to the PVV. Emile Roemer attacked the PVV this week, stating that we should do our utmost best to welcome the refugees. That is a position the SP has held for a long time, but it is not a position that is particularly popular with the SP's electorate. Wilders stated that Roemer places the needs of asylum seekers above the needs of the elderly. To add a geographical factor: many asylum seeker centers are in peripherical areas in the northeast (Groningen, Drenthe) and the southeast of the Netherlands (Noord-Brabant, Limburg), areas that constitute the absolute electoral heartland for the SP yet also areas in which asylum seekers/immigration aren't popular.

Is Wilders a hindrance to the PVV at this point?

Wilders is the PVV, I don't know what would be there if he wouldn't be there, but I definitely don't see anyone who would be able to take over. Wilders is still extremely popular with a lot of people, so he's definitely no hindrance. He might now even be almost as popular as in his heydays, in 2009 and 2010. Of course, he's also the most hated politician in the Netherlands, but these people wouldn't vote for him anyway.

Meanwhile, last night, a sickening coordinated attack on an emergency accommodation facility for asylum seekers has been perpetrated in Woerden (in the province of Utrecht). The facility, housing 148 people (amongst whom 51 children), has been attacked by a group of twenty people (possibly FC Utrecht hooligans), who hurled heavy firework bombs (like nitrates) to the asylum seekers, leading to extreme panic and sometimes to traumatizing experiences considering the fact that many people had fled war zones.

Mayor Victor Molkenboer (PvdA) stated that the government doesn't seem to have a plan to coordinate the situation and that there isn't a real debate on the migrant crisis, only people voicing their opinions in a loud way. He said "this could have happened everywhere" and that he isn't surprised about it: "the debate on the refugee problem has been heading in the wrong direction", leading to a "horrifying atmosphere." Deputy immigration minister Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD) comdemned the attack, stating he was horrified: "This violence is unacceptable. The perpetrators need to be punished. Refugees and neighborhood residents need to be safe." Prime Minister Mark Rutte visited the asylum seekers today, to buck them up and to show solidarity.

Embarrassing: VVD parliamentary group leader Halbe Zijlstra, the most important contender for the party leadership on the more conservative side of the party, painfully backtracked on some comments that were clearly intended to out-PVV the PVV. In an interview with newspaper Algemeen Dagblad, Zijlstra suggested that asylum seekers choose to go to the Netherlands because of "plastic surgery, eyelid correction surgery, breast enlargement, and teeth renovations". However, it quickly became apparent that asylum seekers don't have a right to said surgeries in the Netherlands, leading GroenLinks senator Tineke Strik to suggest that Zijlstra ought to get an eyelid surgery himself so that he can read the policy conditions of health insurance companies.

Zijlstra calls it "a mistake". He said that the brouhaha about his comments distracts people from his real point: that conditions for asylum seekers need to become more sober in order to decourage people from coming to the Netherlands. He says temporary residence permits need to be given on a one-year basis rather than a five-year basis, that family reunification needs to be a more difficult process, and that it has to become harder to obtain a Dutch passport.

Of course, nothing of this is going to be implemented by this government, since the PvdA will obviously not support it. In other words: Zijlstra says something entirely meaningless in order to make the VVD look conservative/tough on immigration in a wild attempt to persuade VVD-2012 voters who might vote for the PVV next time. We will see much more of this when the election season starts again, because the VVD is desperate to keep these voters.

Did Wilders reacted?

I hope this Strik character immediatelly put on some sunglasses and swaggered out the chamber to around of applause and groupies after that burn.

Yes, he tweeted the news article with the text: "Perpetrators need to be punished harshly. Resistance yes, but never with violence!"

Hahaha :P

New day, new poll: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond now officially has the PVV at an all-time high, at 35 seats (+15 over two months, +2 compared to last week, +20 compared to the 2012 election).

()

Some statements:
The Netherlands needs to close its borders to refugees immediately - 47% agree
I wouldn't mind an asylum seeker accommodation in my neighborhood - 44% agree
Many refugees don't flee war, but seek economic benefits - 62% agree
All refugees who come to the Netherlands should be helped - 36% agree
The Netherlands need to set a quota for refugees each year, and immediately send refugees back after reaching this quota - 51% agree
Geert Wilders is the only politician who articulates what many Dutch people think on refugees - 53% agree
Geert Wilders renders the divide in our society more pronounced - 61% agree
Prime Minister Rutte needs to ask the Dutch people to welcome refugees - 38% agree
Prime Minister Rutte needs to do everything in order to limit the amount of refugees that come to the Netherlands - 66% agree

Have you got tangible proof that SP is in fact bleeding voters to PVV ? People say this a lot in France, and until very very recently it had never been proven, though since 2012 we had a few instances in which left-wing voters seem to have indeed chosen the FN instead. Is the SP->PVV transfer an older and more established thing ?

The Left in France is very established though, while the SP is basically an old Maoist party that latched onto a good populist train in the last two decades or so; so I wouldn't be surprised if it's support was weaker.

On the one hand, the SP/PVV switching narrative is probably a tad overrated, since scholars tend to agree that Dutch voting behavior can be characterized as "bounded volatility" in which voters switch between parties in the same general "bloc": right-wing and left-wing (CDA being on the right, D66 being a somewhat more complicated case in the center).

On the other hand, there seems to be evidence that there are definitely people who consider switching between SP and PVV (much less so between PvdA and PVV). I cannot find cool vote transfer statistics between several elections right now, but there are various indicators for this phenomenon:

1. De Stemming/EenVandaag always polls specifically between which parties people doubt. It shows that the PVV currently has the most "battles" with VVD, CDA and SP. The SP currently has the most "battles" with GL, PvdA, PVV and D66, see http://destemming.eenvandaag.nl/. They are not alone in this: another pollster, peil.nl/Maurice de Hond, finds a same pattern (haven't checked the other pollsters for this, Ipsos and TNS/NIPO are so intransparent): there seem to be two types of SP voters, the ones who are more ideologically socialist/left-wing and would definitely/probably not vote for the PVV and the ones who derive their support from the SP from a less ideological/left-wing point of view and would be more inclined to switch to the PVV.

2. Scholar Josse de Voogd did research on electoral geography and parties' demographics in the Netherlands, and states in his important, interesting landmark publication "Bakfietsen en rolluiken: de electorale geografie van Nederland" that "fringe parties SP and PVV are close to one another [in the ideological space, DavidB.] and can switch voters amongst one another: both find their support mostly among lower and medium educated people. They share their opposition to globalization and European unification, attempt to preserve the Dutch cultural identity and the social security system for Dutch citizens, urge a tough stance on immigration and integration, and have a suspicious outlook on the market and the government" (2011: 12 - my shaky translation from Dutch). In a footnote, De Voogd adds that there seems to be a divide between higher educated SP voters, who vote for the SP because they think GroenLinks and PvdA are too right-wing on economic issues, and lower educated SP voters, who vote for the SP because they think GroenLinks and PvdA are too soft on immaterial issues (2011: 73).

It seems that PVV-SP swing voters are largely living in the electorally volatile Catholic south (I posted something about the history of the South a few weeks ago in this thread, you could take a look at that). They have a less ideological/socialist anti-establishment attitude than the SP voter core in the far north of the country (a historical hotbed of socialism), which causes them to be less inclined to "stay on the left", and are often on the "nationalist" side of the "cosmopolitan/nationalist" divide.

The Electoral Council just announced that the referendum is going to happen: a sufficient amount of signatures has been declared valid (429k out of 471k; threshold 300k).

TNS NIPO just released a new poll. This is quite a good pollster, it only tends to slightly overpoll D66 yet otherwise it's accurate.

Seats (compared to last poll on August 18):
PVV 38 (+17)
VVD 21 (-7)
D66 18 (-5)
SP 17 (-6)
CDA 15 (-2)
PvdA 11 (-2)
GroenLinks 9 (+2)
ChristenUnie 8 (+1)
50Plus 6 (+1)
SGP 4 (+1)
PvdD 3 (nc)
----
VNL 0 (nc)
Pirates 0 (nc)

It seems that the PVV is still growing. 38 seats means that they're close to 25% of the vote. The footage of the massive demonstrations against asylum seeker facilities in people's neighborhoods shows that so many people are angry and genuinely scared in a way that I didn't really expect normally calm Dutch people to be.

TNS NIPO states that most "new" PVV voters come from VVD and SP. In August, 8% of VVD-2012 voters and 9% of SP-2012 voters said they would vote for the PVV. Now, it's 26% for VVD-2012 voters (more than 10 seats) and 23% for SP-2012 voters. An SP-2012 voter who would now vote for the PVV states that "only the PVV seems to understand that the Netherlands cannot handle the refugee problem."

Meanwhile, D66 is losing voters on both sides of the political spectrum: to GroenLinks and VVD. Switchers to GroenLinks focus on new GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver "looking further than figures and money only" whereas switchers to the VVD seem to be pulled to this party by its supposedly more realistic stance on the migrant crisis.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Finance, PvdA) and Lodewijk Asscher (Social Affairs, PvdA) are the most popular ministers, Ard van der Steur (Security and Justice, VVD) is the least popular. Alexander Pechtold (D66) is rapidly becoming less popular, whereas Geert Wilders (PVV) is becoming more popular.

So obviously the PVV's numbers are being inflated due to the current situation, but if the result is anything close to that, the PVV would have to be let in government right? There is a somewhat workable right-wing majority in there: PVV, the VVD, CDA (would probably have to be let back in) and some kind of agreement with SGP and 50Plus (I'm not sure whether CU would want to prop up such a government). Could Wilders be PM or would he use outsized leverage on a minority gov?
.

I truly don't see it happening. The VVD and the SGP would probably be okay with it, but all the others still really don't want it. CDA voters probably wouldn't mind so much, but the party membership is actually quite a bit to the left of the party's electorate (the chairwoman of the CDA, Ruth Peetoom, didn't earn her nickname "the Red Reverend" out of nothing) and entering the Rutte-I coalition has generally been seen as a one-time mistake. The CDA also has many formerly important politicians (sometimes pejoratively called "the fossils") who hate the PVV and can be very loud about that.

With this figures (but the election result will probably not even close to this...) a minority cabinet would be the most likely option. It could consist of D66, CDA, PvdA, GroenLinks and ChristenUnie, with SP outside support (but CU, PvdA and GL could also be out; SP could be in; but the combination of parties giving the minority government a majority with outside support would be the same; additional 50Plus support could also be an option).

This is more likely because CDA members would probably prefer this to another coalition with the PVV (even though others won't and this has the potential to split the party). Their voters won't, though, so the CDA would be fycked again in the next election and probably lose some support to the VVD. The PVV would also lose some support to the VVD, which can act right-wing enough in the opposition to convince moderate right-wing swing PVV/VVD voters. But I'll stress once again that it's extremely unlikely that the election result will look like this (but you probably understand that ;)).

Edit: I might add that such a government would, ironically, probably be a moderate hero government that would implement economic policies just to the left of the current government and immaterial policies that would very much resemble the current government's policies. This is still the Netherlands. Because of depillarization, people aren't aligned to specific parties anymore, which has led to the current insanely volatile political landscape, but we are still a pretty centrist people when it comes to policy. That's what having had centrist Christian Democrats as pivotal political force for decades and decades does with a country: there has never really been alignment on the basis of being right or left, as in the Scandinavian countries, because the left and the right (not including the CDA and its predecessors, because they might as well cooperate with the PvdA) weren't strong enough - they always needed the/some Christian Democrats. That's why a minority government that pursues controversial policies, either to the right or to the left, is dead meat, see Rutte-I. The real right (which doesn't include the CDA - and which obviously doesn't include D66) is never going to have a majority in this country and the real left (which doesn't include D66 or the CDA) is never going to have a majority in this country.

As much as I'd like to see otherwise, we are a people of moderate heroes. We're just moderate heroes who happen to be unhappy with parties in government, so then we switch to other centrist moderate hero parties who happen to be in the opposition. VVD and PvdA can be as polarizing as they want during campaigns, but they will both cooperate with centrist parties and make compromises if it's really necessary. I'd prefer the Danish situation with "blocs", but that's just not going to happen: centrist parties (D66, CDA, ChristenUnie) would never want that, and if necessary, parties that are neither truly centrist nor extreme (PvdA, VVD, GroenLinks) will be willing to compromise and cooperate with parties that are very different. Not necessarily all of them together, but there will always be enough of them to do so in order to make a coalition possible. It might take some time, but it will always happen.

Didn't D66 use to hate, like absolutely loathe, the CDa?

Nah. In the 80s and the early 90s, yes, when the CDA was still the pivotal party. But the CDA's power as a pivotal party has been broken, which was essential to D66's founders ("breaking the system"), and most of D66's "crown jewels" in order to democratize the country have been implemented. What's more, the traditional culture wars on "social issues" (which D66 waged fanatically and which the CDA tried to hold back) are now over in the Netherlands. I could see a liberalization of our euthanasia policies and a liberalization (legalization) of our marijuana policies happening, somewhere in the future, but it doesn't really matter to most people anymore. We already have same-sex marriage and liberal trans laws, women can have an abortion, we might have the most liberal euthanasia policy after Belgium, and even if marijuana and XTC aren't "legalized" you can smoke up and pop pills as much as you want if you really like to do so (for instance, the nearest "coffee shop" is within 250 meters from my house and it's still open :P). And even if the CDA isn't okay with all of this (though they're okay with some of it, such as abortion and SSM), they know it's not going to change anymore (and they never talk about these issues). All they can do is preventing it from becoming even more liberal.

CDA and D66 are quite different in terms of electorate, tone, and focus, but apart from the "social issues" that don't matter anymore anyway, they very much see eye to eye with each other: on the economy, on the EU, to some extent on immigration... Marijuana definitely won't be a dealbreaker. CDA and D66 might very well be the two parties that could most easily work together in a government right now: many overlap in policies yet not a lot of people who would be tempted to switch between these two parties.

Re: DavidB's hypothesized minority cabinet.

Wouldn't this sort of thing play right into PVV's hand? At some point a cordon sanitaire just looks like ignoring the legitimate will of the people. Would it not be more prudent to let PVV form a government and let the difficulties of power take them out?

But it isn't a real cordon sanitaire. It's just the CDA not willing to cooperate with the PVV. The difference is important: the decision is not made between parties, but within one party. That doesn't really differ from, for instance, the SP not being willing to be in a government with the VVD (hypothetically; they don't really rule this out). It has to do with large differences between policy preferences, and as long as this choice is legitimate in the eyes of your voters, parties don't have a problem. The CDA will likely encounter those problems because many of their voters would probably prefer a right-wing coalition, but the CDA is in a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation anyway, because many others wouldn't want to be in such a coalition. They're gradually declining and becoming increasingly irrelevant, so it's hard to tell what's smart for them. (The VVD, by contrast, would have an extremely big problem if they were to decline cooperation with the PVV.)

Of course, not including both the VVD and the PVV in a government would lead to some backlash and it will give the impression of a "leftist government", but if the government is prudent, it might take some two or three years before new elections. What's more, CDA and CU could counterbalance the leftist tendencies on immaterial issues and foreign poliy, SP and CU could do so on the EU, and CDA and D66 could do so on the economy. If they would, however, pursue quite leftist policies, then they will probably be in power for a hilariously short time. I don't think governments will generally be particularly stable under extreme fragmentation, but then again, the fact that the current government has been surviving for more than three years amazes me as well (but it only consists of two parties, of course).

Regarding the PVV becoming stronger in the opposition: don't forget that the VVD can appear pretty rightist. In fact, their rhetoric is very right-wing all the time. It's just that they are extremely "flexible", to put it mildly, when making compromises (some people would call it "deceiving their electorate" - I happen to be one of these people). If they're in opposition, they might attract former PVV voters with a right-wing message on the economy, immigration, and the EU.

But yeah, the PVV might grow as well, and it might be inevitable to include them at some point - or it might not be. But parties don't have a crystal ball and make decisions based on short term analysis anyway. Everything might change within five years.

A Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_EU-Ukraine_Association_Agreement_referendum,_2016) page with information on the referendum is now online.

D66 went into the 1994 election with the slogan ''let's put the CDA in opposition''. They won 24 seats. If you look at their militants today there is a clear difference of opinion, to put it lightly. They don't like each other. Old vs new politics.

Those clear divisions in the grassroots and the old grudges will make them working with each other harder than you make out. Particularly as the CDA is taking a socially rightward swing under their new leader.

I really disagree, JosepBroz. As I said, sure, in 1994 D66 hated the CDA, but that's because 1) the CDA was still the pivotal party (until 1994) whereas D66 wanted to break the system and "put the CDA in opposition", 2) the CDA attempted to block implementation of D66's crown jewels, which have now largely been implemented, and 3) "culture war issues" still mattered in 1994, whereas now, most importantly, SSM and euthanasia are legalized, and other steps toward a more progressive policy have been taken.

The electorates of both parties are very different, but at this point, cooperation with each other would be the least of problems for D66, whereas the CDA would probably prefer the VVD but also don't really mind D66.

I wouldn't necessarily call Buma's opposition style "socially rightward", which implies this is about "social" issues (and which would render cooperation with D66 indeed a lot more problematic). It's more about issues like Defense, fighting IS, et cetera. Anyway, it is entirely meaningless, just a show: after all, they need to do something in order not to dip into the single digits in the next election... I have no doubt the CDA will happily return to its "elitist" way of doing things when they will be in talks about government cooperation.

In short, whereas D66 indeed hated CDA in the 80s and the early 90s, I still think D66 and CDA could perfectly well cooperate in 2016.

Something else: a new peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll.
()
PVV keeps growing. VVD and PvdD lose one.

An interesting breakdown of the demographics regarding PVV voter intention:
()
Geen religie = no religion, RK = Roman Catholic.
"Hoge opleiding" = high education, "hoog inkomen" = high-income earners, "midden" = medium, "laag" = low

"Stemt nu" = would now vote PVV, "stijging in 3 mnd" = increase during the last three months among this demographic

In short, PVV voters are often Roman Catholics living in the South, often have a lower education but that doesn't necessarily translate into having a low income, and are often working. That's exactly what was already known, but still quite interesting figures.

There is no cordon sanitaire with PVV. I can understand why you would think that given the situation presented to you (ie PVV largest party but not in government). They have brought their political isolation upon themselves, mainly after their last stint supporting then collapsing the VVD-CDA government. Those were always going to be their only realistic coalition partners. The reason there is a cordon sanitaire here in Belgium is because Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang have historical quasi-fascist or outright collaborationist roots. Had the old Centrumpartij been resurrected they would have a cordon sanitaire. PVV are not a successor partty to the Centrumpartij or TROTS Nederland. They are a successor party to the LPF.
 
Even if PVV win a plurality, they will never win a big enough majority to be able to take full responsibility for whatever problems they may ensure, barring extraordinary circumstances.  
The reason the PVV's score went down is because most sane PVV voters were happy with the PVV's role, that they subsequently blew by collapsing the government. Then the election was presented as Left vs Right. (Thankfully, IMO) this won't be the case again, and people will vote for the parties they feel represent them best. If that's the PVV for a plurality of dutchmen so be it. Doesn't mean you should exile the political parties on the left by prioritising the PVV for winning a plurality (of about 30%)


Regardless, one thing we are forgetting is that the King will nominate the first formateur and he will pick the party with a plurality, which will be the PVV. Wilders will have a fair crack of the whip. But DavidB is right, the most realistic coalition now is CDA-VVD-D66. It will be a government similar to ours in Belgium. The CDA and their social wing will suffer the most out of that, but not as much as when they allied with PVV. The other two are in dreamland. I still think VVD should be punished for losing half their electorate, but clearly Rutte won't go away. And I still think D66-CDA will be the main source of tension in that coalition, but DavidB is pretty spot on in his post above. I just don't think their characters will get along both in high and grassroots politics.

The part about the King is actually not true anymore. Parliament has taken over this responsibility, starting after the 2012 election (though it is still possible to let the King do it if there is a majority for that).

Socially rightward? I always thought they were going economically rightward under Buma, I mean Buma spoke out against redistributing wealth and there were people in the CDA who researched the possibility of a flat tax rate and were positive about it (it wasn't really a flat tax rate though, there was a high bracket for high earners) but I didn't really notice a rightward swing in their social views. Their economic views really have changed since the last Balkenende cabinet (in my opinion atleast), which was sometimes criticized for redistributing wealth and having too much Labour party influence while the Christian Democrats won the election.

Next election is still pretty far away and Wilders is currently winning in the polls because of the refugee crisis but perhaps it won't be as big of an issue in March 2017 (presuming the cabinet won't fall).

Labour has been polling very bad but they have got some pretty popular people (Asscher, Aboutaleb, Dijsselbloem, van der Laan, even Timmermans and Koenders) and in 2010 they also were polling horribly, but when they nominated Cohen as their 'lijsttrekker' they suddenly were highest in the polls (they didn't win that election though), so perhaps that could happen again when they nominate someone like Aboutaleb. And in 2012 they also were polling pretty bad but Samsom had some good debate performances together with Rutte and suddenly the election became more of a 1v1 almost presidential Rutte vs Samsom election than a parliamentary election which probably benefited Labour and the VVD (people who normally would vote for a smaller party instead voted strategically for either Labour or the VVD to prevent the other from winning the election)

VVD-CDA-D66 doesn't have a majority in the senate (even with the SGP who often helped the current coalition in the senate they don't have a majority) so I think they probably will add another party to that, especially after having been in a senate minority cabinet for a few years now. I doubt Labour wants to govern with 3 centre right parties, especially not after what they currently are experiencing in the polls but I think Christian Union or Greenleft are options. But D66 may have trouble governing with 2 Christian parties and Greenleft may not want to govern with 3 centre right parties (on the economy).  But the next elections are still pretty far away unless Labour decides to break up with the VVD in order to gain popularity with left wingers.

Well, I'll reiterate what I said earlier: if the political landscape will really become even nearly as fragmented as it is in the polls, new minority governments that cooperate with "gedoogpartijen" through supply and demand agreements will be inevitable. Some political scientists argue that the current government can already be considered a minority government, since it negotiates on big chunks of their plans with other parties in order to get a majority in the Senate. Currently, these deals leave the government with "oversized majorities" in the lower house. However, it wouldn't make that much of a difference if they would need the constructive opposition parties in the lower house as well. This might render new governments less stable, but it all seems inevitable.

Halbe Zijlstra (parliamentary leader VVD) has received a letter with a bullet in it after the VVD announced a plan for more sober housing of the refugees (lower welfare, less healthcare coverage in order to discourage them from coming here). The car of a city councillor also has been burned down, probably also because of the refugee crisis.

It is interesting that both cases probably have to do with the refugee crisis, but the car of the councillor probably was burned down by an anti refugee activist or however you want to call it while Zijlstra probably wasn't threatened by an anti refugee activist since Zijlstra is pretty tough on the refugees, so the bullet letter probably was sent by a pro refugee activist (or it has nothing to do with the refugee crisis at all but given the timing of the bullet letter that seems unlikely to me).

That actually reminds me of the guy who killed Fortuyn, Volkert van der Graaf (Fortuyn's murderer) was a  leftist environmental activist who saw Fortuyn as a threat to the weakest members of the society (muslims, refugees, people living from welfare). The only real threat to society and democracy was van der Graaf himself though. Van der Graaf actually was released not too long ago and there already is a lot of controverse about him living on welfare and violating some rules. I really hope he goes back to jail again, like a talkshow host said: 'You either hate Volkert or you are him.'

Yes, the same ''hero complex'' applies both to left and right-wing extremists, and I think this is what makes them worthy of the term (rather than ideology) : in order to ''protect'' other people's rights, they intend to infringe upon others. With Van der Graaf, or the extreme left, it is the silencing of certain political figures through violent/forceful means. With Wilders and the extreme right it is a return to one set of right-infringing values by selling the idea that the alternative is a progress towards a different set of values that are incompatible with the current ones (Islam).

The difference is that the perceived extreme left do not create the same climate that the extreme right does (all over Europe), that encourages such violence. When Le Pen comes out saying the current situation is like Nazi-occupied France, or Wilders actually outright believes the Dutch people are at war after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they outright encouraging violence - to be perpetrated by unhinged people like VDG. As much as Fortuyn was supposedly demonised, and I have no reason to believe he was given the attention surrounding him, no prominent SP or GroenLinks member came out and said Fortuyn was Hitler's second coming. That was Van Der Graaf himself who came up with this idea through perfectly reasonable associations to Hitler/Mussolini that are made whenever a member of the hard/ extreme Right turns up.

No, Wilders and Le Pen are not encouraging violence by merely articulating people's ideas. As much as you may dislike them, they have always denounced violence. Also, many prominent mainstream party politicians actually did draw WWII comparisons when Fortuyn showed up: Thom de Graaf (D66), for instance, made a speech in which he cited Anne Frank's diary, clearly comparing Fortuyn to Hitler. Sorry, but your version of events regarding the Fortuyn murder is simply factually wrong and, quite frankly, a bit bizarre.

That being said, I'll focus on contemporary Dutch politics again.

Today, Infrastructure & Environment Deputy Minister Wilma Mansveld (PvdA) stepped down. She is politically responsible for the immense screwup that is the high-speed Fyra train, which ought to be running from Amsterdam to Brussels. However, when the trains started to operate on the traject, it became clear that they had serious technical problems, which quickly led to the phasing out of the project, which had cost both the Netherlands and Belgium millions of euros. A parliamentary inquiry was started, which is regularly seen as a rather serious instrument, and recently, the commission presented its results, which show that basically all stakeholders have made grave mistakes: Italian train builder AnsaldoBreda, the Belgian railway company NMBS, the Dutch railway company NS, the Belgian government, and the Dutch government. Current Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem (PvdA) and former Infrastructure Minister Camiel Eurlings (CDA) are also to blame for misinforming parliament, but Mansveld has been most in the wrong, repeatedly misinforming parliament about several decisions and stating that security considerations were part of the NS' decision to stop the Fyra project whereas this wasn't the case in reality. Following parliament's harsh criticism and the outcomes of the inquiry, Mansveld decided to step down.

In hindsight, it was a very smart move for Infrastructure & Environment Minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen (VVD) and for the VVD negotiators in general to "grant" Deputy Minister Mansveld the politically sensitive railroad/Fyra portfolio at the start of this governing period, because the dramatic Fyra project had been a political timebomb for years.

Interesting logical fallacies here :

- Articulating people's ideas automatically discourages you from engaging in the encouragement of political violence, either consciously or unconsciously. The People are Always Right (in every sense of the word). Go figure.
- Saying things like you are living under occupation or are at war, have apparently no implicit link to the subsequent justification of violence used by right-wing terrorists like Breivik and the German guy, or the proportionately higher amounts of violence towards Muslims in France than another minority such as Jews ( yet reactionaries such as Finklekraut and Zemmour maintain that France is a more anti-semitic society than it is anti-muslim, while FN rides on its new ''We will protect the Jews from Islam'' image, ten years after Le Pen snr made his oven jokes).
- Citing Anne Frank's diary in a speech has the same demonising value as saying you are living under occupation or at war.

Nobody of the main leftist parties called Fortuyn Hitler and nobody suggested, ever, that he should or would be physically stopped. Some, admittedly, compared his method and his rise to power through ''fear mongering'' tactics. How is that the same as explicitly stating that you are under occupation or at war?

Still needed to reply to this. You are obviously deliberately misinterpreting my points. I don't want to waste too much time on this, so I'll briefly reply to each point. This is a tiresome discussion though, so I suggest we agree to disagree after this.

This is obviously not what I'm saying. Articulating people's ideas could very well lead to or constitute the encouragement of political violence. However, Fortuyn and Wilders and (afaik) Le Pen did not engage in this.

And no, "the people" are not "Always Right". I'd like you refrain from deliberately misrepresenting my views.

Citation needed re "more violence toward Muslims than toward Jews". What's more, I might be biased but I have a very hard time comparing these two groups. As far as I know, Jews do not engage in behavior that structurally undermines French society. Jews do not threaten Muslims. The violence is a one-way street. And as someone who is sympathetic to some new-right movements (e.g. DF) yet very critical of others (e.g. FPÖ, VB), I don't think even the ones I really don't like have engaged in justifying violence. (I'm of course talking about the Western European new-right now, not about the NPD-like extreme right, which is an entirely different category, full of scum.)

When one refers to Fortuyn through the framework of Anne Frank's diary then I think this is, indeed, comparable.

Well, I could dig up many statements of people from PvdA, D66, GL who made this comparison - perhaps not as explicitly as you do, but certainly enough for people to understand what it was about. That might be comparable to contemporary new-right occupation comparisons. But then again, nobody on the Dutch left really said that Fortuyn should be stopped through violence, which is why I don't hold these politicians responsible for the fact that he was, eventually, killed. Similarly, Le Pen did not call for violence, which is why I don't hold her responsible for inciting violence.

Some other things:

- New peil.nl/De Hond poll: CDA -1, GL +1 are the only changes. PVV still at 37 seats, VVD second at 19.
- The exact date for the EU Association Agreement Referendum has been announced. It will take place on April 6, 2016.

The government will introduce a proposal in order to change the tax system. However, it needs a Senatorial majority to do so. There has been much speculation as to what parties would be willing to cooperate with the government. Until the May 2015 elections, the "constructive opposition parties" for Senatorial majorities were D66, ChristenUnie and SGP - however, these parties do not suffice for a majority in the Senate anymore. Instead of courting GroenLinks in addition (in order to have a majority), government parties VVD and PvdA have decided to include the CDA in order to make a tax deal, and not to engage in talks with D66. Therefore, the parties that will be negotiating for a tax deal are VVD, PvdA, CDA, ChristenUnie and SGP -- an insider calls this move "through God instead of through Green".

Among other issues, the Christian parties have demanded that a new tax plan be more beneficial for single-income households. One would think such a change would be something progressive, but apparently, Christian parties want this because quite some (Protestant) Christians still have single-income households. Recently, the Central Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a governmental organization, found out that single-income households pay on average 22% more taxes than multiple-income households. With an income of 47,000 euros, single-income households in Germany pay 32% fewer taxes, in France 33%, and in Spain 49%. Therefore, this has priority for the three Christian parties.

1. CDA congress
At the CDA congress, party leader Sybrand van Haersma Buma reaffirmed that under his watch, there will be no government cooperation with the PVV. He spoke about "Wilders' harsh tone". Wilders "walked away when things became tough, and fights with everybody." Buma says that it is a moral responsibility to help refugees. However, "we feel insecure about the preservation of our common values, and both concerns are equally fair." He wants to introduce a status of "temporary displacement" and states that "migrants who can return absolutely need to do so". Refugees, Buma says, have a responsibility to contribute to the rebuilding of their own country once it is safe to go back. Buma also criticized PM Rutte for agreeing with EU concessions to Turkey: "our always yielding PM Rutte accepted this."  Buma stated that Rutte broke an electoral promise (2012) by doing so, but says that "electoral promises do not count for Rutte", clearly aiming at convincing disappointed VVD-2012 voters (who would now often vote for the PVV), positioning itself to the "right" of the VVD.

2. Internal SP election
An interesting debate is going to take place within the SP. Jan Marijnissen will step down as chairman, and the question remains who will succeed him.

The structure of the party is very hierarchical, and most power is still in the hands of Jan Marijnissen, who has been chairman since 1988 and was parliamentary group leader from 1994 (initial breakthrough) until 2008 (when the party had 26/150 seats). In short, the board of the party decides what happens within the SP, and Marijnissen leads this board.

The board has unanimously decided to support Ron Meyer, who is active within trade union FNV. He has also been a member of the municipal council of Heerlen (Limburg) since 2006, where the SP has been governing for 10 years, and won the award for "the best municipal councillor of the Netherlands" in 2014.

()
Ron Meyer

However, some party members feel that this decision has not been very democratic. Sharon Gesthuizen, MP since 2006, said that for her, this was an important issue as well. She says "it is time for a mature debate about the question who is best suited to lead the party and which direction we want to move in", and declared her candidacy to become chairwoman of the party.

()
Sharon Gesthuizen

It is clear that the party board is not looking forward to seeing Sharon Gesthuizen become chairwoman, so it will be interesting to see how party members vote. The party congress will take place November 28.

Is the SP race an ideological/factional clash, or merely personality politics?

No, it is a clash between the party elite and people who want to "democratize" the party, leaving more power into the hands of members and local branches instead of the board. It is not a factional issue and I don't think there are any real differences between Meyer and Gesthuizen in terms of policy.

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 :P

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 :)

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.

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... :P 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?

Haha. I also love to hear people speak Dutch: It always sounds like they try to speak German, but hilariously fail at that :P 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 :P

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 :P
From your description I take they are largely a singular issue party? I would guess their constituency is similar to the one supporting GL?

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.

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 :)

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).


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).

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.

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.

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.

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 :P)

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.

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.

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.

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.

I already thought so :P

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

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.

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 (http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/verkiezingen?dnaId=198&electionCode=TK12): 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No, it is indeed from there :)

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.

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.

Decided to write something on two relevant issues: the election for SP chairman, and a fairly special initiative on climate change.

1. SP
SP members through the entire country have voiced their discontent with the way in which the board of the party sides with Ron Meyer, the endorsed candidate. They think MP Sharon Gesthuizen, the other candidate, is being treated unfairly. This debate is taking place quite openly. Long-standing MP (and spokesman on foreign policy) Harry van Bommel said it is "unmistakably true" that the board is too open in providing support to Meyer's campaign, and he criticizes this: "They shouldn't do that. It plays into the perception that the SP is being led in a very centralist manner." Founder, ex-leader and current chairman Marijnissen recently called Gesthuizen's experience as an MP "irrelevant" to assessing her capabilities. Moreover, there seem to be some tricks in regard to who can be a delegate at the congress, and rumors have spread that someone at the SP's central office is arranging meetings for Meyer across the country so that he can convince members to vote for them. Gesthuizen obviously wouldn't have this advantage. Marijnissen: "Ron is objectively better suited to become chairman. Some members are not really capable of deciding this." However, he says he will not vote himself, because according to him that would lead to an awkward situation if Gesthuizen were to become chairperson.

To be sure, Meyer and Gesthuizen are not ideologically different. However, Meyer wants the party to remain quite hierarchical and centralized, whereas Gesthuizen wants the party to become more internally democratic. Gesthuizen also wants to grant local SP branches more autonomy.

2. The unique Samsom-Klaver initiative
Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks leader) and Diederik Samsom (PvdA leader) drafted an initiative for a "national climate law" with measurable and objective standards. They want Dutch CO2 emission to be diminished by 95% in 2050 (compared to 1990), and they want all Dutch energy to be "sustainable" in 2050. Currently, the Netherlands is doing quite bad in the EU statistics in regard to climate change, failing to reach almost all of its self-imposed targets (see our position at the Climate Change Performance Index (https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10407.pdf)). The subject became topical due to the upcoming climate conference in Paris and due to the remarkable judicial verdict in the "Urgenda" case, in which judges decided that Dutch government is obliged to tackle climate change.

However, this initiative is not only revolutionary because of its content. It is for the first time in 35 years that two party leaders jointly come up with an initiative for a new law, and it is the first time in Dutch parliamentary history that one of the leaders (Samsom) is in the coalition and the other (Klaver) in opposition. According to PvdA leader Samsom, who had previously been a Greenpeace activist, "climate change transcends traditional patterns of coalition and opposition."

The law would oblige the government to draft a "climate budget" on a yearly basis, in which the government would indicate which measures need to be taken both on a short-term and a long-term basis. This would lead emission reduction, stimulation of initiatives regarding sustainable energy, and saving energy to become official goals, by which the government needs to abide. Samsom: "Currently, in terms of emission, we just do whatever seems nice for our prosperity and in ten years we'll see what the world looks like." Klaver: "This is the tragedy of the horizon: we define climate goals, but fail to implement corresponding laws in order to reach these targets. We aim at changing this pattern."

Strategically, this is very smart for Samsom and the (unpopular) PvdA. This topic allows the parliamentary caucus to (finally) discern itself from the VVD-PvdA coalition government. The PvdA is seen very negatively when it comes to the two most topical issues, immigration and terrorism, yet when it comes to the environment, voters are more positive about the PvdA: this issue being high on the political agenda might improve the PvdA's popularity. Moreover, probably the most important electoral rival on the PvdA's left, GroenLinks, seems to have "issue ownership" on this specific issue. GroenLinks is currently very popular in the polls, but Klaver risks to partly lose "issue ownership" on climate change to the PvdA, which would damage GL and benefit the PvdA electorally. Additionally, the PvdA and GroenLinks force parties of the center (CDA, CU, D66) to be clear about their choice: championing the interests of farmers and businesses, or tackling climate change? Research shows that it is electorally beneficial for coalition parties to present itself on issues that are important to their voters, even if the government is against this: governing often (especially in the Netherlands) leads to a loss of votes in the next elections, but in this way, parties can diminish this effect.

The initiative might very well become Dutch law. It is likely to be supported not only by PvdA and D66, but also by SP, PvdD, D66, ChristenUnie and SGP. These parties have a majority in both houses of parliament.

Can't say I'm surprised: today, the SP's delegates elected Ron Meyer to be the new chairman of the Socialist Party.

()
New Peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll has the PVV up again. However, the picture has been quite stable during the last weeks, with little change.

()
()
"Could you see yourself voting for party X in the next elections?", based on current preference. Of course, this greatly inflates the "potential voting percentage" of smaller, non-niche parties. At the same time it seems interesting that the maximum percentage of VVD and PvdA is, at this point, lower than the actual percentage of the vote these parties had in the 2012 election.

Some other questions:
()
"Do you think government policy should be aimed at lowering CO2 emission with 95% in 2050 compared to 1990?"
This question essentially measures if people agree with the Klaver-Samsom initiative. Most people seem to agree with this, although I dare to say a lot more people would be skeptical if the costs of this policy would be included in the question. However, it is still interesting and probably electorally relevant that this initiative seems to be rather popular among voters, and it can definitely generate positive effects for PvdA and GL among left-wing voters. It also shows how pro-green D66's electorate is. This is going to be very problematic for D66 if TTIP becomes an important topic: the party seems to be more pro-free market than its (potential) electorate.

() - on the basis of 2012 vote, not on current voting preference
1) How do you evaluate the Klaver-Samsom initiative? ("Vrij" means "somewhat" in this regard)
2) Proposition: "The PvdA should have done more in order to combat climate change in the government". "Eens" = agree, "oneens" = disagree, "weet niet/geen antwoord" = dunno/don't want to answer.

1) shows that many people are rather partisan when it comes to evaluating this initiative: many VVD-2012 voters and PVV-2012 voters agree with the idea that CO2 emission should be cut, yet are not positive about the initiative, presumably because this question explicitly mentions that this law is initiated by Klaver and Samsom. Still, 43% are positive, and only 27% are negative.

Regarding 2), it seems many PVV voters simply answered "agree" just to show that they disagree with everything the PvdA does in government, since I have a very hard time believing that 42% of PVV-2012 voters think more should happen in order to combat climate change.

... and something less serious: stereotypes within the Netherlands ;)

()

I'm surprised they call Limburgers belgians given that both countries call Limburgers ''moffen''.

Otherwise its spot on.

()
The latest Peilingwijzer (the aggregate thing).

In response to the deal that the EU and Turkey struck, Wilders presented a message (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5EoMdwkpgY) to the Turkish people two days ago...

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. 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).

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

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.

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).

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.

how do you say YUGE in Dutch?

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

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

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

Do the PVV want to leave the EU? I thought they just wanted a weaker Union, with more national control over borders.

According to her Wiki page, this Schippers character was elected in 2003, and still-VVD-Geert was her initial "mentor".

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.

()

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 :)

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.

On the subject of double citizenship, French Minister for Education Najat Vallaud-Belkacem is often attacked by the far-right on her holding Moroccan and French citizenship, but actually you cannot renounce your Moroccan citizenship even if you'd want to. So, on this subject at least, it's a false trial on Arib. I can see her belonging to an advisory committee to king Mohammed 6 a much more problematic issue, though.

If we are talking conflict of interests, why don't we just disqualify half of parliament for their private holdings in the business world. Just as damaging as holding dual citizenship.

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.

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.)

Geert Wilders is not a Christian.

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.

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.

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...

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).

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.

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.

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 (http://www.elsevier.nl/Nederland/achtergrond/2016/1/Bram-wilde-de-politiek-er-een-beetje-bij-doen-2744873W/?masterpageid=174042), sadly only in Dutch but that'll be no problem for you).

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.

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 (https://youtu.be/c5YJGKs3AUo?t=102) 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.

I am sometimes reading.

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.

I've been reading this thread.

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!

I'd say D66 as a whole is centre-right. Politically, D66 used to be closer to PvdA than it is now. Especially where social security is concerned, D66 has moved considerably in the direction of VVD. D66 usually takes a rather pragmatic stance, which leads to some people saying that they don't have any real opinions at all. D66 electorate used to be mainly concentrated in the densely populated Randstad area and it is still regarded as a Randstadish party. D66 has tried to broaden its electorate and it seems to have succeeded during the 2014 municipal elections and defeated PvdA in many cities where PvdA used to be the largest party, like Enschede, Groningen, Tilburg and Arnhem.

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?

FWIW, DavidB, I read ya. You achieve a below-Tender level of updating pace and xenophobia, which is pleasant enough for me to follow this thread and not have you on ignore, contrary to Austria. This was actually a compliment, but it turned out a bit awkward. Oh well.

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 :)

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).

del

They don't want the monarch to select the mayors either. They want directly elected mayors. Seems logical to me.

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.

It's not just the logistics, it's the fact that many mayors are parachuted into communities they know nothing about and switch municipalities for careerism. Case point : Limburg and Friesland. Hollander mayors have been less than welcome there.

D66 used to be big into direct democracy and emphasis on radical forms of democratisation. They also were in favour of toppling traditional forms of governmental and non-governmental power, including the Churches. As DavidB explained earlier in the thread, they switched to social liberalism as a creed. Pechtold is part of the branch of D66ers who would have been in the other "liberal" party, the VVD, if it weren't for VVDs rightward swing and D66's conversion to social liberalism.

D66 are the closest party to the LibDems I have seen thus far, if the Brits need a proper comparison. They're famous for selling out their electorate too. The times they come close to government usually end up in a bloodbath come the next election, largely due to perceived antics during the negotiation process. Sound familiar?

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).

Wat seksistisch :P

Lol: after a lot of outrage over the possibility of the Russian government being involved in bankrolling the "no" campaign, which isn't too strange a claim but also not one that has yet been backed up by any evidence, it has now become apparent that George Soros is bankrolling the "yes" side in the referendum on the EU association agreement. One of his organizations ("Open Society Foundations"), which is outlawed in Russia, has donated 200,000 euros to the "yes" organization Stem voor Nederland ("Vote for the Netherlands"), led by right-wing Britain-based Dutch political activist Joshua Livestro, a former assistant to Sarah Palin.

So? George Soros isn't a government.

I'm less than happy with any foreign involvement in the referendum campaign, whether it's the Russians or Soros or anybody else, because these actors do not have the Dutch interest in mind. Therefore I oppose such involvement, both on the "yes" side and on the "no" side. This referendum is for the Dutch people to decide on. Foreign governments and businessmen will just have to respect that.

I read it - thank you for all of your work!

Many thanks for your reply!

Wilders handing out some of his resistance spray: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X098EZiXfqc

The funny thing is that if Wilders does do great in the next election, it will be the right (i.e. VVD and CDA) that's going to have a real problem, not the left.

As I expected, the PVV has reached a new all-time high in this week's peil.nl poll. GroenLinks has also reached a new all-time high, at the expense of D66.

PVV 42 (+1)
CDA 19 (nc)
VVD 18 (nc)
GroenLinks 16 (+1)
SP 15 (nc)
D66 15 (-1)
PvdA 9 (nc)
ChristenUnie 5 (nc)
PvdD 4 (nc)
50Plus 4 (nc)
SGP 3 (nc)
VNL 0 (-1)

Well, let's do some maths (but let's also keep in mind that these categories don't make sense in reality when it comes to coalition formation, because the Netherlands just doesn't work like that):

2012 election:
Left (PvdA, SP, GL, PvdD): 59
Right (VVD, CDA, SGP): 57
Center/other (D66, CU, 50Plus): 19
PVV: 15

This poll:
Left (PvdA, SP, GL, PvdD): 44 (-15)
Right (VVD, CDA, SGP): 40 (-17)
Center/other (D66, CU, 50Plus): 24 (+5)
PVV: 42 (+27)

In this poll, the right is not significantly weaker than the left compared to the 2012 election.

PvdA support has evaporated: to GroenLinks and to the SP (which doesn't hurt the left in this table), and to D66 (which hurts the left). However, the SP has lost voters to the PVV (which hurts the left and shows that an increase in PVV support does not always come at the expense of the right). Meanwhile, on the right, the VVD has lost voters to the PVV (which hurts the right) and to the CDA (which doesn't hurt the right).

Note that right + PVV = 82 in this poll, whereas it was 72 in TK12. Peil.nl might be the most "enthusiastic" pollster for the right, but it is safe to say that VVD+PVV+CDA would now receive significantly more votes than in 2012.

This is why the position of VVD and CDA is still very strong. CDA will likely prevent a coalition with the PVV from being formed, but VVD and CDA still have a strong position when negotiating with the left. If the SP is to be outside the government, it will be hard to form a government that does not include both VVD and CDA (and both parties will likely insist on both being inside the government, for going in as the only right-wing party might be electoral suicide). What's more, these parties will always have the "cooperation with the PVV" card to scare other parties into compromising. (Also keep in mind that D66 will have a preference to work together with CDA and VVD to further an economically liberal (in the European sense of the word) agenda.)

Dutch politics is amazing; so many choices and all of them are terrible, even the ones that look at first as if they might not be.

You don't like the SP?

Its basically a cult, so no. I mean I suspect I would end up voting for it right now, but...

I understand why you would dislike the party itself, as an organization, but its program doesn't seem to be so much out of line with your views.

I just find it crazy how not only is there an openly theocratic party with seats, there's an openly theocratic party from my branch of Christianity... With actual representation in parliament.

Supposing that D66 successfully implemented FPTP, who would win seats? Obviously the party system would be different, but any guesses?

First of all, let me emphasize that D66 is currently not in favor of implementing FPTP; this was an idea of the past.

It is hard to imagine the Dutch party system in a UK-like FPTP system, because obviously parties would merge, et cetera. But using the 2012 election and drawing a map with 150 FPTP districts, the 2012 result would look like this:
()

Only PvdA and VVD would win seats in this scenario (but that might be different in elections that are less of a two-horse race).

I am in favor of implementing a non-proportional mixed-member system in which voters have two votes. 75 MPs are elected through PR (like now, but with half the number of MPs) and 75 through FPTP in single-member districts. Small parties continue to be present in parliament, but we avoid the four or five-party coalitions that are inevitable if political fragmentation continues to increase.

I think you shouldn't be ashamed of plural societies. I understand the British, majoritarian way way doing things (ie they hate coalitions, like certainty and good governance, even if it means a clear democratic deficit), but Dutch electorates can't be aggregated into Left or Right, and when they have been you get very unpopular governments like the one currently in place.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that majoritarianism is not the "Dutch way" and that pluralism in our parliament is something good. The current unpopular coalition, however, if anything, is the consequence of this inclusivism and, as such, stands firmly within the Dutch political tradition of "polderen" and of compromising. "Aggregating Dutch electorates into left vs. right", as you describe, did not lead to this coalition. In fact, this coalition was formed despite the fact that the right and the left coalesced into one party, which, of course, made the coalition awkward and unpopular from the start. As such, the formation of unpopular governments, sadly, is a direct consequence of the compromises parties have to make in order to govern, and perhaps the price we have to pay for our proportional, pluralist system.

Yeah, I get that, but what I meant was that last election was very much painted as a Left vs Right affair, precisely because people did not seem to want a coalition that broke down every two years (CDA's collapse also had a role in this). And you still ended up with a Grand Coalition. The 90s also saw an Americanisation of Dutch politics, painted as modernisation, and it ended with 8 years of purple and a reactionary counter-movement.

If there are 5 parties with 20+ seats next election, it won't necessarily be a bad thing.

D66 was never in favor of electing the lower house (purely) by FPTP; the original idea was to introduce (multi-member) constituencies, which I assume would have implied STV. The idea to have half of the seats be elected by FPTP was a more recent proposal. Without a constitutional amendment modifying the mandatory use of (some sort of) proportional representation (article 53), that would have implied enacting some sort of additional member system (à la Germany).

A new opinion poll by I&O Research/Twente University shows that 38% are opposed to the Association Agreement with Ukraine, 31% are in favor and 31% are undecided. If the referendum would have taken place in January, 56% would have voted against, 44% would have voted for.

Some interesting stats:

General population: 38% No, 31% Yes, 31% Undecided
High education level: 37% Yes, 32% No, 31% Undecided
Medium education level: 45% No, 25% Yes, 30% Undecided
Low education level: 49% No, 22% Yes, 29% Undecided

Without undecideds:
General population: 56% No, 44% Yes
High education level: 54% Yes, 46% No
Medium education level: 65% No, 35% Yes
Low education level: 69% No, 31% Yes

So there seems to be an extremely clear educational gap, to the surprise of absolutely nobody.

Breakdown by party (current preference, not based on 2012 vote):
PVV: 73% No, 9% Yes, 18% Undecided
CDA: 36% No, 31% Yes, 33% Undecided
VVD: 41% Yes, 36% No, 23% Undecided
GroenLinks: 55% Yes, 10% No, 35% Undecided
SP: 51% No, 21% Yes, 28% Undecided
D66: 55% Yes, 20% No, 25% Undecided
PvdA: 63% Yes, 14% No, 23% Undecided
ChristenUnie: 29% Yes, 23% No, 48% Undecided (not a typo)
PvdD: 42% No, 24% Yes, 34% Undecided
50Plus: 46% No, 21% Yes, 33% Undecided
SGP: 38% No, 13% Yes, 49% Undecided (not a typo)

The pollsters also asked respondents whether the government should act according to the referendum result if turnout is higher than the 30% threshold. 48% say the government should act on the basis of the result, 41% say the government itself should decide what to do, which I find to be a remarkably high percentage, especially given the fact that the government seems to be less popular than the association agreement. 12% say they don't know.

So what does this tell us? This poll is now being presented in the Dutch media as an "increase of support for the Association Agreement" since the previous poll. I have my doubts and think the number of polls is way too small to say anything meaningful, other than the fact that more people seem to oppose the agreement than support it, and that many people are still undecided. It is also clear that people with a lower education level and SP/PVV supporters are likely to oppose the agreement. This could benefit the "yes" camp, as this electorate is less likely to turn out than the highly educated "yes" electorate. From a democratic perspective, it is somewhat worrisome (but absolutely nothing new) that there is such a strong educational gap, which likely stems from the idea not being represented by the government. In addition to that, the EU is often seen as a vehicle that works in the interests of the "haves" and against the interests of the "have-nots". Many people see this referendum as an instrument to show The Hague that their voices should be heard, too.

Question maybe stupid, maybe not:

why the hell the Netherlands make referendum on such irrelevant for them thing?

Because 427,000 citizens signed an official petition, which is why the government is under the obligation to organize this referendum (threshold = 300,000). People signed the petition for various reasons. Some of them were genuinely worried about the consequences of signing an association agreement with a country that is often seen as war-torn. Some think the EU is already too costly, and we shouldn't pay money to Ukraine. Some think this agreement will open the door for Ukraine to become an EU member (which doesn't make much sense, but Poroshenko stating that this should be a first step to becoming an EU member doesn't really help in public perception). Others just wanted to show they disapprove of the EU and/or the government and use this referendum as an instrument in doing so, partly because of the fact that according to the law, citizens' initiatives for a referendum can only be organized if a law has already been accepted by parliament. This is why we cannot have a "Nexit" referendum, for instance: parliament didn't sign anything on that. So this was pretty much the only possibility. It has all been played very smartly by GeenPeil, the main initiator of the referendum.

I, by the way, agree a referendum on this topic doesn't make sense.

Hurray! Another step toward gender equality. Because it's 2016.

From now on, military conscription will apply to girls as well. Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (VVD) promised this to parliament today, after questions by PvdA and D66. In practice, conscription has been suspended 20 years ago, which means that every 17-year old Dutch boy receives a letter that the draft has been suspended and he doesn't have to show up, but that he could still be drafted in times of war. I still have mine somewhere. In the future, 17-year old girls will receive the same letter.

There has not been much debate about this, probably because no one thinks we will ever need to use conscription again. A vast majority of MPs are against reintroducing it, and VNL's idea to do so has been ridiculed by basically everybody.

Another new law: from 2020 onward, smoking on the yards of high schools will be prohibited. Makes sense, since the minimum age for buying cigarettes has been raised from 16 to 18 in 2014. Not many kids in high school are 18 or older.

New video (http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2016/02/video_weer_oekraiens_dreigfilm.html) in which Dutch citizens are threatened by the Azov Batallion (or fake?). Amsterdam Arena and Royal Theatre Carré are mentioned as places.

New peil.nl poll says 60% no, 40% yes in Ukraine referendum among people who are sure they will be voting. People who are less sure they will be voting lean more toward "no".

Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Bert Koenders (PvdA) announced that the Netherlands will stop temporarily ratifying the Association Agreement if the Netherlands votes no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy birthday (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Hy6Xmrn-4), PvdA!

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

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO
M
A
O

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

Because they agreed to this (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-king-willem-alexander-declares-the-end-of-the-welfare-state-8822421.html)?

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

You see? I'm right about everything.

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

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

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%).

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... ;)

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.

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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxmBhkccWvY), 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.

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.)

That is quite possibly the most Dutch thing ever.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

I assume SGP and CU are going ballistic over this?

What is the reaction of the other parties?

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.

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.

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?

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.

The VVD doing clickbait (http://www.vvd.nl/betuttelingstop10) 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).

Just for fun: election results by polling station (on a map) for Provincial/Senatorial elections 2015: click (http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/05/01/wat-stemden-uw-buren-analyse-uitslagen-ps2015-per-stembureau). 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

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.

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.

... and apparently "no" has regained the momentum.

()
Left = including don't knows
Right = excluding don't knows

37% say they will surely vote, another 28% say they will probably vote = 65% together. This will of course be lower irl. I think turnout will be in the low to mid 40s.

D66 has presented its campaign posters:

"Safe external borders
Strong democracy
Free trade
Vote FOR on 6 April"

()

Haven't they been in power from r the last three terms, or was that just all one big nightmare.

I'm afraid I do not understand what you mean.

Article (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35786922) by the BBC on the referendum.

And a less objective one by someone who works at a Kiev think tank at Politico Europe (http://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-referendum-ukraine-eu-association-agreement-netherlands-euroskeptic-sentiment/).

Received my voting pass today. Leaning to vote for the Agreement now.

In case someone is interested: I have the full results per polling station for the 2015 province (and water board) elections, in xlsx format. Unfortunately without geographic coordinates though.

Please let me know if I should upload it to my website.

()

Seen today: referendum campaign posters by the tiny "Jesus Lives" party. Message: "Jesus wants you. Not EU-kraine!"

()

Hurrah! I have finished my e-learning course for volunteering in the polling station. Apparently it is illegal to leave a D66-balloon tied to the table that we use for handing out the ballot papers to the voters. Also, we should check that we have  received the correct ballot papers some time before opening at 0730, not afterwards.

You can do that online now? That's convenient.

I see that James Joyce is alive and well and living in Maastricht.

()

The latest Peilingwijzer. Trends: PVV clearly downward, VVD clearly upward, GL slightly upward, D66 slightly downward.

During the last months, the PVV has had a clear lead, but the VVD's numbers are improving at the expense of the PVV now. I don't know why, but I suspect it's because of the fact that Greece + refugees + terrorists have gotten slightly less attention recently (until this week at least), driving VVD-leaning potential PVV voters voters back to the VVD. D66 has had quite some negative press recently because of MP Hachchi's bizarre, sudden resignation + Pechtold hiding the fact that some rich businessman payed for him and fellow D66 MP Kees Verhoeven to fly to Ukraine in his private jet (in the context of the referendum campaign), which he should have declared.

Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher (PvdA) just called the prospect of the PvdA entering a coalition with the VVD after the 2017 election "unlikely". Together with Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb and Amsterdam mayor Eberhard van der Laan, Asscher is seen as one of the top candidates to replace Diederik Samsom as PvdA leader, though it remains to be seen whether Samsom will be ousted.

The fact that Lodewijk and Eberhard might replace Diederik (three names that should literally be in the top-10 of poshest Dutch names) says enough about the PvdA and its problems.

Voting compass for the referendum here (https://kieskompas.nl/nl/#/statements).

Q1: Ukrainian and Dutch companies should be allowed to freely establish themselves on each other's territory. (Helemaal mee eens = Fully agree, Helemaal niet mee eens = fully disagree)
Q2: In order to limit illegal immigration, the EU should be allowed to give money to Ukraine
Q3: The Agreement supports Ukrainians who want to choose a pro-European course
Q4: Because there is too much corruption in Ukraine, the EU should not give financial aid
Q5: The Agreement with Ukraine undermines wages in the Netherlands
Q6: The EU should not invest in a council of ministers, public servants and experts from the EU and Ukraine
Q7: The EU should be allowed to give money to Ukraine in order to better protect the environment
Q8: It is good for Ukraine to participate in military operations led by the EU
Q9: Entrepreneurs from Ukraine and the EU should be free to invest in each other's territory
Q10: Opening the borders with Ukraine is a threat to employment in the Netherlands
Q11: The Agreement stimulates employment in Ukraine, so Ukrainians will not come to the Netherlands to find jobs
Q12: The EU should be allowed to support Ukraine financially in order to make the production of nuclear energy in Ukraine safer
Q13: Ukrainian companies should be treated similarly to companies from EU member states when there is concurrence for government orders
Q14: The Netherlands needs to reject the Agreement in order to prevent Ukraine from coming closer to full EU membership
Q15: The Agreement will make the conflict between Russia and Ukraine worse
Q16: The EU is already big enough, I'd rather see countries leave than new countries enter
Q17: The Netherlands needs to accept the Agreement in order to limit Russia's influence in Ukraine
Q18: The Agreement with Ukraine is bad for the Dutch economy
Q19: Travellers [not referring to gypsies, DavidB] between EU countries and Ukraine should be able to travel without a visa
Q20: By striking an agreement with Ukraine, the import of oil and gas from Russia will be endangered
Q21: The EU should not be allowed to give money to Ukraine in order to support weaker sectors of the Ukrainian economy
Q22: The Agreement with Ukraine should be accepted, because free trade will foster democracy in Ukraine
Q23: The EU should continue to levy import tariffs on Ukrainian products
Q24: The Agreement with Ukraine jeopardizes social security in the Netherlands
Q25: The EU and Ukraine should cooperate in order to combat terrorism and organized crime
Q26: It should become easier for Ukrainian employees to work in the EU with a temporary labor contract
Q27: The Agreement is a good way to improve human rights in Ukraine
Q28: The EU should not strike agreements with other countries as long as the economic crisis persists
Q29: The agreement with Ukraine will bring more stability to the European external borders
Q30: It is good for Ukraine to adjust its laws to European rules.

A bit of a stupid test sometimes, because some questions are simply about facts, not about opinions. However, I found it fun to do. Got a score of almost 50% in favor of the Agreement myself.

Here's a video (http://programma.vpro.nl/buitenhof/afleveringen/2016/buitenhof-20-maart---asscher---sakwa---walrus-onderzeeers.html) (the third one on the page) of Richard Sakwa, a well-known scholar of Russian politics (known to be relatively "pro-Kremlin"), explaining on Dutch television (in English) why he would advise the Dutch electorate to vote against the Agreement and debating with Deputy Prime Minister Asscher. Sakwa's is obviously a minority opinion among academics in his field, but I found it an interesting fragment nonetheless, even if I agree much more with Asscher.

Dutch parliament just observed a minute's silence because of the attacks in Brussels. Speaker Khadija Arib: "Because we are historically connected. Because they are our dear neighbors. Because Brussels is the heart of Europe, where we stand for the same values: openness, safety and freedom - the freedom to believe, but also the freedom not to believe. And exactly these core values came under crossfire this Tuesday."

Meanwhile, the fact that one of the attackers was deported from Turkey to the Netherlands when he attempted to go to Syria might lead to new problems for Security & Justice Minister Ard van der Steur (VVD), who has been minister for only a year yet has had a lot of embarrassing moments already.

Very nice gesture from our Lowland brethren.

Our Justice and Home Affairs Ministers offered their resignation after it was revealed that the bomber had been deported from Turkey. This was refused by the PM.

I hope you and the people close to you are okay, JosepBroz. Aren't you in Brussels?

Security & Justice Minister Ard van der Steur (VVD) is in dire straits. Ibrahim el Bakraoui, one of the perpetrators of the Brussels attacks, had been deported from Turkey to the Netherlands in July 2015 because Turkey knew there was a terrorist threat. The Dutch got an intelligence notification with "very urgent" on it, but did not open it and let El Bakraoui go. Van der Steur blames Turkey, but that is not considered very convincing. What makes it worse, German terror suspect Samir E., to whom Brussels terrorist attacks perpetrator Khaled el Bakraoui sent his last text message, also landed in the Netherlands in July 2015 without any problems -- on the very same flight as Ibrahim. 

In short, to put it bluntly, people get the impression that the Netherlands has become the gateway for terrorists to the EU because the Security & Justice Ministry, which has been a merger of several ministries since 2010, is incompetent. This has to do with the fact that there is a toxic culture in the ministry, which is too large and basically unmanageable for ministers.

It is likely that Van der Steur will have to step down. This has the potential to become a scandal that can make the government collapse, especially given Van der Steur's extremely bad explanation in parliament, so it would be better for the government if he steps down by himself.

The question is will the VVD be prepared to let him go now. It would be the second minister within this ministry to step down and VVD may want to avoid that. It does show the failure that the ministry has been. After the next elections the police will go back to the interior ministry.

Depends on how big of a story this is going to be, and how much pressure there will be. The VVD, indeed, might want to avoid Van der Steur from having to step down, but that would still be an infinitely better outcome for the VVD than the government collapsing. Early elections before the summer (or right after the summer, like in 2012) would be an utter disaster for them. It would totally ruin the positive story they are preparing for 2017 ("it wasn't always easy, but we finished the job and we have been responsible").

New TNS Nipo poll: 32% "definitely" intend to vote, 25% will "probably" do so. 54% are against, 36% in favor and 10% don't know.

The government has stepped up its game and launched a last-minute campaigning plan, which includes a media offensive (national newspapers, talkshows) and sending tweets from the new account @oekraine6april. Apparently, the ministers don't like talking about Ukraine and try to dodge their responsibilities. All this has been leaked to RTL, which published it. The underlying assumption of the government's strategy, the idea that the government can convince people to turn out and vote for, seems a bit misguided. It might as well lead to an anti-government backlash and drive up the vote among people who oppose the agreement. The government should probably have let the parties deal with it. The only reason it does not do so seems to be that this would be "not done" vis-à-vis the EU (plus some typical Mark Rutte hybris, perhaps). However, it seems foolish for an unpopular government to try and promote an unpopular agreement, and its foolishness might come at a price.

Rutte now stated that if it were up to him, Ukraine would never become an EU member. Comparisons with Rutte stating (in September 2012) that if it were up to him, no euro would be spent on Greece anymore were low-hanging fruit, of course.

At this point, this referendum has "2005 European constitution scenario" written all over it. The Dutch will vote against, and the low turnout escape route seems to be closed off by all the media attention (and the government's campaign): the referendum will be the number 1 issue during the coming days.

My prediction for tomorrow: 40% for, 60% against, 37% turnout.

Polls are open from 7:30 until 21:00.

Just voted against the agreement.

Turnout in Rotterdam was 3% at 10AM. In the European Parliament election in 2014 (total turnout Rotterdam: 35.1%) it was 4.3%.

It is currently the question whether the 30% turnout threshold will be reached. Most analysts expect turnout to be barely over 30% on the basis of the incoming figures, but these seem to be strikingly low -- Amsterdam had only 6.5% turnout at 1PM. I take all #analysis with many grains of salt, including pollster Maurice de Hond's remark that if turnout will not be over 13% at 4PM in the big cities, the threshold will not be reached. Pollster, political science professor and professional attention whore André Krouwel expected turnout to be around 50%. People should know whom they cannot take seriously anymore in the future.

I personally think there will be a larger difference between minority turnout (except for Jews -- all three of us are sure to vote...) and Dutch turnout in this election, because Muslim and (certain) Surinamese minorities have less of a reason to vote than in regular elections. Hence, the discrepancy between turnout in large cities and turnout outside the large cities will be larger, which is why I think low turnout figures in the cities do not necessarily imply that the threshold will not be reached (although it is obviously relevant), but again, you should also take this #analysis with some grains of salt...

()
Current estimate: 30.8%

Turnout seems to be quite high in no-areas (Maastricht, Dordrecht) and extremely low in yes-areas (Amsterdam). This is going to be a landslide. Fully expect no to get at least 60% of the vote.

new estimate:
()
and these are only some large (and a few not so large) cities. turnout outside large cities will be higher. still, this model is based on EP14 and very problematic in many respects, so I will be biting my nails for the rest of the day

Results will be published here (http://app.nos.nl/datavisualisatie/referendum-2016/)

Exit polls in 10 minutes

Most important is whether the 30% threshold will be reached, its going to be Too Close to Call

I'd vote "Yes".

But I'm not sure if the voters will back it.

My prediction:

53% Yes
47% No

32% Turnout.

Exit Poll

Turnout 29%

For 36%
Against 64%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participation_criterion#Quorum_requirements

Turnout in ipsos exit poll adjusted to 32%.

Finished counting myself. Huge no victory in affluent municipality. Immediately knew this was going to be a landslide.

10.9% counted.

36.8% for
62.5% against

Turnout: 32.8%

30.8% counted.

37.5% for
61.7% against

Turnout: 31.8%

Turnout figure includes Rotterdam, excludes Utrecht, The Hague and Amsterdam. Might dip under 30% if these are included. Turnout in Noord-Brabant seems low too.

51.2% counted.

37.8% for
61.4% against

Turnout: 32.3%

Amsterdam is in, turnout still over 32%. If I were the NOS and this would be the US, I'd call it.

79.5% counted.

37.7% for
61.5% against

Turnout: 32.3%

pretty sure i'm making these posts for myself right now, but i'm quite enjoying myself doing so...

()

No, I'm reading them. Congratulations to the Dutch!

So am I. Thanks for the insights. Is there any life in a possible Nexit campaign?

99.8% counted.

38.1% for
61.1% against

Turnout: 32.2%

It's a done deal.

Probably the stupidest referendum I ever had chance to notice.

Thanks for excelentní coverage!

Done. Same as with 99.8%.

Thank you kindly! Glad people read this :)

Thanks very much!

Thank you, Beezer! Such a campaign could be viable, even if I think it wouldn't have a majority (we are much more dependent on trade than the British, simply because we're so small), but it is not possible under the referendum law. But if the UK domino falls, who knows...

You guys had a referendum about your electoral system for the general election that got 15% turnout and was ignored two weeks later in the actual general election, right?

The turnout is a bit disappointing even if it was just a referendum... I wonder because it was just a few points over 30% that the gov't would just go ahead and ratify the treaty anyway.

Anyway, some drunk #analysis:

Amsterdam and Utrecht, the two progressive big cities, voted for. Rotterdam and The Hague, the two large cities that still have a sizeable white working class population, voted against. No surprise there.

In the end, this referendum was saved by turnout in Amsterdam. At 6PM it was barely over 13%, yet at 9PM it was 26,8%.

All municipalities except for Amsterdam + Utrecht + some uni towns + socialist Groningen villages + rich Utrecht suburbs + rich Arnhem suburbs voted against. Turnout was lowest in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Noord-Brabant province (in the last case, I don't know why, except for the usual stuff, but still doesn't explain why turnout was okay in Limburg). See here (http://app.nos.nl/datavisualisatie/referendum-2016/). Will try to come up with something tomorrow.

Quite some potential yes voters stayed home in order to prevent turnout from reaching the threshold. I don't expect the government to take the result seriously, and there will be whining about the turnout figure, but the government cannot just ratify it. That would clearly be too much, especially since the PvdA promised to abide by the result (if >30% turnout). I expect the treaty to be changed somewhat, just like the European Constitution became the Treaty of Lisbon by dropping some irrelevant, controversial things. It won't really matter. But if the UK leaves successfully, we will be in pole position to follow.

Ah, thanks. I wonder what could be changed though? Does the agreement allow for visa-free access? I guess that would be changed to be more restrictive.

Why Netherlands would destroy their economy? Without European trade, Netherlands is nothing.

Because it was part of electoral campaign :)
But it was also stupid.

Let's start with this.
The prediction was spot on, but my expectation regarding turnout was clearly too high. Probably both because of the fact that I live in a bubble (the sense that "everybody is concerned with the referendum", which, of course, is bs) and because most pollsters were simply wrong, De Hond/peil.nl being the important exception. And some wishful thinking, perhaps.

Yes, the visa-free travelling clause could be excluded. The most likely solution seems including a clause that says the treaty does not render Ukraine an EU candidate member state. It does not actually change anything, because the Agreement was never about that anyway, but they might think it will pacify Dutch who were afraid of Ukraine entering the EU and it will superficially look like a political victory for Mark Rutte, who recently stated that Ukraine should never become a member of the EU.

Of course, that will not change any of the underlying euroskeptic sentiments behind the no vote, and in public perception this will be the second referendum in which a "no" vote has been ignored (though the low turnout might render the signal somewhat weaker than in 2005).

Norway and Switzerland are not EU member states. Pretty sure they don't need the EU for European trade. While your argument is popular in the Netherlands, rendering a Nexit less likely and popular than a Brexit, I think it is not particularly convincing. No one is for closing all the borders or for imposing strange tariffs. If we were to become a member of the European Economic Area without being a member of the EU, our economy would definitely not be destroyed.

()

Top 10 "for" municipalities:

1. Wageningen 62,4 (GL/D66 uni town, university focused on agricultural research and health)
2. Rozendaal 61,6 (very affluent and tiny Arnhem suburb)
3. Vlieland   57,9 (West Frisian island)
4. Utrecht   57,4 (progressive uni city)
5. Haren 57,2 (most affluent Groningen suburb)
6. Bunnik   54,5 (relatively affluent Utrecht suburb)
7. Oegstgeest 53,8 (affluent Leiden suburb)
8. Leiden 53,6 (uni town)
9. Zuidhorn 53,6 (a random village in Groningen)
10. Bloemendaal 53,5 (very affluent Haarlem/Amsterdam suburb)


Top 10 "against" municipalities:

1. Urk 83,3 (Reformed Protestant fisherman's town, extremely religious, #1 SGP municipality)
2. Nissewaard 79,5 (Rotterdam working-class suburb, initially white flight community but now also with minorities, PVV stronghold)
3. Edam-Volendam 79,1 (Catholic fisherman's town, very insular, PVV stronghold)
4. Kerkrade 78,0 (poor, peripherical South Limburg town)
5. Landgraaf 77,8 (poor, peripherical South Limburg town)
6. Pekela 77,6 (poor, peripherical Groningen municipality with a strong socialist tradition)
7. Hellevoetsluis 77,6 (planned city, white working-class Rotterdam suburb, total hellhole)
8. Rucphen 76,9 (in West Brabant, often #1 PVV municipality)
9. Tholen 76,7 (SGP municipality in Zeeland)
10. Brunssum 76,7 (poor, peripherical South Limburg town)

Interesting map:
()
(only areas in light and dark blue were actually for, "gemiddelde" = average countrywide)

Nice Paint map and quite accurate, although some of his conclusions I do not follow and are probably just deducted from this map (the idea that West Groningen and Central Overijssel are "attractive" for anyone who is not a cow is... funny, to say the least). Also, I disagree with culturally appropriating the magen david for protestant communities.
()

EDIT: ugh, the maps don't seem to work here (Bad Atlas much?), but the underlying link does work.

I wonder what the Ukrainian reaction is to the result. I am sure it is negative.

This (http://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-referendum-shakes-eu-ukraine-association-agreement-petro-poroshenko/) Politico Europe article about it was interesting.

However, I suspect most of the opposition to EU comes from people opposing freedom of movement between states. EEA membership includes acceptance of the "4 Freedoms", one of them is the freedom of movement between states.

I just don't see how joining EEA would fill the expectations and desires of the Nexit crowd.

Wow. Poroshenko is really in a mess. There really are no heroes in Ukraine.

It's been a while since I posted here, so let me update this.

1. In the polls, virtually nothing has changed since the referendum.

2. On the basis of the referendum law, the result has to be considered "as soon as possible", but this is not defined. All opposition parties, including the ones that were for the agreement, wanted the government to repeal the law that OKs the agreement, but the government rejected it on the grounds that it wants to renegotiate the agreement after the Brexit referendum. VVD and PvdA considered the law that OKs the association agreement the "entrance ticket" for new negotiations.
This is quite the 180 for the PvdA, which stated that the law should be repealed if the Dutch voted "against" before the referendum took place, but they explain that away by saying that the law will be repealed if the negotiations will turn out fruitless. Opposition parties SP and PVV argued that the referendum result was not meant to be an "entrance ticket", but an "exit ticket".

3. One important change in the Dutch party landscape: DENK, the party of PvdA splitoffs Tunahan Kuzu and Selçuk Öztürk (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216167.msg4791586#msg4791586), is taking off and has 2 seats in the polls now according to peil.nl, almost solely because of Muslim voters. Its target electorate, however, consists of all minorities, not only Muslims. The party has received much attention during the last weeks. When Dutch journalist Ebru Umar was arrested in Turkey, party leader Kuzu stated that she simply had to comply with Turkish laws; she didn't do so, so her arrest was fine.

Farid Azarkan, the leader of a Moroccan organization, has been attracted in order to woo Moroccan voters. Now, former TV presenter Sylvana Simons, of Surinamese descent, joined the party. She has a history of anti-racist activity and has been vocal in the "anti Zwarte Piet" movement. In an interview, she stated that she "didn't know" about the Armenian genocide (quite baffling for someone who argues that the Dutch should not forget about the country's history regarding slavery) and that the interviewer should ask party leader Tunahan Kuzu. Moreover, she echoed Kuzu's comment on Ebru Umar's arrest in Turkey.

Attacks on DENK have been widely published. In the mainstream media, they were quite sophisticated, focusing on their views on the Armenian genocide and the fact that they sow division. On the internet, the level of the discourse was astonishingly low, full of racism and sexism. Of course, all this reinforces minorities' perception that one cannot talk about racism in the Netherlands without being shunned by society and will help DENK; the party has often been compared to the PVV recently.

Feminist, anti-racist and anti-Zwarte Piet activist Sunny Bergman, meanwhile, was invited by Kuzu but declined to be a part of DENK when she asked them about their views on e.g. the Armenian genocide. Undoubtedly, they will attract more well-known people before the election. I place my bets on Yasmina Haifi, a former PvdA member who worked for the Ministry for Security and Justice on the Counterterrorism department and was fired over a tweet in which she stated that ISIS is a Zionist conspiracy and attributed her being fired to racism and Islamophobia. Anja Meulenbelt, a former SP senator and anti-Israel activist who cut her ties with the party when she thought the SP did not sufficiently condemn Israel during the 2014 Protective Edge operation, could also be on their shortlist.

So a new testimonial party?

I'm really surprised no Dutch politician has proposed an electoral threshold, like they did in Israel. I mean I'm glad they haven't, because you get crazy weirdos like Animals and DANK and SGP, but still odd.

EDIT: this Kuzu character has a really weird looking head

I think I saw a VVD politician had said something about establishing an electoral threshold. Not sure how that would go down now.

The term "testimonial party" was relevant when PvdA, VVD, CDA and D66 would have large majorities and the role of the "small Christian right" was indeed purely testimonial. Now, however, with our fragmented political landscape, all parties, including SGP, 50Plus and PvdD, have the possibility to play a decisive role in creating majorities. They bargain and have actual influence over policy. DENK could easily win more than five seats in the next election. That will have true consequences for the political landscape and possibly for policy.

Regarding the electoral threshold, many parties have sought to change the Electoral Law during the last decades, but to no avail. Political scientists generally argue that the Dutch institutional rules are set in stone, but that unofficial, cultural "rules" in Dutch politics can (and do) change. Some politicians (mainly in VVD and CDA) did actually toy with the idea of implementing an electoral threshold, but this is never going to be a serious proposal: people perceive it as against Dutch pluralistic values. Of course, we have always been a country of minorities, and decision-making processes have often included as many actors as possible; an electoral threshold would be seen as a gross violation of these values. Majoritarianism is just not really compatible with Dutch politics. This has also been one of the main arguments of the anti-referendum camp before the implementation of the law on the advisory referendum.

()

Given that SP and PVV are both major players for the foreseeable future, wouldn't an electoral threshold make it harder to form governments?

Imagine a scenario where there is a 5% threshold. The Christians form a joint list and manage to get into parliament while this new DENK group manages to cause Labour to just miss the bar. How would you make a government out of that?

First off, this is entirely hypothetical, because it's not going to happen. A 5% threshold would temporarily kill off the PvdD and probably DENK, and rob VNL of its last hope. CU and SGP would form an electoral alliance and wouldn't be harmed. No other parties would truly risk getting under the threshold. The seats of <5% parties would be distributed among all other parties, including SP and PVV. It wouldn't lead to more problems in terms of coalition formation, but it wouldn't solve anything either. In terms of ad-hoc cooperation, smaller parties lose their importance and coalitions will have to negotiate with medium-sized parties or large parties instead of convincing that one SGP or 50Plus MP. That might make things more difficult, but perhaps one could say policymaking would be less vulnerable to particularistic exploitation by insignificant parties. I would not be for it. I don't think fragmentation is a problem, and even if you see it as a problem, a 5% threshold will not solve it because the true issue is that there are a lot of medium-sized parties (10-40 seats) and no large parties (40+ seats) anymore.

Why all the talk about the Armenian genocide ? Has it been an issue ? Or is it just because Denk's founders are of Turkish descent ?

The point is basically that in order to be considered a normal and sane party by ethnically Dutch voters, you have to recognize the Armenian genocide. By contrast, in order to win Turkish Dutch votes, you cannot recognize it. If you recognize it, most Turkish Dutch voters will not support you or your party. This has led to incredibly awkward situations in the past: before the 2006 parliamentary election, this became an issue. PvdA and CDA forced all their candidates to recognize the genocide, upon which their Turkish candidates withdrew. By contrast, D66 did not force candidate Fatma Koşer-Kaya to recognize the genocide, and she did not do so. The issue is now used successfully by other parties to highlight Denk's hypocrisy when they talk about human rights or the importance of remembering history.

Kuzu and Öztürk explicitly target Turkish voters on Turkish issues (e.g. Ebru Umar); they left the PvdA because they thought the party did not care about its minority voters. Kuzu and Öztürk themselves name and shame Turkish Dutch MPs from other parties who talk negatively about Erdogan or take stances that are otherwise unpopular with most of the Dutch Turkish electorate. Therefore it is not strange for others to focus on the Armenian genocide issue. Of course, D66, SP, PvdA and GL worry about Denk. Their emergence will doubtlessly cost PvdA and D66 seats.

So it has just become a kind of litmus test to see if a party is somewhat sane and sincere ? That's awesome ! I don't get the impression it is used as widely as a test in any other country, even in Germany where there are to my knowledge even more voters of Turkish descent.

Also, I see you use the word genocide for the Armenian genocide : that's awesome too ; not all Jews agree to do that...

It's not as if most Dutch are experts, but the Armenian genocide is just widely recognized as such. Denying it seems weird and inappropriate to most people, even if the issue is not important in itself for them. They see it as an indicator that a party cares more about Turkish votes than about being honest.

-_-'

Weird comment. Do all French agree on this?

Tbf Armenian genocide denial is illegal in France whereas in Israel the genocide is, err, treated with Realpolitik gloves from what I've heard.

True, but it's kind of... weird to feel the necessity to make snarky remarks about that government policy to individual Jews -- especially if they don't even hold Israeli passports. It is also weird to imply that Jews specifically have a problem with recognizing the Armenian genocide while I have the impression that if anything, Jews, both in Israel and in Europe, might be even more inclined to recognize the Armenian genocide than most peoples, and certainly not less.

It was not snarky at all, I'm being misunderstood here. What I meant is that some Jews, some of them prominent, have a "only one True Genocide" policy when it comes to genocides. I don't know if it's specific to French Jews or not, but I have seen some and talked to them. These people tend to undermine the characterization of other genocides as "Genocides" because they feel it will undermine the character of the Shoah as "the Genocide" and open the way to further negationism. Again, it's not necessarily a widespread belief among Jews, even French Jews, it's just one that exists and manifests itself from time to time. That is why I acknowledged your lack of reluctancy to use that term.

Hmmm, okay, then I misunderstood you. Thought you referred to the Israeli government's policy. I have never heard about this, but most Jews I know are Dutch, Israeli or American. Perhaps it is something that manifests itself among French Jews. I personally think the definition of genocide is quite clear and the fact that the Shoah was a horrific crime and a genocide is in no way challenged by acknowledging that other peoples have been the victims of horrific crimes and, indeed, genocides too. Not recognizing the Armenian genocide is the height of disrespect and not all that different from not recognizing the Shoah.

Having sex with a prostitute whom one knows is a victim of human trafficking will become illegal. A majority of MPs voted for a motion by CU, SP and PvdA to this end.

Your wording intrigues me. Who voted against it?

Yeah, did not really know how to formulate it. Have been trying to find out who voted against apart from VVD (LOL, the "tough on crime" party) and PVV, who were mentioned in the news article, but it has not been updated on the parliament's website yet.

I am not surprised by VVD. I wonder if D66 voted against it also. They seem like they could.

It's online now. VVD, PVV, D66, VNL and 50Plus against. PvdA, SP, CDA, CU, GL, SGP, PvdD and DENK for.

Footage of DENK leader Tunahan Kuzu marching in a Grey Wolves demonstration in Rotterdam last year and speaking for this group of protesters has been published on several media. It will only boost his popularity among Turks, but it might shatter some people's naive view of DENK as an "anti-racist" or "left-wing" party for all Dutch people of foreign origin.

• With 2 seats and barely any poll numbes, they are irrelevant as a political force.
• The Turkish minority, or any minority do not block vote for a single party
• The media coverage, as well as yours, exposes an underlying biased political coverage

I fail to see either the relevance or interest in this obsession with DENK the NOS and you have. We have a party in Bussels called ISLAM that had a former trainer of child terrorists amongst its ranks. It remains an irrelevant political force not worth the attention that undoubtedly gives it free publicity. But then again their ise suits the black and white world some people seem to live in.

I agree with this to the extend that I do not think DENK will be a force in Dutch politics. My guess is that when elections will come, the media will make it into a two-party fight (last time: PvdA and VVD). Smaller parties will suffer from it. Max 1 seat for DENK (even that is too much for me, cant stand that Kuzu).

How is making a few posts on the developments with DENK even remotely an "obsession"? I make posts about the developments within other parties too -- even when it comes to parties that are even less relevant than DENK, such as VNL. Now, perhaps you do not find news on DENK to be interesting, but this party has two parliamentary seats (well, de facto) and it has the potential to win five or even more seats in the upcoming general election. Such political actors can become very relevant, especially given the current political fragmentation, and criticism of some obviously disturbing ideas they have is more than warranted. No one was talking about a "block [sic] vote", so I don't know why you come up with that. As for your last point, I would never pretend to be "objective" when it comes to DENK, because I think it is a potentially dangerous party, even if its participation in the next election will likely only help the right. Lastly, if an MP of, say, VNL would be marching in a demonstration with fascists, you would surely care. Why would Turkish Dutch MPs deserve a free pass for doing so?

@ DavidB

What do you think of the course of CDA at this moment? I doubt if Buma has the charisma to become a real alternative for the PM. Too bad, because I think there is still room for a large, center-right/conservative party (like CDA with Lubbers or Balkenende).



(thanks for the message btw, but I cannot send a message back. I'm 'not allowed' it says).

The Dutch Left is too balkanised now for a dual-party american style apparatus. Similarly the PVV's score will undoubtedly go up compared to last time.

I think you need to have 20 posts before you can send PMs :)

As JosepBroz very aptly stated, I am biased, and while I am a right-winger who would definitely be a potential CDA voter if the party chose to pursue a more conservative course, I think Buma has the charisma of Herman van Rompuy as described by Nigel Farage. I would never vote for a CDA with Buma as leader, so this might influence my perspective on this (I liked this (http://www.elsevier.nl/opinie/opinie/2016/06/bij-het-cda-van-fantast-sybrand-buma-heerst-totale-leegte-313388/) article in Dutch). The way I see it is as follows. Electoral competition between right-wing parties is decided in Randstad suburbs and in rural Noord-Brabant areas. In the 2000s they voted CDA, in 2010 they voted VVD with a very large chunk of PVV votes, in 2012 they largely voted VVD. A party that wants to become the largest party on the right and win the election needs to convince these voters. I could be horribly wrong, underestimating how unpopular Rutte is, but I think the great majority of these voters would currently be more inclined to stay with the VVD or walk to Wilders instead of choosing the CDA under boring Buma. They could go to the CDA, but not with Buma (#drafteurlings needs to be a thing imo), and probably not with their current story. That said, the CDA will doubtlessly grow somewhat, just because they're a center-right "alternative" to a rather unpopular VVD-led government. But we cannot really predict the election result since Dutch voters will change their minds countless times before the election anyway.

Exactly.  Agree with your analysis. Some regions/city's always vote the same: Utrecht votes D'66, the Biblebelt votes CU/SGP, Limburg votes PVV, Groningen SP/PvdA. The margins are with the voters  in the suburbs in the Randstad. The last election VVD knew how to appeal to these voters. My guess is that they will find a way again, already that party is presententing itself as more rightwing.

The problem for me is: I would like to vote for a traditional party if only they represented me. Now i'm forced into the PVV camp, but they are the only reliable party for key points as pro-Israël, controlled borders, law and order. I think therefor there is a huge potential for a conservative, real center-right people's party like CDA could be (compares to CSU in Bavaria).

Utrecht was a PvdA city until not long ago. I understand why people associate a city like Utrecht with D66 but it really is just left-liberal.


yes


Limburg is so electorally balkanised you can't really call it. A map of the 2010 election does indicate its PVV but that was 6 years ago. It still trends heavily towards CDA over time. It recently gave PVV a plurality in its regional election, but the PVV split the vote 50-50 with either the CDA (in the countryside/Sittard) or SP (in Maastricht and Parkstad). In Maastricht it received exactly the same amount of votes as SP for example, but was closely followed by D66 and CDA.

The only thing you can say about Limburg right now is that it will probably not vote for the government parties.


PvdA have lost the North, and that's one of the reasons I don't see it coming back from this until at least 2-3 elections. The North and urban areas in Limburg and Brabant were their base.


What I (and I think DavidB does too) find strange is that these voters will probably choose between VVD and D66. I think CDA will have a hard time convincing these people to vote for them.


The CDA has always had a Christian social wing, and the last time it associated itself with the PVV it suffered an electoral drubbing because the social wing deserted it for allying with Wilders. The CDA can just count of their usual clientelist tactics to amass a solid 15-20%, then hope for a VVD-CDA-D66 right of centre coalition.

There is no market left for the hard, conservative alt-Right. Wilders and the right-wing of the VVD have that tied up.

A majority today supported a Cuomo-like initiative by SGP, VVD and ChristenUnie to stop financing organizations that boycott Israel. Apart from these three parties, PVV, CDA, 50Plus and VNL voted for this initiative. However, this will probably turn out to be symbolic, as the government does not have a list of organizations that boycott Israel: according to Foreign Affairs minister Koenders, doing so "falls within the realm of free speech". Together with Denmark, Norway and Germany, the Netherlands is among the primary donors of anti-Israeli NGOs.

I totally agree and find myself in the exact same position, except that I don't think the potential would be "huge". But yes, some potential exists, except that it should be a lot less oriented toward Christianity and traditions than the CSU in order to attract many voters. The Dutch are thoroughly secular.

I basically agree with JosepBroz's last post, except for this:

The bottom line of this post is true -- the CDA has historically been a centrist/center-right party with a clear and vocal "left", which it didn't lose when the party drifted to the right during the Balkenende years. However, the idea that the party would have lost its left wing in the 2012 election over cooperation with the PVV seems unfounded. If anything, right-wing CDA voters who liked Balkenende in 2010 left the party to vote for the VVD in the two-horse race of 2012. The CDA left does not really have any alternatives and remains a solid force within the party, even after the cooperation with the PVV. This cooperation is widely seen as a mistake within the party, but more so among the more left-wing party members than among much of the CDA electorate. Still, renewed cooperation with the PVV seems highly unlikely and this is the main reason why the PVV will not engage in government cooperation after the next election -- neither outside the government, like last time, nor inside.

But yes, I entirely agree with the "prediction" that the CDA will get around 15% of the vote and end up in a VVD-D66-CDA-led government.

Last point, but this is perhaps more of a semantic nature: the PVV is hardly "alt right". Alt rightists, to the extent that they even exist in the Netherlands, think the PVV is too "Jewish". Also, the point was that right-wing, conservative voters don't necessarily feel at home with the VVD and with the PVV. Working-class areas like Spijkenisse will continue to vote PVV no matter what, but (lower) middle-class Vinex neighborhoods, the ones that trended VVD in the last election and will likely go PVV in the next election, could easily vote for a more conservative CDA. In order to turn to the right and attract such voters, however, the CDA would have to lose its left-wing members, which is highly unlikely.

What will be the consequences of the Brexit in the Netherlands? My view:
- on the short term: nothing will happen as PVV and SP are nowhere near a majority and the constitution doesnt allow a referendum on settled law.
- as for the elections in 2017: the EU will probably be a major subject, but the main parties will stick by a 'more effecient, cheaper, more democracy, etc' kind of message with no hard promises or measures. Because the dutch electorate tends to go for the middle, VVD and D'66 will profit.
- on laws regarding more power to Europe or new memberstates a referendum will be held each time for years to come, so that will restrain the government and limit the plans of guys like Verhofstad and Schultz.
- Conclusion: untill the next giant economic collapse (I think in the not to distant future) nothing will happen. Chances of a nexit are very small.

I'm sorry for having been silent this long. I was on a long holiday.

So what happened during the summer?
- Surprise, surprise: nothing has yet been done with the referendum result.
- Not much has changed in the polls. The last Peilingwijzer looks as follows:

()

- A PvdA leadership election will take place before the next election, which is scheduled on March 15, 2017 (although there has been some speculation that the coalition will collapse in order to provide an opportunity for both parties to avert a seemingly inevitable electoral blow, we should still assume the next election is going to take place only then). The leadership election will take place between November 24 and December 8. Diederik Samsom, current PvdA leader, will seek to be nominated again. There were rumors about popular Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb contesting in the election, but he declined and will not be a candidate. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Interior Lodewijk Asscher, who is clearly on the right of the party, will decide on his political future in October. Candidates for the leadership election can apply until October 7. It is hard to tell who would win a race between Samsom and Asscher. The latter would probably be slightly more popular in the general election (not that it matters much, at this point), but that doesn't necessarily influence the "primary", as we all know...
- Since the Turkish coup, there has been much tension between Turkish communities in the Netherlands, specifically between pro-Gülen communities and pro-Erdogan/Diyanet communities. This has occasionally led to violent incidents and intimidation. Only today, a prominent Gülen supporter in the Netherlands called for the deportation of most Diyanet imams in the Netherlands on the front page of tabloid Algemeen Dagblad. That is obviously not going to happen, but this issue will likely remain relevant.

Holidays should always come before politics imo, so that's sensible.

https://d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/Tijdpad-Tweede-Kamerverkiezing-2017-Verkiezingsprogramma.pdf

According to this schedule D66 will release a draft of their 2017 election platform tomorrow. D66 has become a lot more right wing on economic issues the past few years, so I wonder what their platform will be like.

http://www.bnr.nl/nieuws/politiek/10309553/vvd-schuift-met-nieuw-verkiezingsprogramma-richting-pvv

The VVD platform will focus on security and restricting immigration. Bruijn (the platform writer) says people worry whether the Netherlands will stay the Netherlands and whether civil rights (LGBT rights, free speech) will be protected. He also says that while we should help real refugees with no other place to go, we shouldn't cram the Netherlands with hopeless economic refugees.

The VVD will also work on improving living conditions for the elderly. You wouldn't expect something like this being a priority to the VVD, but Wilders loves to accuse the coalition of neglecting the elderly while sending billions to southern Europe, so the VVD probably hopes to win PVV voters this way.

EDIT:

Apparently the draft version of the D66 platform will be released next week:

https://d66.nl/content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/Tijdpad-Tweede-Kamerverkiezing-2017-Verkiezingsprogramma-Extern.pdf

http://nos.nl/artikel/2128155-pvv-presenteert-programma-alle-azc-s-dicht.html

The PVV just released a draft version of their manifesto:

1. No more refugees, no more immigrants from Islamic countries, close all Islamic schools, close all mosques, ban the Quran
2. Nexit
3. More direct democracy
4. Eliminate health insurance copays
5. Lower rents
6. Lower the retirement age to 65
7. Eliminate subsidies for innovation, art and wind turbines, eliminate all development aid spending, cut all NOS (the public broadcaster) funding
8. Roll back some healthcare cuts
9. More defense and police spending
10. Cut income taxes by 3 billion (roughly 0.5% of GDP, so it will be a fairly small tax cut)
11. Cut vehicle excise duty

Pathetic. I can understand the reasoning behind closing Islamic schools, but banning the Quran and closing all mosques? Wtf? Lowering the retirement age, more rent controls and eliminating health insurance copays are all terrible ideas too.

I suppose the PVV know that they're not exactly going to need to form a coalition or anything, an account of being toxic; so they might as well go fully loopy.

It's bad, but it's nothing new -- they've been saying this for years. The Qur'an ban was already in their 2012 election manifesto, and they have advocated closing all mosques since 2014. I don't really understand your surprise.

The next two posts (which I can apparently not post at once due to the limit of 11000 characters per post) discusses parties' current situation, well before the start of the general election campaign.

Dutch voters are notoriously volatile. A lot will happen before the election, and a lot of voters will end up voting differently than they now tell pollsters. Moreover, it is not clear whether the coalition will actually last until the end. If the coalition collapses before March, this will of course influence the campaign and people's opinion of both government parties. In sum, there is a lot we don't know. Still, it makes sense to discuss the parties' positions at this point, before the start of the campaign but well at the end of this government's tenure.

VVD: While the party will undoubtedly lose seats due to the government's unpopularity, the VVD's position is actually not as bad as it looks. A big seat loss looks inevitable, but if I had to place a bet on which party will end up the largest, I would say it is going to be the VVD again (it could also be the PVV, but I still think it's just not actually going to happen). The VVD should do everything to ensure the government will last, because that will look very good on the VVD and PM Mark Rutte. Many center-right Dutch people find stability important. It is these people that gave the VVD the election victory in the Provincial elections in 2015, and despite disagreements with certain government policies, they are likely to vote for the VVD in the general election too. Mark Rutte is great at campaigning. He will nevertheless face an uphill battle: people have not forgotten all of his broken promises (1000 euros for every working family, no new Greek bailout, no more transfer of sovereignty to Brussels, etc...) of the 2012 campaign and there are many voters who voted for the VVD in 2012 yet will definitely not vote for them in 2017; most of them will opt for the PVV. Again, the VVD is likely to have a very right-wing campaign in which as many VVD-PVV swing voters will be convinced that the VVD is tough enough. This will be much harder than in 2012, and the VVD will be attacked by D66 leader Pechtold for it, which may cause the VVD to lose higher educated high-income voters. But the party's floor is very high. If Wilders blows it, the VVD may very well come 1st again, allowing Rutte to form a new government.

PvdA: There's no denying that the PvdA are in dire straits. PvdA leader Diederik Samsom seems to be tone deaf: he keeps talking about the achievements of the government while not understanding that most left-wingers and most PvdA 2012 voters hate this government. He is being honest, but honesty doesn't work if people don't like what you say. It remains to be seen whether he will win his primary. Lodewijk Asscher and Ahmed Aboutaleb would be best placed to minimize the scope of the seat loss in the general election, but Aboutaleb already announced not to run and if Asscher is smart, he should also not do it (but I don't know if he is). The PvdA is going to lose at least 15 seats (they won 38/150 in 2012). Regardless of how complicated coalition formation is going to be, they will need a stint in opposition to do some soul-searching. For the party, it would probably be the best if Samson runs in the election and is dumped afterwards. It makes no sense to elect Asscher, have him lose a lot of seats and lose him too. Another issue with Asscher is that he is on the right of his party and probably even more out of touch with the average potential PvdA voter than Samsom. As Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Interior of Social Affairs, he is also deeply attached to and responsible for the current government's policies.

PVV: This is really the wildcard of the election. If Wilders is smart, he could end up leading the first radical right-wing party to become the largest in Western Europe in a first-order election, which is no small feat. But the PVV generally aren't strong campaigners. Wilders participates in the tv debates, but the party has no ground game due to the fact that it doesn't even have any members (apart from Wilders and the "Foundation for Friends of the PVV", of which the chairman is... Geert Wilders). If he doesn't make statements that are considered too extreme, he may win a lot of votes. But with Wilders you never know. The main message of the campaign is also important. In 2012, the PVV went on and on about the EU, but this was not a prominent theme in the campaign, which was mainly about the economy; in that way, Wilders made himself irrelevant. The party would be wise not to make the same mistake again. It seems security issues will be the main theme in this campaign. Of course, Wilders should do better here. The more seats the PVV win, the more difficult government formation is going to be, the more parties will have to be included in the government, and the more of a field day the PVV will have in opposition.

SP: When the main Social Democratic party of a country is part of an extremely unpopular coalition with the main right-wing party, and the coalition's policies are largely about "reforming" the economy, the main socialist party to the left of the Social Democratic should do absolutely great. All the preconditions for an SP all-time high exist. But it's not going to happen, and it's their own fault. Before the 2012 election, the SP skyrocketed in the polls -- but then party leader Emile Roemer bombed during the debates, coming off as a friendly provincial uncle who is a nice person but doesn't know anything about the 'important figures'  and cannot be trusted to lead the country. Whether justified or not, he never got rid of this image and should have been dumped after the disappointing 2012 election result. Since the SP is about as democratic as the GDR, this didn't happen, and the SP's performance in opposition can be qualified as lackluster at best. One exception: Foreign Affairs spokesman Harry van Bommel led a convincing SP campaign in the Ukraine referendum. Unfortunately for the SP, Van Bommel will retire as an MP to do something for some non-profit international organization. So the SP will likely end up with about as many seats as in 2012 (15), and possibly even fewer. Talk about missing opportunities.

CDA: The Christian Democrats suffered terribly in the last election, ending up at 13 seats, a clear all-time low. Contrary to popular belief among non-Dutch politics spergs, the CDA participating in the failed minority government supported by the PVV was not (or only to a very small extent) the reason of this loss, since the CDA left did not abandon the party in the election. The CDA mainly lost another chunk of voters to the VVD; some of whom were sympathetic to PM Balkenende and therefore voted for him in 2010, but did not want the PvdA to become the largest party in the 2012 two-horse race with the VVD. Their current level of support is somewhat higher than in the 2012 election, mainly because of the fact that tactical VVD voters have returned to the nest, but it is clear that Sybrand Buma is not one to make the CDA Great Again. It is also not clear whether this person exists at all. The CDA should improve on their 2012 performance and will be part of the next government. Expectations don't seem to be high anymore. The same goes for the energy.

D66: The social liberals surprised with their concept election manifesto, in which they announced that it will be a priority for them to make sure that young people get a permanent contract. This goes against their former policy according to which the "flexibilization of the labor market" is both a desirable and inevitable consequence of modernity and globalization. This flexibilization, however, is not popular with actual young people, who go from internship to temporary low-paid job to another internship. (While often forgotten, it is good to note that this is generally much more relevant for the highly educated than for others, but these are of course the people D66 are catering to). It seems D66 is prioritizing being a party for the young than being a party that wants to make everything even more flexible. Apart from that, D66 will come up with a relatively right-wing economic program combined with progressive views on immaterial issues (such as the legalization of MDMA/XTC, which is already used extremely liberally at many parties). For D66 leader Alexander Pechtold, this should be the last election: there is starting to be more criticism internally on the way he has become so important for D66. Regardless, D66 voters will be just fine with Pechtold and his rebuttals of Wilders' one-liners. In that regard, not much has changed compared to 2010. D66 will likely be a part of the next government. It appears Pechtold cannot wait to govern with the VVD and the CDA.

ChristenUnie: The ChristenUnie replaced their former boring leader Arie Slob with a guy who may be just as boring, Gert-Jan Segers (tbh I had to Google his name, that's how unremarkable he is). CU are not the party to say extreme things or have an extremely different election result. As a constructive party, CU may be a part of the next government if the formation process is going to be difficult, but supporting a minority government from the outside would also be an option.

GroenLinks: Terrible result in 2012, but on track for an absolutely great result -- perhaps the best ever -- in 2017. New, young leader Jesse Klaver is popular and is currently the star of the Dutch left. A Justin Trudeau lookalike (and he knows it, imitating him), Klaver is a good-looking guy who has been a GL MP for a while and wrote a book about "economism", which would be the tendency in politics to only take interest in figures and numbers instead of looking at people's needs and wants. Klaver advocates looking at issues in a less "economic" way. I don't think any of these ideas are new, but Klaver sells them as such and he is certainly good at promoting them. Many disappointed PvdA 2012 voters will end up voting for GL this time. Still, it is not clear whether Klaver will be good enough during the telly debates. Criticizing Samsom's record may be easy, but Alexander Pechtold may be a lot harder to debate. GL will be positioning themselves as most "humanist" party. Klaver already echoed Merkel's "Wir schaffen das" comment in Dutch; GL will call for taking in many more migrants.

SGP: Kees van der Staaij, who comes across as a nice and reasonable person even for those who disagree with him, is a master at getting media attention for views that the SGP has been espousing for decades. SGP billboards protesting adultery appeared along Dutch highways. The party is gaining traction among both Catholics, who think the CDA isn't conservative enough anymore, and a select group of secular conservatives, who lament the CDA's supposed leftism and the PVV's secularism. Meanwhile, birth rates among Dutch Reformed protestants remain high. Maintaining the party's current 3 seats seems realistic; winning 4 would be special, but could very well happen.

PvdD: Not much has changed in the PvdD's "act", but they have certainly become more popular. Animal Parties will always remain niche parties, but the PvdD should be able to improve on their 2012 performance -- if Jesse Klaver doesn't end up stealing the show and ruining it for them.

50Plus: Egotistical olds don't care about the dumpster fire this party is internally. Probably going to win 2-3 seats again.

Relevant split-offs that will contest in the next election:

VNL: Two-man split-off from the PVV, running a supposedly classical liberal party. The focus on security hurts their chances to win seats in the next election, because they will likely not be able to sufficiently distinguish themselves from the PVV (as opposed to economic issues). Bontes and Van Klaveren's dream is likely going to die.

DENK: Two-man split-off from the PvdA. As opposed to VNL, Kuzu and Ozturk have a very real chance of getting elected. Polarization between Turks and Dutch is beneficial for them, because it may help at maxing out the Turkish vote. I wouldn't be surprised if DENK turns out to be the single most popular party among Turkish-Dutch voters. One or two seats should be in the pocket. More may or may not happen, depending on the circumstances (such as a virtually big PVV late in the campaign).

Again, it is highly relevant to note that a lot can and will change. Tactical voting might change the picture altogether for some of the parties. But these are the situations in which the parties find themselves for now.

You're right. I don't know how I missed that. I always thought they only wanted a ban on building new mosques.

D66 wants to make sure everyone can get a permanent contract, but they also want to make it easier to fire people, so it's not like they suddenly oppose a flexible labour market.

Asscher is the Minister of Social affairs btw.

You're right, Plasterk's of course at the Interior. Asscher being at Social Affairs makes it even worse for the PvdA and for himself, come to think of it.

I once took a one-morning-long nap in a toilet booth in the Ministry of Social Affairs in Den Haag. Long story that involves lots of whisky and cannabis. Fun times.

Will there be a referendum there to leave the EU?  I know there's been talk of it.

No, because no government is ever going to organize one.

I agree with this. I do think it's still possible for the VVD to win some seats. Rutte is still pretty popular. At this moment that party is getting the credits for the state of the economy, wich is (on the surface) pretty OK. I think much will depend on who is going to lead the PvdA. When it's Samsom that party will totally collapse. With Aboutaleb or Asscher things might go differently. Also, I know quit a few CDA-voters who turned to VVD last time. I don't see them coming back to the CDA. That party just has a huge problem: poor leadership and an unclear course.

Much can happen between now and march as you say, but when I had to gamble now I would bet on a coalition of VVD, D'66 and CDA, with if necessary a fourth party like ChristenUnie or GroenLinks (seems unlikely).

Great overview btw!

Thanks. Aboutaleb won't lead the PvdA, he ruled it out already. So that leaves us with Samsom (will definitely compete in the primary), Asscher (may or may not compete), or someone else (who would have to be more than a little masochistic).

I wouldn't be surprised if the next government will be a minority government again, based on a core of VVD-CDA-D66 with various parties (CU, SGP are obvious potential partners) backing them up from the outside, on the basis of various deals. But it all depends on the seat distribution, and we all thought the coalition would include 3+ parties before the last election too, until everything changed. If, however, the field remains as fragmented as is currently the case, coalition formation will be an outright disaster.

Nexit would destroy a Dutch economy that is reliant on doing Germany's dirty work in services and exporting to there too. It would be far, far worse than brexit unless Germany decided to leave too. With London potentially losing some financial services, the Randstad is perfectly placed to take over given the high levels of English proficiency, education, and tax exemptions and legal loopholes the Hollander cliques from law school fraternities like to advertise.

Like every other right-wing populist in Europe, what the average Dutch eurosceptic wants is all the benefits of Europe without the drawbacks - these people tend to vote VVD - and then the Wilders-voting tokkies who think its an islamo-bolshevik conspiracy to destroy their country.

What they could be is the new UK if Rutte gets another term. He will go to every conference as the petulant child instead of Cameron. He was always David's best buddy at the council meetings. And he will try to siphon PVV votes as much as possible, because he can't go left without angering his party.  

[/opinion]

Also, implying tokkies know what bolsheviks are...

Speaking of opinions, what is yours on an ethnic minority importing their ''own'' conflict from ''back home'' (i.e a broken country ruled a deep state) into the host society? This should be your area of expertise after all...

Excuse you?

Let's get back to discussing Dutch politics after this very weird comment.

VNL announced Jan Roos will be its new party leader. Jan Roos is known for his provocative journalism for public broadcaster PowNed as well as for political shock blog GeenStijl. He was one of the main figures in the campaign for the referendum and against the EU Association Agreement. GeenStijl and Roos cooperated closely with VNL during that campaign, so his move was widely anticipated. I cancelled my VNL membership over this.

It doesn't seem likely that the party will obtain any seats in the coming election, since small parties aren't invited to the big telly debates and barely get any media attention during the campaign unless they do very well in the polls, which isn't the case for VNL (they're at 0). Niche parties like SGP, PvdD, 50Plus and DENK can manage without such attention, but VNL relies on it: if it doesn't get it, their target voters will just vote for the PVV (or the VVD), which is exactly what is going to happen.

I was referring to the ongoing tensions amongst Turkish minorities in the Netherlands, and the intervention of the Turkish ambassador, who 'overstepped' his mark according to the Mayor of Rotterdam, who has received backing from the CDA and SP on the matter. In Belgium too an SP.a member got expelled for being an outspoken pro-Erdogan supporter and is thinking of setting a similar party to DENK. The N-VA condemned Turkish people for bringing in their politics to the country, all while preparing legislation for Belgian tax exiles abroad to be able to vote!

Of course, in an ideal world, De Wever is right. Ethnic minorities should not bring their conflicts from back home with them into the country and onto our streets. But, then again, as evidenced by the toxic Israel-Palestine debate, parties are more than willing to adopt stances to please such minorities - some of whom have never even set foot in the region - in order to win votes. This is where we can hear your expertise, DavidB, since you seem to judge candidates, whether in the US or Netherlands, based on how strongly they represent the Israeli right-wing's interests...

Are you seriously doubling down on this? It was perfectly clear what you were referring to, no need to waste any words on making explicit your implications, which are frankly kind of racist -- it doesn't exactly look good on you. My comment on DENK's electoral chances was purely factual... You may disagree with my outlook, but your personalized comments are clearly uncalled for (and your assumptions on my views regarding Turkish Dutch people having opinions of the political unrest in Turkey are 100% wrong, which makes it even sadder) and you know it. I urge you to keep your issues with the views you think I have outside this thread. Preferably outside this forum too. Thanks.

So is DANK an Islamist party or merely a Turkish minority interest group?

Islamist they are not, but obviously they support pro-Muslim policies. They will probably be primarily  a Turkish party (especially when it comes to the initial voter base), but pretend not to be solely a Turkish party and there is some merit to that: from their voting behavior and their remarks in parliament one can tell they try to advocate all "ethnic minority interests", including Moroccans and Surinamese (but, needless to say, excluding Armenians, Kurds, and Jews). For example, they also want a museum on Dutch colonial crimes, oppose Dutch Krampus "Zwarte Piet", and asked parliamentary questions when "driving while black" issues occurred. Whether this attempt to include Surinamese is genuine or simply based on electoral calculations is not entirely clear to me, but I get the impression that it may well be the former option.

Where on earth did you get the implication that I was being racist towards ethnic minorities? I'm not saying all ethnic minorities do this, I'm saying some people from ethnic minorities bring their home politics into ours, and they have a right to do this, but as De Wever says it can create problems, like the ones we are seeing right now in Belgium and the Netherlands. Here's another example of that : http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/08/one-in-five-children-withdrawn-from-amsterdam-school-linked-to-turkish-gulen-movement/

The issue had not been brought up yet so I brought it up. Obviously with the tong-in-cheek reference to Israel-Palestine and your stance on it. I thought it was a fairly harmless comment though. I guess I was mistaken and I'm sorry.

Okay, let's unravel this "miscommunication" then. It started with this post:

I will believe you if you say you intended to make a harmless, tongue-in-cheek comment, aimed at starting a discussion about the issue of tensions between Turkish Dutch communities in the Netherlands, but it seemed as if the entire point of this post revolved around making a gotcha at my expense. Apparently, I am an ethnic minority bothering my "host society" (interesting implications here) with "my" ethnic conflict. Okay.

Moreover, most people view something like that as undesirable, so it clearly looks like an accusation. I also thought, though, to be fair, cannot substantiate this, that you seemed to accuse me of hypocrisy by opposing DENK, yet supporting politicians who are pro-Israel.

Then your clarification:
While it is still not explicit, it seems like you accuse me of being hypocritical. My reasons to dislike DENK include me thinking their policies would be harmful for the Netherlands and for my Jewish community. My reasons to dislike DENK do not include them being Turkish, or them having opinions of the unrest in Turkey in itself. I think it is legitimate for Turkish Dutch people to support a party they think best represents their views on this issue, and I think it is legitimate for a political party to represent these people. If there were 300.000 Jews in the Netherlands and I would think my community's wants and needs were being ignored by the existing political parties, I would absolutely form a party, represent my community's views and defend their interests. This is what DENK does, and it is all perfectly legitimate. I abhor many of their views (though agree with a few too), but it's a disagreement similar to my disagreements with, for instance, D66 or the SP. No double standard here.

By contrast, you think "ethnic minorities should not bring their conflicts from back home with them into the country and onto our streets", which, indeed, makes explicit your accusation at my address -- this is, after all, apparently my "area of expertise". I disagree with you (at least when it comes to the non-violent part of "bringing the conflict to the country"; of course intimidation, violence have no place here). I think it is fully legitimate for a Turkish Dutch voter to vote for DENK if they support Erdogan and disapprove of Dutch or EU foreign policy on the issue (even if I may disagree with this opinion). I think it is fully legitimate for a Kurdish Dutch voter to vote for the SP if they find it important that the PKK be removed from the list of terror organizations (even if I may disagree with this opinion). I think it is also fully legitimate for a Jewish Dutch voter to vote for the SGP if they think it is important that the Netherlands stop actively promoting a two-state solution. I don't think any of these motivations are intrinsically less legitimate than an ethnic Dutch person voting for the VVD to prevent the tax deduction on mortgages from being scrapped. I don't think minorities should be required to leave at home the issues they care about when they vote, and vote on the basis of Approved White Issues instead. I would call that attitude implicitly racist, because minorities' concerns are considered less legitimate than the concerns of the Dutch (or Belgian, or w/e) majority. To be fair, in your last comment you acknowledge people's "right to do this", but it still comes across as if you accuse me of voting on the basis of issues (or rather one issue) you consider to be illegitimate to base one's vote on. And I disagree with that. (It is also not true that I solely vote on the basis of Israel, even if it is certainly very important for me. I know a few -- much less integrated -- people who do, though, and I don't find that to be illegitimate. I see the philosophical case of why it would be problematic, but as long as this is only applied to minorities, I think one would be cherry-picking.)

So, these comments of yours, essentially based on my ethnicity and voting behavior, basically came out of nowhere, and I hope the above clarification helps you understand why they looked pretty hostile to me.

As for the issue itself: it is very unfortunate. I hope tensions will calm down and kids will be able to go to school in quiet again. I don't think there is much more to say.

The SP came up with their list for the 2017 election. It still has to be approved by the party membership, but it can be expected that not much will change. 9 out of the current 15 MPs are back on the list (all in the top 17). Most prominent leaving MPs are Harry van Bommel, Foreign Affairs spokesman and leader of the SP campaign in the 2016 Ukraine referendum (and, if I'm not mistaken, the 2005 SP campaign against the European Constitution), Sharon Gesthuizen, whose attempt to beat Ron Meyer and become party chair was not appreciated by the party elite, and Paul Ulenbelt, who has been an SP MP since 2006.

The most prominent new candidate is Lilian Marijnissen on #3, the daughter of former party leader (1994-2008) Jan Marijnissen. She's supposed to be a big political talent, but I'm not entirely sure if she really is, or that her father simply wants her to be. I guess we will find out, because she's sure to be elected. Another new candidate is Sandra Beckerman (#6), SP leader in Groningen province who fought against the government's (now annulled) decision to continue drilling up a lot of gas despite inhabitants' concerns over the ongoing problems with earthquakes and, by doing so, made the SP the largest party in Groningen in 2015. Third highest newcomer on the list is Cem Lacin (#10), who used to work for worker's union FNV.

Emile Roemer will lead the SP once again.

This is a completely different case and not a good comparison. Ofcourse people can support a party for certain minority issues. Imo the problem starts when those people have a double nationality. It's unacceptable that Turkish law would we forced upon Dutch citizens.


Can you give a specific example of this?

Supporting a party like DENK for minority issues, or supporting parties like VVD and SP solely for their respective stances on Israel-Palestine, is a sure sign of failed integration, as well as using the minority's political weight (although I stress again : minorities do not block vote for parties, despite certain insinuations in this thread, which could be categorized as bigoted at the very least) in order to force a foreign policy issue on the average Dutch citizen.

What has the unqualified defense of the Israeli governments or Palestinian actions got to do with Dutch Jews or Dutch Arabs that have never set foot on the Holy Land before? Why do certain societies posing as ''Jewish'' defense societies in fact pursue a Zionist, sometimes Ultra-Zionist agenda in the Dutch political landscape, when their function is to integrate Jews into Dutch society? Is that not forcing a specific foreign policy, as well as a danger, on Dutch citizens who want nothing to with a conflict?




Look at Onno Hoes, Mayor of Maastricht who spent most of his time lobbying for the defense of Israeli governmental actions that are widely unpopular outside the hard right of the Netherlands. Here in Belgium we have parties that will never get a defense ministry like PTB/PVDA who talk about Palestine as if its a major issue. Emir Kir of PS refused the Armenian genocide minute of silence, and I believe your DENK members of the chamber did likewise.

I think there should be a debate about how foreign policy is conducted, but it should be about state interests and/or values rather than parties vying for minorities' votes in a tribalistic alliance. The same should apply when dealing with Turkey and the Turkish naturalized minorities. They keep their conflicts off the political agenda, or they simply give up their right to a vote, as you say they should.

Oh wow. This is truly becoming a trainwreck. Perhaps you should set up a different thread on minorities' influence on foreign policy in order not to derail this one even further, if it bothers you this much. Anyway, I can't keep myself from replying...

Though my vote is certainly not entirely based on Israel, it plays an important role. I suppose I have failed to integrate then, despite being a native speaker of Dutch, growing up in the polder, and holding a cum laude master's degree from a Dutch university. Not good! Assimilate I shall!

To be sure, while I am critical of the Israeli government (I don't think any government ever gets "unqualified support" from me), I generally go to Israel twice a year, and I always make sure to spend some of my time volunteering in the settlements :)


What danger exactly? Also, which "defense societies" ( ??? ) claim to be Jewish? Why do you draw a distinction between Jewish and Zionist? What does Ultra-Zionist mean? Where does Zionism become Ultra-Zionist? Also, LMAO at Jewish organizations existing "to integrate Jews into Dutch society". Surely we need some more help to learn the language, or to get out of our ghettos.

Edit: never mind, I don't really want you to clarify this and derail the thread even further.

Onno Hoes was chairman of CIDI, which is a part-time and mostly symbolic job; the daily activities of CIDI are in the hands of the director. So no, he did not spend "most of his time" lobbying for Israel. Hannah Luden is currently CIDI director. Luden, married to PvdA MP Ed Groot (who voted against a motion to combat antisemitism in the education system, so much for Luden being influential), is a noted dove and supporter of the Israeli Labor Party. Long-term CIDI director Ronny Naftaniel supports the PvdA, and Esther Voet, who left CIDI within a few years, is on the left of the VVD. Contrary to scaremongering in Dutch society, CIDI is a moderate organization (too moderate for my taste), supporting a two-state solution and generally falling in line with the Israeli center/left more than with the current government; for this reason, SP MP Harry van Bommel, hardly a staunch Zionist (remember "Intifada, Intifada"?), has been a guest at several CIDI events in recent years. MPs of all parties -- except for the PVV -- are willing to go to CIDI events. Of course this always provokes comments about (((Jewish money))) and Dutch politicians being bought etc., but to me it shows that CIDI is a moderate organization that is widely accepted across the political spectrum as a legitimate and constructive actor  -- except, as I said, by the PVV, which boycotts CIDI because it would be anti-Israel and anti-Jewish (and too anti-PVV). That's how "ultra-Zionist" or "hard right" CIDI is. As someone who is critical of CIDI yet knows the organization well, I don't get the impression you know what you're talking about.

Lol yeah, because only "real" (wink wink, this means white) Dutch people get to decide on which issues they base their vote, amirite?! Marxist Marnix (19), living in his parents' attic room, is allowed to vote for the SP because he has Very Strong Feelings about Palestine (or Rojava, for that matter) despite never having travelled father than the Ardeche and getting his news from NowThis, but DavidB. and someone who has a Turkish passport cannot, because, well, that would be a sign of Bad Integration. Double standards if I ever saw them, but it's all good if you sport a G-[XX] avatar.

How tolerant.

OK, this nice conversation should be about over now. Clean up, move on and stay on topic folks.

Excellent idea. Some interesting polls then. Support for the following policies on the basis of current party vote, age, and education.

()

From most to least popular:
Ending free-market competition in the healthcare system
Investing 2 billion in defense and police
Ending death duties for children of the deceased
Pension age should be 65 again [from 67 now, DavidB.]
Prioritizing the improvement of purchasing power for the elderly
Not admitting any more asylum seekers
Implementing a binding referendum
Implementing 3-month paternity leave
All contracts should become permanent, but it should become easier to fire people [proposed D66 policy, DavidB.]
Leave the EU
Closing down all asylum seeker centers

FTFY

I see that Hoog, Midden and Laag mean high, medium, and low. What does that translate to in US/UK terms?

It's about education levels. High means university + "associate degrees", the level under university (which would probably still be college in the US, but the less good ones). Medium is comparable to US community college, I think. Low is only high school (except the highest level of high school, I think; differentiation on the basis of intelligence already takes place at age 12/13 in the Dutch system) or less.

Thanks, btw. Edited my post. What was wrong with the way I did it? It used to work fine like that.

Not a clue, I'm afraid. I just noticed the imgur link wasn't working and tired the other way :P

Funny, even SP voters are for a 2 billion increase in defense/police budget (60% majority). Didnt that used to be a pacifist party? And another one: 64% of SP voters are in favor of a referendum, while only 15% of D'66 voters is in favor of that! That party was practically founded to institute the referendum :)

The CDA now came up with their list too. All incumbent MPs are on the new list. Sybrand van Haersma Buma will continue leading the party. Right-wing Mona Keijzer, who appeals to middle-class, slightly conservative women (or at least attempts to do so...), returns on #2; Pieter Omtzigt, one of the most visible MPs, returns on #4 after being elected with 36,750 preferential votes on #39 in the last election (he was the only theoretically unelectable MP elected on the basis of preferential votes). Omtzigt, who hails from the rural east of the country, concerns himself with fiscal issues but also with the EU, Christian minorities in the Middle East, and the aftermath of the MH17 attack. He is very good at digging up stuff the government thinks it can get away with. The media love him. The party elite used to dislike him, which is why they put him on #39 in the last election despite being an incumbent MP, but after the election they had to recognize he is someone who is valuable for the CDA.

Highest newcomers on the list are Rene Peters (#3) from the south, Harry van der Molen (#7) from the northern province of Friesland, and 29-year old Anne Kuik (#11) from Groningen -- all pretty much nobodies.

I do like Omtzigt, the CDA should appoint him as leader of the party. I think he is really good in debates and one of few people in the party that is a consistent thinker. Mona Keijzer is an absolute lightweight. I really dont understand why they keep giving her such high positions. Poor CDA, it'll go from bad to worse in march.

A dutch law was passed yesterday to make people organ donors by default. This will save me all the bureaucratic mess if i ever live in the NL again. More interestingly, the vote - proposed by D66 - was passed 76-75, with a PvdDieren (animal rights) MP missing the vite. For some reason he/his party was against it?

Rutte also was criticised for saying that the Dutch citizens supporting Erdoğan after the coup should "bugger off back to Turkey". Pechtold was particularly vehement in parliament, while Asscher gave a moderate response.

Election season has well and truly started.

The vote was 74-75, indeed because one member of the PvdD was absent. I think that party is against the law, because of the right for self-determination (not sure if this is a correct translation). Also: the VVD allowed their members to vote their own conscience. 7 Members voted in favor of the law, 33 against. I'm not sure it will pass in the Eerste Kamer (the Senate). Personally im really against this law, so I hope not.

Rutte is really in campaign-mode again, showing himself as the law-and-order PM he is (not).

So which parties voted for/against the bill?

For : PvdA, D66, SP, GroenLinks, 50Plus and 7 VVDers

Against : SGP, 20 odd VVD, CU, CDA, PvdD (Only Thieme voted though), PVV, and one PvdA.

I don't understand why this is a bad law, given the heavy bureaucratic nature of having to put yourself on the organ donor list, it should be up to those who passionately don't wish to donate to send those letters. Most people don't care or say yes when you ask them, but don't bother to send the letter.

 Spain employs a similar system and it has worked wonders

I would not have expected such a topic to fall into such a clear(ish) left-right divide. For example I would have expected at least some of the PVV to be in favor, but I guess MUH STATE-DICTATORSHIP.

There were 33 VVD MP's that voted against the law. Yesterday in the TV-program Nieuwsuur (http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2132193-verdeeldheid-over-de-nieuwe-donorwet.html?title=verdeeldheid-over-de-nieuwe-donorwet) there was a VVD-senator that explained the objections.

The law clearly violates article 11 of the Constitution: 'Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.'

The fact that 'most people don't care' (btw: i wouldn't presume to speak for most people) doesn't allow the state to take control of my body. Before or after death: the principle stands.

I looks like the law won't pass senate. I find it hard te believe that a 'liberal' party, like D'66 claims it is, creates and supports a law like this. It shows that there really isn't any consistent thinking within that party. Al they want to do is put society into a liberal straitjacket.

It is clear JosepBroz on the one hand and Dutch Conservative and I on the other hand are going to disagree on virtually all issues (because yeah, I vehemently disagree with this law too). While many such issues may, indeed, be highly interesting to discuss, I don't think this thread is really the right place for doing so. In this thread I will try to remain as neutral as possible during the course of the election season.

Some factual things:

DENK and VNL opposed the initiative too.

It's not really much of a hassle to change your donor status, at least for those who have internet. You can do it in three minutes. No need to send a letter.

Thieme, by the way, is a Seventh-day Adventist. This may very well play a role in the party's decision to oppose the law; on the basis of a line of reasoning similar to the Christian parties', Thieme has showed she is uncomfortable with this law, which would give the government too much power. By the way, if PvdD MP Frank Wassenberg would not have been delayed, the vote would have been 75-75 and the initiative would not have been passed.

It is also good to point out that it doesn't matter whether this law is "against the constitution" or not. Dutch courts have no opportunity for constitutional review. If the Senate will pass the law, the new system will be implemented.

In the meantime, the government has had a difficult time keeping up the website on which one can change one's donor status. Since the passing of the law in parliament, 23.000 people have registered themselves on the website, with 19.000 of them saying "no". Remarkably, 4.500 people who had previously given permission for organ donation now changed their status to "no" as well, presumably because they disagree with the proposed law.

I don't think that's entirely true. Firstly: indeed, constitutional review isn't a formal role/task of the courts. You cannot go to the Supreme Court with the argument that a law is against the Constitution (compared to US by example). But the Council of State Act (Raad van State) can give advice about laws and it has been critical about this new law. Secondly: the historically the First Chamber/Senate is a reflective chamber. A new law should not contradict existing law. The Constitution is part of existing law, so in that way there should be constitutional review. In the famous 'Nacht van Wiegel' about the referendum-law Wiegel used this argument.

Right, but the Raad van State is only an advisory body and the Senate, while a chambre de réflexion, is ultimately not a judicial but a political institution, even if some senators may take into account legal and constitutional considerations. Unless the initiative contravenes international law, which seems highly unlikely, the ultimate decision on this law will be a political one, not a legal one, even if legal and constitutional arguments do play a role.

You're absolutely right.

The 2017 budget will be released next week. Like always the most important provisions have already been leaked. After years of austerity the government suddenly found 1.5 billion to invest in healthcare, defense, education and police and 1 billion to make sure nobody will be off worse next year. It's the last budget before the election, so you could have expected it. The deficit will be 0.7% of GDP.

Economic growth is projected to be 1.7%. It's a shame the coalition and opposition didn't manage to come to an agreement on tax reform in 2015, I'm sure that could have boosted economic growth and job creation. The Dutch tax code is really bad imo. Because there are a lot of deductions (mainly the mortgage interest deduction, which costs something like 13 billion/2% of GDP) income tax rates are fairly high (36.55%, 40.4% and 52%). Stamp duty (6%) and the wealth tax (currently 1.2% for anything above 20k but it will become more progressive in 2017) also are terrible. A lot of products are taxed on the low VAT rate (6%) instead of on the normal rate of 21%. And the corporate tax rate isn't really that competitive anymore (25%). But the VVD isn't going to limit the mortgage interest deduction in a meaningful way while the other parties probably don't really want to raise the lower VAT rate (especially not on groceries, imagine the PVV/SP outrage).

Many think Kunduz raising the higher VAT rate from 19% to 21% was a very bad decision and say that the current government not reverting that decision unnecessarily slowed down economic recovery in 2013 and 2014. To raise the lower VAT rate would be even more unpopular, so yeah, definitely not happening.

The current government talked a lot about reforming the tax code, but doing so proved to be too controversial and no substantial changes were made. Of course, the fact that the government lacks a majority in the Senate did not help either. This year's Prinsjesdag budget is supposed to be very uncontroversial. Unpopular budget cuts in the healthcare sector are reverted. There is also much focus on increasing the purchasing power of the elderly. Of course, this has nothing to do with the upcoming general election ::)

Mvd10, do you know what changes were eventually made with regard to the the mortgage interest deduction? I have not followed that saga (not a homeowner). It was one of the big themes of the 2010 election, the Rutte-I parties did not change anything, but what happened afterwards?

Your wealth tax is on anything over $20,000 euros? That's ridiculous; worse than any proposal I've seen by our lefty avatars (sans the commies of course). Was it just never adjusted for inflation or did someone actually implement it at roughly $20k in today's money?

I may have to start supporting libertarian parties in the Netherlands.

The maximum value of the deduction will be limited to 38% (0.5% a year so it will take 28 years before it's fully phased in).

And the wealth tax will be made more progressive next year. The first 25k will be exempt. You'll pay 0.87% over the next 75k, 1.4% over the next 850k and 1.65% over anything above that. I actually thought this proposal didn't pass the senate because the centrist/centre-right opposition parties were opposed to it but apparently it did pass the senate.

Is there any party running on ending the mortgage-taxreduction? I think the CDA had a flat-tax plan in the past, but I don't know wether they still have.

VNL wants a flat tax (of 23% or so, I think) and intends to abolish all special plans (also including huurtoeslag and zorgtoeslag) that necessitate the govt to pump around a lot of money, which is inefficient, and also make the tax code so difficult. Apparently it is possible to do that in a budget neutral way. This would of course cause income inequality to skyrocket.

Are we talking 20,000 € a month, a year, or in assets ? Because the latter two would be absolutely insane, I concur. The former, however, I would easily be on board.

In the polling average, VVD is closer to PVV than they have been for a long time. Although, I guess that will not really matter for anything else than optics, but it also means that the difference between VVD and the other potential government parties has increased somewhat, making it even more likely that Rutte can continue as PM.

Quirksmode polling average:

PVV 27 seats
VVD 26
CDA 17
D66 16
SP 15
GL 13
PvdA 11
50 Plus 9
CU 7
PvdD 4
SGP 3
DENK 1
VNL 1

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html

50+ on 9 seats? I can see them joining a VVD-CDA-D66 government, or at least holding their majority. A scary thought.

Also, VVD will have a net seat loss of close to 14. Rutte is far from out of the firing line, especially if the combined left leaves him no option.

Indeed, the VVD is now even larger than the PVV in Peilingwijzer's polling average:

()

The VVD will end up with around 30 seats, probably as the largest party. Since the 2012 result was inflated because of the two-horse race, that means a "real" loss of approximately 7 seats. This logic is used by party members too. Again, I am hardly a supporter of the current VVD and I will probably not vote for them (am currently inclined to vote SGP), but that would objectively not be a bad result for a party that has led the government for almost seven years now -- particularly in the Netherlands, where governing means losing. I don't think Rutte will be in trouble with a result like that. Remember that the VVD are an applause machine. Unless huge changes in the polls occur during the campaign (which is well within the realm of possibilities, since this is the Netherlands), Rutte is going to remain PM.

And yes, if (big if) 50Plus really end up holding more than 5 seats, they could easily be necessary to sustain a VVD-CDA-D66 coalition from the outside. That would be a big setback for D66 in particular.

I don't know what JosepBroz means when talking about the "combined left". PvdA, SP, GL and PvdD are on 44 seats in the Peilingwijzer. D66 prefer to govern with the VVD and the CDA and are not "left" in any meaningful way. CDA also prefer to govern with the VVD and D66, and unlike in 2012, there will be no large party on the left that is ready to take over control in the event that the VVD end up being too demanding. Of course, VVD-CDA-D66 are in deep sh**t if they don't have a majority even with outside support from CU, SGP, and 50Plus, but Rutte stepping down wouldn't be very important for left-wing parties (GL?); they would likely focus on policy issues.

I mean that the combined left + the PVV (who will de facto vote against any government if they are excluded) voting against a centrist government with Rutte as its head is a possibility. Rutte would have to step down if he fails to build a majority. If he has to incorporate GL or PvdA in the coalition his party will hate him.

Alternatively I think the PVV could suffer like the SP did in 2012 when people watch the debates and realise that voting for them is ultimately a wasted vote. They will get 20 seats. Quote this on election day to make me look like an idiot.

Ah, the Swedish option. That is, of course, exactly the reason why any minority government has to have an effective parliamentary majority in the sense that the government needs to have the support of a minimum of 76 MPs even if the governing parties' number of seats does not add up to that number. And this is the reason why VVD-CDA-D66 are in deep sh**t if they don't have a majority with CU, SGP and 50Plus. In that case, a Belgian scenario cannot be ruled out, although I must say the flexibility of Dutch politicians after elections never ceases to amaze me. But yes, getting GL or PvdA on board to sustain such a right-wing government (at least on the economy) from the outside is really not going to happen. Basically, the larger the PVV becomes, the harder government formation will be. But regarding Rutte, I don't think there is an alternative to a coalition based on VVD-CDA-D66. Even in the event of a snap election in October 2017, triggered by a government formation crisis, I am not convinced Rutte would have to step down.

The PVV are going to lose some more virtual seats, I think, for the reason you describe, but I'd expect them to still end up with 24-27 seats. I would be surprised if they don't improve on their 2010 result, especially considering the fact that security (as opposed to the economy) seems to become the main election theme. At the same time, I don't think your estimate is a particularly strange one. Chances that they win 20 seats are higher than chances that they win 30 seats, imo (quote this on election day to make me look like an idiot).

I could see the VVD end up with more than 30 seats. Today I talked with some colleagues about politics. Some said: I'm not a big VVD fan, but I think Rutte has done a decent job. Its anecdotal I know, but as things stand now: I think the PM-bonus could be quit big this election. Especially when the economy holds out untill march. I could see the VVD end up with around 40 seats. Then a CDA+D'66 (I think many people are a bit tired of Pechtold) becomes a scenario, but probably still some seats short. The combination of CU+SGP could deliver about 8-10 seats, so then we are looking to a 5-party centre-right liberal-christian coalition. At this moment I would put my money on this scenario.

I agree. 40 seats is a bit much though: they really maxed out in 2012 because of the two-horse race, and the broken election promises in 2012 have left some PVV-VVD swing voters really pissed off; many of them will not even consider the VVD this time around. However, I could easily see the VVD win something like 34-37 seats. The mood is very positive for the VVD, and they are excellent at campaigning, much better than all the other parties. Rutte's "pleur op" remark (and other parties' outrage over that) already did a great job at giving right-wing voters the subconscious impression that the VVD care more about security than about political correctness, whatever that even means, and that will be valuable in an election campaign focused on security issues. Of course this remark has no policy consequences whatsoever, so it's an incredibly easy way to court voters, but we both know that's how Dutch politics works...

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building. (Especially the parties huge underperformance at local levels)

I'm not quite sure I really understand what you mean. The PVV are (or rather: Geert Wilders is) still an extremely strong "brand" among their potential voters and they have a rather high floor in terms of seats. I am skeptical about the potential success of an alternative to the PVV, especially after witnessing the failure of the trainwreck that is VNL. Due to the mere presence of the PVV, the VVD have to move to the right all the time in order to court VVD-PVV swing voters. So even while perpetually in opposition, the PVV exert a certain degree of influence on policy. That said, people may stop believing Wilders, just like Flemish voters stopped believing Vlaams Belang when it was in opposition for too long. If the PVV does not change course, I doubt it will be around in ten years (though an alternative to the/this PVV certainly will). But for now, Wilders will stick around regardless of the election result. It is not as if he has many other options in life by now. And as long as he sticks around, I don't think there is any space for another populist right-wing party or movement.

It doesn't underperform at the local level. It simply decides not to stand at a local level, except The Hague and Almere, where it performs well. Most big cities have a PVV equivalent half-endorsed by Wilders.

We talked about the durability of such a party system (a party that has two members remember, both of them being Geert Wilders), and while I thought that the PVV would implode I now think Wilders' image is so anti-establishment and er, deplorable, it works far more effectively than the "intellectual" right-populism of VNL, especially with the tokkies, white supremacists, and anti-Scheveningen peripheral regions.

His program for the election is a total shambles compared to the last one though.

It was not his election program but only a "concept election program" aka media stunt. They will doubtlessly come up with a larger election program, which is, indeed, going to be more radical than the 2012 one. I don't know if you ever read the 2012 one, but frankly, that one was already rather embarrassing in terms of style ("bye bye, wind turbines!"). Amusing for sure, but parties should take their voters seriously; that election manifesto (https://www.pvv.nl/images/stories/verkiezingen2012/VerkiezingsProgramma-PVV-2012-final-web.pdf) was an insult to any and all readers.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by anti-Scheveningen, but the term Scheveningen is certainly not used as pars pro toto for The Hague ;) Scheveningen is actually known as a working-class part of The Hague (though it has extremely rich neighborhoods too), containing some of the most pro-PVV neighborhoods in the entire country, Duindorp being one of the rare pockets of actual white supremacist support in NL. People in certain peripheral (and non-peripheral) areas dislike "The Hague", but when thinking of Scheveningen they will think of the pier and the beach :)

I largely agree with the rest of your post.

Meanwhile, a D66 initiative to introduce a pilot in which municipalities have the right to coordinate the legal production of weed now appears to have a majority in parliament. VNL announced that it had changed its position, presumably because their new party leader Jan Roos likes to blaze it. This initiative, which will likely be discussed soon, would open the door to changing the current status-quo (which has existed since the 70s) on the basis of which weed can be sold legally in so-called coffeeshops, yet cannot be produced legally. This, in turn, would be a step toward the full legalization of the entire production and sales process of weed. However, it is doubtful whether the initiative will pass in the increasingly important Senate: the proponents of the law (PvdA, SP, D66, GL, PvdD, 50Plus, VNL, DENK) do not have a majority in the upper house.

A few questions:

1) I thought SGP were a testimonial party? Or does that only apply to participating in cabinets?

2) The impression I get from most of European politics is that the cordon sanitaire outweighs economic concerns in forming government. What makes Dutch politics different?

3) Forgive me if you've explained this before, but why are you, a not particularly socially conservative Jew, voting for SGP?

It is highly unlikely that the SGP will actually participate in a government, but I would say that the SGP has moved from being a "testimonial party" without actual influence toward a party that does seek to exert influence. The current political fragmentation simply enables the party to do so. In the past, governments had majorities in the upper house and the lower house, leaving little room for bargaining to parties outside the government. Outside the parliamentary arena, however, broad consensus was sought among various interest groups (unions etc.) on any changes regarding the socio-economic status quo. Nowadays, however, coalitions are much more fragile and the SGP's seats have suddenly come to matter. I would say it is not the SGP that has changed, but political reality. During the Rutte-I minority government we saw that the SGP was willing to lend the government a helping hand, but at the same time it has its own demands, and if these demands were not met, support was not guaranteed. The SGP is currently a "constructive opposition party" necessary for senatorial majorities in various policy areas and would be a likely potential partner for any minority government in need of support.

There is no official cordon sanitaire in the Netherlands. Belgium is the only European country in which an official cordon sanitaire against the radical right exists, and to a certain degree one could say that the Sweden Democrats and AfD have been "ostracized" to the extent that one can speak of a cordon sanitaire too (at least on the national level), but that is not the case in the Netherlands. Parties currently rule out the possibility to govern with the PVV, but the VVD would be willing to change that stance in the event that the PVV moderates its views. Currently, however, the PVV are simply too far away ideologically from the other parties to be a partner in government cooperation.

I'm saying I'm inclined to vote for the SGP, but I haven't decided yet. I did vote for the SGP in the Provincial election (and thereby, more importantly, for the Senate) and have no regrets. The SGP do what they say. You know what to expect from them, and what not to expect. There is no party I fully agree with. Indeed, the SGP's views on "social issues" are not exactly mine, but at the same time their worldview doesn't really bother me and their position on many of these issues is either not all that bad or simply irrelevant. I don't think euthanasia should become even easier than it is now, gay rights have been fully realized politically and nothing is going to change in that regard, I am pro-life, and while I think weed should be legal I ultimately don't think this is a very important issue, particularly so in a country where weed is cheaper and sometimes easier to buy than wine. On most other issues, they are spot on: right-wing economically but in a socially conscious way, critical of immigration and the EU without getting "off the rails", as pro-Israel as it could possibly get (anti-2SS), and in favor of religious freedom, including on issues such as ritual slaughter and circumcision. It's pretty good and they never disappointed me: you know what you're going to get. But, as I said, I am not sure about it yet.

Most religious Jews (not that there are many) in the Netherlands vote SGP or VVD.

I'll try to rephrase, I guess. The PVV (Wilders) is effectively unable to gain power (and seemingly disinterested in doing so after their experience with Rutte 1 - one could troll and claim they are the last testimonial party left). I understand that suits Wilders, but surely some of his lieutenants or subordinates (who can't all be autonomous drones) get irritated that the party is effectively capped in its support? Especially if they look at parties like the FPO or DPP that are effectively becoming part of the government furniture in all levels of government.

Now that I think about it, is there a heir apparent to succeed Wilders as Populist right leader?

PVV only has 2 members, Wilders and a foundation controlled by Wilders.

This happened countless times already, and it seems clear that everyone who leaves loses. Wilders' personal "brand" is simply too strong for others to try and form a successful, more moderate populist right-wing party. Hero Brinkman left and tried it, Van Klaveren and Bontes left and formed VNL and tried it (and they could perhaps win 1-2 seats, but that's almost irrelevant)... It seems people don't want a watered down copy, people want the real thing. Funnily enough, former MP Wim Kortenoeven's departure from the PVV may have hurt the party the most.

Kortenoeven is close to the Jewish community and could not live with the fact that the party wanted a ban on unstunned ritual slaughter (now they want to ban it altogether, even if the animals are stunned, which is even weirder and reeks of bullying). What did it in was the fact that total loony MP Dion Graus made remarks that can be considered classic anti-Semitic, something like "Jews like to torture animals." So Kortenoeven voted against the proposal, left the party, went straight to America and told all the American Jewish PVV donors about what had happened. This all happened just before the 2012 election. Dutch regulation doesn't require parties to be transparent about their sources of financing but it's safe to say Dion Graus has cost the PVV a lot of money. Since he's stupid and crazy (and a wifebeater) and not someone you really want to have around, many people suspect Graus knows something about Wilders that should remain a secret -- for shutting up, Graus can be a moron, talk about animal rights and stay on as an MP. (Of course this is all totally irrelevant to what you asked, but it is a funny anecdote, I think.)

Many people left the party, but none have actually been able to set up anything successful. Toppling Wilders from within is impossible, mainly because of the party structure (MaxQue mentioned it already). Wilders is extremely afraid of others undermining his position to the extent that he is sometimes portrayed as a little dictator. Books have been written about the internal relations within the PVV, and the party sometimes truly comes across as a cult. That is not strange, because you leave everything behind when you start becoming active for the PVV: people lose friends over it, know they won't be able to find a job afterwards anymore, etc. PVV politicians receive a lot of threats too. It all requires a certain level of devotion (and awe for the party leader) that simply isn't necessary to work for (or be a politician in) other parties. By now, I think everyone who would really want to undermine Wilders' position has left already (especially after the "fewer Moroccans" speech, which was not discussed with anyone before and led to a lot of people leaving).

People within the PVV also seem to be convinced that they are absolutely doing the right thing. They are not fazed by the fact that the party is led in what can be considered a shockingly ineffective way (by which I mean that the party could have exerted a lot more influence over policy by moderating style and substance). Of course, there is a lot of group think at play here, especially given the circumstances I just referred to. I don't know what they have in mind -- do they think other parties will eventually come around, do they think they will end up winning so many seats other parties simply cannot make policy without them, or do they simply think they are "doing the right thing" by "telling it like it is" and that (indeed, completely in the fashion of a testimonial party) futilities like power and influence over policy don't matter? Perhaps the fact that PVV MPs earn a lot of money also plays a role (remember they will probably never be able to find a job elsewhere). Maybe they don't care anymore. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that Wilders can basically do whatever he wants. The Dutch left should really feel blessed over the fact that the PVV has become so radical and thereby rendered itself largely irrelevant. And as I said, this is unlikely to change as long as Wilders sticks around. And there is no heir apparent.

Apparently, former PVV MPs leaked internal PVV e-mails to the Algemeen Dagblad. I have translated some of the conclusions.

"Fleur Agema is deputy parliamentary group leader and, according to insiders, she has descended in the hierarchy. In e-mails seen by AD, Wilders depicts her as "stupider than stupid". Martin Bosma, for a long time his main confidant, appears to have made himself less popular with Wilders when Bosma - against Wilders' wishes - published his book on South Africa. "Watch out with Martin Bosma," Wilders e-mailed a fellow PVV MP at the time. Both Agema and Bosma were overtaken in the hierarchy by former civil servant Sietse Fritsma - currently deputy parliamentary group leader - and Barry Madlener. Reportedly, Madlener serves as "handyman" to make sure MPs vote along with Wilders: in the past, rebellion occurred on a regular basis - think of Hero Brinkman, Louis Bontes, or Marcial Hernandez. Wilders' esteem of his MPs, however, does not seem to have increased. He regularly describes them as "fools, all of them", the e-mails show. It is mainly the women in the PVV who suffer from this. Not only Agema, but also Reinette Klever and Lilian Helder. In an e-mail, Wilders describes Helder as "crazy enough" to leave the parliamentary group. One of Wilders' confidants scornfully talks about the women in the PVV, who would have "hormonal changes and mood swings." The complaint about Reinette Klever is that she would "cry too much and often says she wants to quit.""

The Dutch Left can also be blessed than such a party is taking so many seats off the traditional right-wing parties. The Left is the ultimate boogey man for those voters though. South of the border, the N-VA - who recently seem hellbent on becoming the Flemish equivalent of VVD in all but name - went into the last election saying a vote for Vlaams Belang, our extreme right, was a vote for keeping the Walloon PS in government. Given the 8-9% swing from VB to N-VA, expect a similar strategy from Rutte.

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

Interesting observation. I made some calculations on the basis of this idea.

VVD+CDA ("traditional right-wing parties"*):
1989: 66
1994: 65
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 67 (+/-, even if the LPF gained 26 seats -- i.e. CDA+LPF+VVD won 94 seats here)
2003: 72 (+5; LPF collapse to 8 seats)
2006: 63 (-9; LPF to 0 but PVV to 9, radical right to +1; VVD+PVV+CDA to 72)
2010: 52 (-11; PVV to 24; VVD+PVV+CDA from 72 to 76)
2012: 54 (+2; PVV to 15; VVD+PVV+CDA from 76 to 69)

It is interesting that the LPF surge in 2002 did not hurt CDA+VVD at all. CDA+VVD achieved their best result in 2003 and were hurt by the emergence of the PVV. However, it seems that the 2006 collapse of the traditional right cannot be explained entirely by the PVV: the LPF had won 8 seats in 2003 too, so the radical right was only at +1 and the traditional right at -9 in the 2006 election. The 2010 losses of the "traditional right" are the losses of the CDA, which largely went directly to the PVV, so this can definitely be attributed to the PVV. The PVV losses in 2012 hardly helped the traditional right, though: radical right at -9, traditional right only at +2.

So yes, we can conclude that the PVV has taken seats off the traditional right-wing parties. However, the score of the combined right has gone slightly up, since the radical right has also taken seats from the left.

CDA+VVD+PVV/LPF ("Traditional right + radical right"):
1989: 66
1994: 65 (but 3 seats for extreme right CD)
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 94 (LPF surge)
2003: 72 (LPF collapse)
2006: 72 (LPF gone, PVV in)
2010: 76
2012: 69

Without taking into account the exceptional year of 2002, we see that the combined right (excluding CU and its predecessors + SGP) has gone from a 65-67ish number of seats to something in 69-76ish territory. Once coalition formation with the radical right is impossible and the radical right takes seats from the traditional right, this, indeed, means that the "share of the cake" of non-right parties in a coalition becomes higher and that the way to a CDA-VVD only coalition (like in 1982-1989) is absolutely closed off. At the same time you have to wonder if it matters when D66 has turned sharply to the right on economic issues. Let's look at the development of actual left-wing parties.

PvdA+GL+SP ("Combined left"):
1989: 55
1994: 44 (D66 surge from 12 to 24 in this election, mainly at the expense of the left)
1998: 71 (D66 -10 cannot solely explain this; turnout dropped by 5 points and reached an all-time low in this election -- maybe it plays a role? Usually one would assume lower turnout benefits the right...)
2002: 42 (and D66 also -7; it is clear that the LPF won a surprising amount of otherwise left-wing voters, presumably mainly PvdA voters; turnout +7 also plays a role here, though)
2003: 59 (back to normalcy)
2006: 65 (and D66 -3, partly explaining the growth of the left; otherwise, the SP won a lot of former non-voters in this high-turnout election)
2010: 55 (and D66 +7; still, it is likely at least some left-wing voters went to the PVV, even if this does not amount to a large number of seats)
2012: 57 (and D66 +2)

On the basis of this calculation one can conclude that D66 should have been included :P While there is not much voter movement between SP and D66, a collapse of D66 generally benefits the left and vice versa. What is interesting to see is that the LPF hurt the combined left a lot more than the PVV. "Normalcy", for the combined left, seems to be the high-mid-50s. At the same time, a lot of swings occur.

We can conclude that JosepBroz was right in saying that the PVV is taking off many seats of the traditional right while not really changing the situation on the left -- though it remains to be seen if this will change in the next election: polls indicate that SP 2012 voters did move to the PVV this time around. Because a) a coalition between the traditional right and the radical right has become impossible for ideological-distance reasons and b) the traditional right cannot form a government solely consisting of CDA and VVD anymore (though, to be fair, this was impossible in the 90s too, see calculations), the position of non-right (which often means: "left") parties has become more important at least theoretically. We see it in the current government: VVD with 7 ministers, PvdA with 6; VVD with 3 deputy ministers, PvdA with 4. The left has a larger "share of the cake" in the current government than in parliament. One could also assume that this "stronger" position of the combined left would lead to more influence over policy at least when it comes to government decisions; on decisions taken by parliament, however, the balance has shifted to the right because of the fact that traditional right + radical right now are larger than the traditional right was before. It is also good to take into account that the radical right does not always vote along with the traditional right; the PVV often votes along with the left on issues like healthcare. If it were not for the PVV, right-wing economic policies would have passed parliament and the Senate more often.

This, however, ignores the fact that the radical right pulls political discourse and, indeed, all other parties to the right on its pet issues. It also ignores the fact that the PvdA has not really pursued many "left-wing" things in government. Perhaps we should simply conclude that for all the changes in parties' number of seats, very little has actually changed in terms of policy.


*traditionally, the CDA cannot really be seen as a right-wing party (the Netherlands doesn't do the "non-socialist = right-wing" thing) and while this is irrelevant to the point, I still wanted to mention this. It used to be a centrist party, but it has moved to the right under Lubbers and under Balkenende.

Yes, for sure I will do some, but in terms of what is going on now in Belgium things are relatively quiet, largely because everybody seems to be in some form of power apart from the Greens, the fascists and the communists - all of which will likely benefit next election.
I was going to start by looking at the referendum on whether we should have retained the King post-war (very interesting divide between republicans and royalists), then look at the Vlaams Beweging's rise and fall and rise again under De Wever, in tandem with the Frenchisation of Brussels and explaining the PS supremacy in Wallonia. Im currently moving though so I will write it at the time im settled.

Good post above btw, some proper political theory. I read an economics/political science paper on the subject of tactical voting and game theory in the Netherlands in relation to the Left/Right divide and how it functioned in the 2012 election. I'll try and post it here as its applicable to most PR systems.

Sounds great! Who are the authors of that paper, and what is the title?

I didn't really know Baudet or his movement. He's likely self-promoting if he doesn't want to join VNL though. That picture says as much.

A lot of N-VAers go or have gone to the Ijzsewakke, its no big deal. It does help you distinguish between the ones who are clearly pro-independence and VB-lite cordon sanitaire avoiders, like Bourgeois, Francken and Jambon, and then the N-VAers who "don't have a hard on for Flemish Independence" like Siegried Bracke and the other public intellegentsia in the party who don't attend. But in all seriousness I wouldn't necessarily call the people who go to IJzerwake fascist, just historically illiterate and sharing the same platform as the clear neo-Nazi's and neo-fascists. But as much as I dislike the right-wing of the Vlaamse Beweging and admire the forgotten left of its Movement, I can't in good faith start calling them all fascists like the PS do.

... this proves why we need a thread on Belgian politics. I didn't even know there were any people in the N-VA who are open about not giving a damn about Flemish independence. Very interesting. Not that it's a surprise to me, because they're working hard to simply become a center-right catch-all party without any principles (provided that they ever had them). I also didn't say everyone who attends the IJzerwake is a fascist (Baudet, for one, is certainly not), but the event itself has a certain "brown" feel to it, doesn't it?

Well, yes, as it split off from some other ceremony over historical details abouut the extent of Flemish collaboration, which is a tough political cookie. The Vlaamse Beweging spent years trying to rectify the image of your average flamingant due to what happened in WW2, but they did this through different methods : some acknowledged that the Flemish Movement as  a whole was at fault, while others said they had no choice, it wasn't that bad, or it was a long time ago etc. These latter ones are usually the ones who tred the thin line of the IJzerwake, as they also honour some dead Flemish soldiers from the Eastern Front (fighting for the ''Moffen''). And then you have the 1488 Hitler-cultists from organisations like Voorpost - which I imagine you know all to well.

If you want to distinguish between the Flamingants, you can also look at what Flemish Lion they wave. Like the Senyera in Catalonia, each one has a particular significance.

In response to this summer's unrest among Turkish communities in the Netherlands, allegedly fueled by Turkish mosques, a parliamentary plurality seek to stop the financing of mosques by the Turkish state, in line with Austria's decision to do this. Most Turkish mosques in the Netherlands are run by Diyanet, a Turkish government organization that falls under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. CDA leader Buma wrote the motion, which was supported by VVD, PVV, ChristenUnie, SGP and VNL. The motion "condemns the long arm of Ankara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_arm_of_Ankara)" and calls on the government to limit the number of people with both a Turkish and Dutch nationality (good luck with that...). Prime Minister Rutte already said it will be difficult to limit Diyanet's influence because of the freedom of religion, so it is doubtful anything will actually happen. Next week, Deputy PM Asscher will present a letter in which he lays out the possibilities of tackling the "problematic" foreign financing of religious organizations in the Netherlands.

A plurality also want the government to make the EU end Turkey's EU accession benefits.

So, a few points from the VVD manifesto (which will be presented in a few hours):

€1 billion more for defense
€10 billion in tax cuts for households and businesses
mandatory lessons about Dutch values (LGBT rights, gender equality, separation of church and state) for immigrants

GDP is roughly €700 billion so the tax cuts will be like 1.5% of GDP (actually that's roughly the size of the Bush tax cuts for American readers) and the extra defense money will be 0.15% of GDP (but defense spending still will be nowhere near the NATO target). These are just a few points Rutte gave away, the actual manifesto will contain much more. 10 billion in tax cuts is quite ambitious and the extra money for defense is needed, so I like it so far. According to the CPB increased spending or tax cuts needs to be matched equally with tax hikes or spending cuts so they have to pay for it through spending cuts (or tax hikes).

I think these are points that many people will like, but I'm still not sure how many people will trust the VVD. It's very obvious that the VVD steers to the right before the election, in an effort to draw away support for the PVV. In the campaign that will be an issue for opposition parties. If the CDA had a charismatic leader, the votes would be up for grabs. Maybe D'66 will profit the most, when they see a chance to profile themselves as the 'real liberal party'. For now, I still think most people will buy it, because of the PM-bonus and because Rutte is pretty good in debates. Today the VVD used the term 'silent majority', in an effort to gain votes among middleclass voters. Also, they talk much about values ('normen en waarden'), a theme that used to belong to the CDA. 

Yesterday DENK launched a plan to fight racism and discrimination. One important part of the plan is the forming of a racism-policeforce. They also want to change names of streets that refer to national heroes like Michiel de Ruyter of J.P. Coen. I think these crazy plans will make this party even less attractive for many voters. They might end up with 1 or 2 seats.

Obviously the tactic is to attract media attention in order to improve name recognition and popularity among voters with an immigrant background. The racism police is probably a more serious idea, but the street name thing is basically bait and the media love to take it. DENK are simply employing PVV tactics on the other side of the political spectrum; consider the street names the equivalent of the PVV's proposed Qur'an ban. People who are turned off by their shenanigans would never vote DENK in the first place and are not the party's target audience.

As for the VVD's election manifesto, it was surprisingly different from last time. In 2012 they simply went for the PVV light thing, but it makes sense for the VVD to try and distinguish themselves more from the PVV in an election where VVD and PVV find themselves in a head-to-head race; copy cats generally lose because people prefer the original brand. I found all the VVD's talk about the "optimistic majority" to be slightly cringeworthy, but it will probably work wonders with many voters together with Rutte's enthusiasm, particularly since Wilders does come across as overly negative and angry, and who doesn't like optimism instead? Then there is the norms and values talking point, which fits perfectly with the VVD's new brand and will help at keeping aboard generic right-wing voters who opted for the CDA in the 2000s and before. In terms of content there were not a lot of surprises in the manifesto, except for the fact that the false pretenses of the VVD masquerading as some sort of PVV light, for which many people fell in 2012, have been dropped to an extent I had not expected.

Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher will soon declare his candidacy for the PvdA leadership, public broadcaster NOS just announced. He will face current party leader Diederik Samsom and contrarian PvdA MP Jacques Monasch.

It wont even be close. Asscher and Aboutaheb are by far the best politicians within the PvdA. Again the horserace scenario between VVD and PvdA?

Most voters who left the PvdA probably hate this coalition and I don't think they're coming back for the deputy prime minister. Even though they managed to come back from behind in 2010 and 2012 I just can't see them pulling that stunt again. I'm probably going to look incredibly stupid in five months when the result is VVD 33 PvdA 31 or something like that.

Asscher would probably do better in the general election than Samsom because of PvdA-D66 swing voters, but keep in mind most potential PvdA voters who are angry with the PvdA are to the left of the current party line/government policies. They are not going to be convinced by Asscher, who is just as tied to the current government as Samsom and further to the right ideologically. Given the general "ideologicalness" of the PvdA membership I doubt they will vote for Asscher and expect Samsom to win, though anything could happen. Though if Asscher is elected I wouldn't even be surprised by a new two-horse race (f**k you Netherlands if that happens) if Klaver bombs during one of the telly debates. But that's all speculation for now, and it remains unlikely. Even with Asscher as leader an all-time low simply seems inevitable.

Monasch wants to create a category of "registered supporters" that can vote too, similar to what the UK Labour Party did, and thinks the election is "rigged" by Asscher and Samsom.

I imagine if it is going to be a two horse race it will be between Rutte and Wilders, in which case there is only one possible winner.

Could be, but then we are talking about a 30-30 race. I'm not convinced that PvdA is heading towards an all time low. I think Asscher will do really good, because:
- Klaver is too inexperienced en annoying
- People are tired of Pechtold
- Roemer just isn't a serious alternative
- the same is true for Buma

Don't underestimate the influence of the media. I think there isn't much direction currently in the electorate. The economy is still doing pretty good. Asscher had some achievements to refer to. Left/right in the Netherlands is always about 50/50 (although I think the right just edges out the left most of the elections). Lets be clear: I hope I'm wrong about this.

Article (http://stukroodvlees.nl/tweestrijd-om-het-torentje-vvd-versus-pvv/) (in Dutch) on why a two-horse race between VVD and PVV is highly unlikely.

Summary:
1) The parties are direct electoral competitors rather than being the clear ideological opposites to each other.
2) Dutch voters are volatile but generally move among a certain subset of parties. A PvdA voter may vote for D66 or GL, but won't vote for the PVV or the VVD. In a two-horse race between VVD and PVV, left-wing voters would have to vote for the VVD in order to create the similar left-right dynamics as in 2012 (VVD-PvdA), 2010 (VVD-PvdA), 2006 (CDA-PvdA) etc. This is not likely to happen.
3 and 4) In earlier two-horse races, both candidates for PM had a serious shot at becoming PM. People voted for, say, Mark Rutte to prevent Diederik Samsom from becoming PM, and vice versa. However, even if a party "wins" the election, their party leader doesn't necessarily become PM. There is no way the PVV can end up in a coalition, and there is no way Wilders becomes PM. This renders a potential PVV-VVD two-horse race much less likely than the previous two-horse races.

Quite the development in the PvdA: eligible voters can now become PvdA members for 1 month by paying the sum of 2 euros and have full voting rights in the upcoming primary. Meanwhile, candidate for leadership Jacques Monasch today published a provocative article in "the Dutch Guardian" NRC. I'll give you the specifics of the two candidates that already declared, Diederik Samsom and Jacques Monasch, and the candidate that will soon declare, Lodewijk Asscher, in this post.

Diederik Samsom is a physicist and former Greenpeace environmentalist activist. He has been an MP since 2003 and leader of the PvdA since 2012. Being on the left of the party, he was initially hailed as the one who would move the PvdA away from its Third Wayism and make the PvdA a truly left-wing, social democratic party again. Under his leadership, the PvdA obtained a great result in the 2012 election only to end up as the junior partner in an among leftists deeply unpopular coalition government with the VVD. Samsom remained on as an MP in order to be able to voice the PvdA's "authentic" position on issues, as opposed to voicing the government's stance, but has consistently defended the government's decisions. This is intellectually honest, because as PvdA party leader he has been responsible for compromises. However, Samsom cannot possibly distance himself from the unpopular government and because of the fact that he promised change in 2012 whereas little change happened, Samsom is in trouble. The PvdA has consistently been polling in all-time low territory for the last few years. However, being the most progressive candidate in this leadership election, this primary can prove to be useful for Samsom to boost his credentials among progressives by distinguishing himself from Asscher and Monasch. Given the activist, progressive nature of the PvdA membership, I still consider him the favorite to win this primary, although little is known about any candidate's chances and anything could happen.

Lodewijk Asscher has a law degree and is part of the important Amsterdam PvdA machine. He was alderman and, briefly, Mayor ad interim of the Dutch capital before becoming Deputy Prime Minister and Social Affairs Minister in the VVD-PvdA government. Considered the ultimate bureaucrat, Asscher is not one to come up with ideological social democratic talk. However, many believe he would be a very successful candidate in a general election, and polls show that the electorate considers him to be much more Prime Ministerial than Samsom. While being the Deputy Prime Minister and the PvdA's most important politician in the government, Asscher has lower name recognition than Samsom and the government's performance seems to hurt Samsom, the one who promised change, more than Asscher. That said, being Deputy PM in this government cannot possibly help Asscher with a membership that is largely dissatisfied with the government's performance. I suspect the PvdA would do somewhat better under Asscher than under Samsom, but unless the membership decide to throw a rage fit and want to remove Samsom at all costs, it seems unlikely to me that they will elect Asscher, since to most PvdA members I imagine he has all of Samsom's negative points related to the government and none of his redeeming features.

Then there is Jacques Monasch, the least known candidate, who is an economist and a millionaire who has art galeries in Moscow and Amsterdam. Monasch has been a PvdA MP since 2010, and a rather contrarian one at that, for instance by being the only MP who voted to demand that the government immediately accept the result of the Ukraine referendum and withdraw Dutch support for the Association Agreement with Ukraine. An ideologue, he was also the leader of the disastrous 2002 PvdA campaign, the Fortuyn revolution election in which PvdA leader Melkert came off as completely tone deaf and the PvdA obtained an all-time low. This experience seems to have had a profound effect on Monasch's ideological development, because in his NRC opinion article "The arrogant left does not understand the voter", he harshly criticizes the developments on the Dutch left and in the PvdA. "Let's get back in time," Monasch writes in Dutch, "to the reason why the progressive left was once able to attract many voters. The movement stood for a large welfare state, with high-quality public services. The best guarantee for a better life, left-wing voters found. Decent relations between worker and employer, a good education system, outstanding healthcare, and a safe street. And a school, hospital and police office in the neighborhood. (...) Nowadays, the left's focus is on preventing illegality from becoming punishable, the European Union, multiculturalism, and wind turbines. The electorate does not get excited by that. The incomprehension among left-wing politicians is so large that big chunks of the left-wing electorate have been discarded. Natural left-wing supporters do not understand it. Workers are now called low-educated. Hillary Clinton's characterization of Trump's electorate can be heard among the Dutch progressive left too. Instead of taking seriously people's dissatisfaction, many on the left -- politicians, professors and columnists, most of all -- have become shockingly arrogant. It can be different." Monasch advocates for ending tax loopholes for multinational corporations, restrictions on immigration ("Where PvdA, SP and GL should have corrected Merkel's Wir schaffen das, they instead joined her in her hallucinatory Willkommenskultur"), and an EU that is less neoliberal and does a better job at preserving both domestic jobs and democracy ("the civilized Dutch labor market has been corrupted by the EU"). He decries the fact that power on education, healthcare and security has been given away "by the right" and that politicians have lost control over privatized and decentralized institutions. "Especially open societies must indicate where the limits are", Monasch concludes, and "it would be pitiful if the left would only be there for high-educated bureaucrats, for the euro-religious, and for state socialists." An intriguing candidate, in my opinion, who could provoke interesting debates in the upcoming primary. The "open primary/2 euro membership model", advocated by him (although the PvdA denies that they have implemented this model because of him), could greatly benefit him.