Talk Elections

Dave doesn't like threads that get too long, so I figured that the inauguration of the new Rutte-III government (VVD, CDA, D66, ChristenUnie), which will take place tomorrow, posed a good occasion to open a new one (the old one can be found here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=216167.0)). Have at it.

()

()

RIP D66

I also used to think that, but polls show us that D66 voters are actually happy with the coalition agreement (strong focus on climate issues, on which D66 and CU agree). Meanwhile VVD (and to a lesser extent CDA) voters aren't terrible happy with some of the measures like the repeal of the property tax exemption (probably will hurt CDA voters the most) and reducing the mortgage interest deduction for high incomes (will hurt VVD voters the most).

The Zijlstra-Kaag combination at Foreign Affairs will be interesting. Zijlstra is one of the most right-wing VVD politicians and he called the Iran deal a historical mistake in 2015 (he'll definitely be more diplomatic as Foreign Minister though) while Kaag once called Netanyahu a racist and a demagogue, and she also is quite left-wing on asylum issues. They could definitely help each other (Zijlstra has political experience which Kaag lacks, while Kaag has a lot of experience regarding foreign affairs) but there definitely will be some fights.

I'm also interested in Wopke Hoekstra's future. He is the Finance Minister and he still is really young (42). This probably will be Rutte's last term, unless the cabinet falls in 2018/2019 or Rutte decides to go for another term, which both are very possible. But if Rutte decides to retire Hoekstra could be a formidable PM candidate for the CDA, especially since Finance Ministers in the Netherlands usually are very popular. Snd the VVD will either run the charismatic but inexperienced Dijkhoff or the divisive Zijlstra. Buma has to step aside for this to happen, but if this is successful he would go down as the man who did the impossible and made the CDA great again. Hugo de Jonge also could be an alternative to Hoekstra (and they nominated him as Deputy PM), but the Finance Minister always has a lot of prestige while Deputy PM is a pretty meaningless title as long as the PM is around.

Wait Kaag is married to a Fatah politician?

Maybe they are happy for now but I believe most of them are clearly leftwinger. That means that they will get pissed soon as this govt, except on environment, is quite rightwing.

Yeah. He was shadow Deputy Minister in a Palestinian government or something like that. This combined with her comments about Netanyahu (who she apparently called a racist and demagogue, but to be fair she only cited Israeli demonstrants) and her having a portrait of Arafat in her chamber already made some right-wing sites start a campaign against her. After anti-Zwarte Piet activist Sylvana Simons and far-left Green activist Anne-Fleur Dekker she probably will the the third victim of sexist attacks by De Dagelijkse Standaard (everyone's favorite right-wing site ran by Ayn Rand-loving male students). I'm not really happy with her appointment either, but it doesn't really matter as she's only the Development Aid Minister while Halbe Zijlstra (who is quite literally the opposite of Kaag in every single aspect) will be the actual Foreign Affairs Minister.

Worth noting that Kaag's budget is actually bigger than Zijlstra's and that we spend a staggering amount of money on development aid in the Palestinian territories, which means the risk of a conflict of interest is there. Funnily, Kaag's husband actually appeared to be more moderate than herself in an interview with Buitenhof twenty years ago when talking about Benjamin Netanyahu, but who knows what happened to both of their political views in the meantime.

Kaag's daughter liked a tweet in which a friend of her stated that Marwan Barghouti should be the president, which some people also hold against Kaag (but many deem this to be unfair). We do know that her children consider themselves to be Palestinians and that their native language is Arabic: they are not fluent in Dutch. Another new D66 minister, Kajsa Ollongren, raised her children in another language as well: not in New Swedish, like Kaag, but in traditional Swedish. Positive note when it comes to Ollongren: as she is married to a woman, I think she is the first LGBT Deputy Prime Minister in this country.

CDA leader Buma said the government would ignore the intelligence services referendum result because the referendum law will be abolished anyway (God, I hate that man). D66 isn't happy about this.

As mvd10 stated, the first point of disagreement among the coalition parties is already in sight. In March, together with the local elections, a referendum will take place on a new law that will give the intelligence services many more powers than they currently have, mainly when it comes to online communication: no warrant from a judge will be needed to read people's private messages anymore. 400,000 people signed an official petition for a referendum on this law and so it will take place. The complication is that the coalition parties have agreed to abolish the referendum. CDA leader Buma yesterday gave a bold interview to De Volkskrant in which he says considers the referendum (introduced only three years ago, mind) to be "a relic of the past" (while it still exists until a law is adopted to abolish the instrument -- and a referendum can be organized about this law too...) and that "we will not consider this referendum to be a real referendum". Painful for D66, who officially still support referendums (though in practice they couldn't care less), initially opposed the new law, and have a base that will oppose the law and strongly cares about privacy. D66 MP Kees Verhoeven immediately called Buma's comments "unwise" and wants the referendum to be taken seriously. To be continued...

On another forum, somebody asked why the political leaders of CDA, D66 and CU have not entered the government. For Buma and Pechtold, there are two answers to this question: an official one and an unofficial one.

The official answer is that the government only has a majority of one in both chambers of parliament, and that Buma, Pechtold and Segers will do their best to make sure the parliamentary groups will be committed to supporting the government's agenda. For this purpose, there will also be a special meeting on Monday mornings with the "number one" government representatives (Rutte, De Jonge, Ollongren, Schouten) and the parliamentary group leaders (Dijkhoff, Buma, Pechtold, Segers).

The unofficial answer is that Mark Rutte has successfully destroyed or at least greatly damaged the political leaders of all his previous junior coalition partners: Verhagen and Wilders in Rutte-I, Samsom and Asscher in Rutte-II. After governing with Rutte, CDA, PVV and PvdA lost 8, 9 and 29 seats respectively. Part of the reason is that these political leaders were too closely tied to the government. Pechtold and especially Buma are ambitious. Buma wants to become Prime Minister. Meanwhile, nobody really expects this government to remain in office for the full term. We don't even know if Rutte will remain committed to the project for the full 3.5 years (they spoiled 0.5 by negotiating), because the whole VVD assumes that this will be his last term and Donald Tusk's EU job will become vacant in 2019. In other words, the party leaders of CDA and D66 want to be in pole position to start their next election campaigns without too much baggage from the Rutte-III government, and they want to be able to profile themselves very clearly along their own party lines, not along the line of the Rutte-III government. In general this government does not have "one story" like the Rutte-I and -II governments did. Each party frames policy based on its own ideological background, which has led to some really strange sentences in the coalition agreement and may not bode well for the government's duration. An especially likely moment for the government to collapse would be 2019, when the parties will probably lose their majority in the Senate. But with Rutte's extraordinary capability of striking deals with parties across the spectrum, you never know.

Meanwhile, PVV -> FvD voter movement continues. Wilders' party is now at a five-year low.

()

My reaction to this:

()

I wouldn't be too happy. After the elections PVV and FvD had just 21 seats. Now they have 28 seats, and Baudet's party probably has a higher ceiling than the PVV (but the refugee crisis already showed that the PVV has a very high ceiling).

If, in a hypothetical scenario this were possible, would PVV and FvD combine to form a government?

Obviously, they would need other parties, but would they be open to the idea?

lol at SP. Shouldn't they be having some sort of leadership change?

Lilian Marijnissen, who just entered parliament, is going to lead the party soon, but she needs some time to gain experience.

They wouldn't mind cooperating, but no other parties would want to cooperate with the PVV except for the 3-seat SGP (and many would be skeptical about working together with FvD too).

Do Wilders and Baudet get on?

Wilders is still in the phase of ignoring Baudet and pretending that he doesn't exist. Baudet still actively shares posts on Twitter that defend Wilders from certain accusations and has always refused to go negative on him.

While there is obviously some strategy involved here, I think Baudet does view Wilders as an ally in terms of policy, and he probably voted for him before founding his own movement. There are obvious ideological differences (in terms of "problem analysis") that run quite deep, but those are not too important in the here and now.

This morning, the Electoral Council officially declared that there will be a referendum on the Law on Intelligence and Security Services (Wiv). 384,126 signatures were considered to be valid, about 92% of the total number of signatures. The threshold was 300,000. The Electoral Council also stated that it is "likely" that the referendum will take place together with the local elections on 21 March 2018.

I’m happy to see PVV falling, unhappy to see FVD rising.

I have a really hard time seeing this government (with its bare majorities) completing its term, and that's because of the elephant in the room known as Brexit. According to an assessment by Rabobank, this will impact the Dutch economy more severely than generally thought, and the harder the Brexit, the worse it will be.

Some good debates in parliament recently. The new government aims to abolish the dividend tax, which will cost 1,4 billion euros. No socio-economic institution tied to the state, like the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB), endorses this measure, which will not benefit any person in the Netherlands, and to date, not a single economist has been found who is willing to defend it: so much for neoliberals believing in "evidence-based" policy. Even stranger, the measure was not included in a single election manifesto -- it appears, though the coalition says it does "not know" how it ended up with this, that employers' federation VNO-NCW came up with it during the negotiations. The coalition defends it by saying it will make the Netherlands a more attractive place to foreign investors, but had to admit that it was an "estimate" (Buma, Rutte) and even a "guess" (Dijkhoff, VVD parliamentary group leader).

One can imagine that the timing of the release of the Paradise Papers is very unfortunate for the government. One can also imagine why the government chose to retract the proposed budget cut on local nursing facilities (100 million euros) upon pressure from the combined left, and Lodewijk Asscher in particular.

GL, SP and PvdA, with their 37 seats, finally managed to overcome their differences and, for the first time, agreed on an alternative socio-economic policy agenda, which includes scrapping the proposed VAT increase on essential products from 6% to 9%, abolishing healthcare co-payments, increasing wages for public sector workers, and implementing a carbon tax. They would finance this 10-billion plan by increasing corporate taxes and bank taxes, by not enacting this government's income tax cuts and by not abolishing the dividend tax. Asscher and Klaver left a strong impression in the debate, Roemer much less so. Later in the debate, Kees van der Staaij caught people's attention by summarizing his views in "Ten Tweets". Baudet bombed in his first big debate, but his voters don't appear to care.

As for the environmental agenda of the government: it does not seem very convincing. Almost one third of the 49% CO2 reduction that the government aims to reach before 2030 is supposed to come from storing the CO2 underground ("Carbon Capture and Storage", CCS) rather than actually reducing emission. We have never even stored any CO2 underground: a pilot to do this in Barendrecht, a Rotterdam suburb, caused a big uproar. The director of this industry's lobby organization himself says he was completely bewildered when he read the coalition agreement: he thought the figure was a typo and said this ambition is "completely unrealistic", and McKinsey released a report in which it thinks only one sixth of the target for 2030 is realistic in 2040. Other projected emission reductions are also based on the doubtful effects of unknown technologies. In other words, the climate targets of the coalition agreement will not be reached and I guess D66 and CU will soon find out themselves.

There are some economists who support this, but it's mainly support by fiscalists (which is an entirely different field to be fair). Theoretically the dividend tax is a terrible tax that should be eliminated (my opinion), but a lot of foreign taxpayers can get a rebate on this tax from their own government so net it doesn't really make a difference for them (while it would save the foreign governments a lot of money in rebates, but that doesn't do anything to help the Dutch economy). With Rutte I wouldn't be surprised if he did this to satisfy Merkel, Macron and Trump lol (basically a form of foreign aid to rich countries).

I'd prefer a further corporate tax cut (or perhaps a deduction for equity to reduce the debt bias in the corporate tax, like the Belgian ACE). Anyway, most tax measures designed to help the economy are "guesses", so that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing :P. But just reducing the corporate tax rate seems like a safer bet to attract foreign investors if that is want the government wants (and it could be combined with getting rid of some of the more outrageous Dutch tax loopholes for multinationals).

Anyway, the CPB also calculated that the GL-SP-PvdA proposals would help the economy in the short term (higher demand), but it would actually reduce employment in the long term (because of higher tax rates). Doesn't seem like a good approach for a booming economy to me :P (not that the government is any better, they're literally going to splurge 2% of GDP during a boom period with low unemployment in a country known for very volatile boom and bust cycles).

The CPB model isn't perfect by the way. They're good at what they do, but because of austerity they don't have the resources to look at the effects of corporate taxes, taxes on capital or investments in R&D or education anymore. They currently only model the effects of taxes and/or welfare spending on the labour supply and short-term GDP growth. D66 even threatened to boycot the traditional CPB calculation of the party platforms because of this.

Of course there are a lot of ifs and buts, and yes, there are always unknowns in economic and fiscal policy, but the idea that abolishing the dividend tax will help the Netherlands attract more companies is completely unfounded and it seems unwise to spend 1,4 billion euros on it. I support lowering corporate taxes if it is clear that this would create jobs. This measure won't do that.

On a lighter note, for those who speak Dutch: I found this website (http://www.ncpnheiloo.nl/) and this letter (http://www.ncpnheiloo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/CdB.pdf) by Willem Gomes, municipal councilmember of the New Communist Party of the Netherlands in Heiloo, paradoxically a very affluent suburb. Dude is completely nuts, believes in chemtrails. Hilarious how a guy like him keeps getting re-elected.

There are commies outside of Groningen :o? GL and SP aren't represented in their municipal council, perhaps the commies are in because GL and SP didn't run? Heiloo also isn't that left-wing, the VVD got 35% in 2012 and 30% in 2017. The VVD vote isn't really a good measure for determining how right-wing a municipality is though. There are a lot of religious municipalities where the VVD barely gets 15-20% and there are some big cities where the VVD scores only slightly below their national average but where the overall right is very weak (damn I went offtopic).

I agree that the dividend tax cut probably isn't the best idea btw, theoretically it might be a good idea (according to me atleast, and I'm not really an authority on this lol) but at second glance it looks a lot like subsidizing foreign governments. They probably didn't really think this out.

Are the tax changes final or could the senate scuttle them?  I would think raising the VAT would be politically risky but it does seem in continental Europe unlike the English speaking world have a strongly progressive tax system is less of an issue.  Otherwise raising regressive taxes and cutting progressive ones doesn't seem to get the same backlash.  Now from an economic stand point, I think what they are doing is a good idea, just not sure if it will sell well although perhaps maybe Netherlands is more fiscally conservative than here in Canada where the soak the rich idea is in vogue right now.

NCPN Heiloo is a one-man operation by Willem Gomes. Only in 2014, the party had more than one candidate.

In 2014 a second councillor was elected, but he left soon after. An interesting article about Gomes is found here: https://www.trouw.nl/home/de-eenzame-communist-van-heiloo~a036c527/

Heiloo never had a history of communism, most NCPN votes are essentially personal votes for Gomes. Previously there was 1 CPN councillor 1946-1953, and CPN never returned (as in so many municipalities).
NCPN/Gomes did gain some votes though when the local GroenLinks chapter was liquidated in 2014.  In the past GroenLinks (and predecessors) were represented in the council from 1982-2010 with 1 or 2 seats. In 2010 there was a joint list with D66.

I think the repeal of the dividend tax is the only measure that might be reversed. Maybe they'll go with a corporate tax cut or a employer side payroll tax cut instead. But I still think the dividend tax will be repealed. I don't think they will reverse the VAT hike. It would bring in 2.5 billion euros and it becomes incredibly hard to finance their tax reform without that money.

Correct me if wrong but isn't this a case of cutting taxes for the rich while raising for lower incomes.  While there may be good economic reasons to do so, is the public generally onside with this as I know in the English speaking world it wouldn't go over well.  When are the tax cuts supposed to take effect and could the senate kill them due to changes in composition or is the senate safe?

Taxes for the poor won't increase though. The standard tax credit will also increase. And the poor likely also will see things like higher child benefits so very few people will actually lose out under this government. And the senate should theoretically be safe, they also have a 1-seat majority there.

Josse de Voogd (my king is alive!) once called the Netherlands a very left-wing country where the right always wins :P. Indeed it looks like there are a lot of rural areas which vote for the right (not the VVD, but other right-wing parties) but probably support a very left-wing economic agenda. In elections where economic issues are dominant the cities often swing to the right while the rural areas swing to the left. But when cultural issues are dominant the rural areas become even more right-wing while the cities become even more left-wing.

When do senate changes potentially happen as one seat seems slim so otherwise they would have to pass the changes before the next municipal elections is my understanding?

They would need to pass it before the provincial elections (2019). Party discipline is extremely strong in the Netherlands so governing with an extremely small majority is possible (but it's still hard).

Kinda changed my mind on the dividend tax. If it's really a necessary step to keep Shell, Unilever etc. here, including tens of thousands of jobs, then I support it. But the government should be open about the companies and the number of jobs that are on the line.

More good news for mvd10: I'm inclined to vote for the VVD in the upcoming local election.

Welcome to the dark side ;D

Ironically I've become less enthusiastic about repealing the dividend tax. The Netherlands has a lot of tax deals with developed countries, so investors can get a rebate on most of the dividend tax they pay to the Dutch government which means a large part of this tax cut would go to foreign governments. I'm also not really sure whether we should take these threats seriously. The only country with no dividend tax is the UK and I doubt that the UK is an attractive place for those countries. Basing your tax policy on the threats of 4 multinationals doesn't seem like a good approach.  Further reducing the corporate income tax probably also would have kept those companies in the Netherlands and it also would help smaller companies (and it would be less controversial). Most economists polled by the Telegraaf also mentioned that a corporate tax cut would have made more sense (9 out of 10 opposed the repeal of the dividend tax). But ironically one of those economists who oppose repealing the dividend actually tweeted that the dividend tax should be repealed a couple of years ago.

Then again, apparently Trump's tax plan would change the rules for the tax credit for foreign dividends so perhaps it's a good idea after all (and the rest of the world usually follows the US on tax policy so it's possible that more countries will eliminate the rebate and encourage companies to move headquarters back to their own country).

Anyway, the dividend tax is becoming quite an issue and the VVD is getting most flak. But I doubt VVD voters really care about this, this probably only makes the leftists and right-wing populists hate the VVD even more. Technically D66 State Secretary Menno Snel or CDA Finance Minister Wopke Hoekstra should defend this measure in parliament, but the opposition summoned Rutte to explain it. They probably want to tie this to the VVD.

I read the minutes of the plenary session. Hoekstra himself directed the opposition to Rutte: the opposition parties want to know how this idea ended up being part of the coalition agreement and which actors sought to have it included, and Hoekstra says they should discuss this with Rutte, as Hoekstra was not one of the negotiators and Rutte "led" the formation.


and


This, by the way, is not necessarily true from a legal perspective at all. Rutte was never "informateur", as Hoekstra claims, he was only the leader of the largest political party. He became "formateur" and legally the leader of the process only after the coalition agreement was presented. Smart move on Hoekstra's part.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I've read it somewhere, but you're right.

Left-wing parties seem to relatively unified in opposition, but this has happened before. From 2003 to 2006 there was a lot of talk about a left-wing government (PvdA-SP-GL actually scored a majority in some polls from 2004-2006) and in 2011 or 2012 PvdA-GL-SP also released a common budget. But in the end a left-wing coalition never wins a majority. And there is/was a large faction in the PvdA that really doesn't trust the SP (European Commissioner Frans Timmermans for example). But since they only have 37 seats now they're somewhat forced to work with each other. But I wouldn't be surprised if either GL or PvdA decides to ditch the other left-wing parties if they win big in 2021 (or earlier). Klaver might be more ideologically left-wing than other GL leaders and Asscher probably has learned from Rutte 2 but I still don't think left-wing cooperation will lead anywhere. The numbers just aren't there (but this could change since the Dutch electorate is very volatile).

I think this image nicely illustrates the position the left is in today. They simply have to cooperate. The PvdA will undoubtedly become the winner on the left someday and ignore SP and GL. Then it will implode again, cooperate with GL and SP, and so on...
()

An interesting story in Algemeen Dagblad explains how Halbe Zijlstra became Minister of Foreign Affairs. This position had been reserved for Jeanine Hennis and VVD, CDA and D66 had been stuck for quite some time: they all wanted either the Finance Ministry or Social Affairs, with Zijlstra being the VVD candidate for Social Affairs. However, when Hennis had resigned as Defense Minister following her Mali scandal and was realistically out of the race for the MFA, Zijlstra showed interest in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, and therefore Hoekstra got Finance and Koolmees went to Social Affairs.

Apparently well-known CDA MP Pieter Omtzigt also is an useful idiot for the Russians :/.

Omtzigt called an Ukrainian man to witness. Omtzigt suggested the man hadn't been questioned before, but this was false. Omtzigt also made the man say that he saw the plane crash himself, but that wasn't true as only his wife saw the plane crash. The man wasn't even at the site that day. The man claimed that there were other planes at crash site (which is contradictory to what international researchers claimed). This helped feed some conspiracy theories about the MH17 crash (that it was an Ukrainian false flag operation).

Honestly, feeding Russian conspiracy theories and abusing the feelings of the bereaved families is shameless behaviour from Omtzigt and he definitely should either resign or be thrown out by the CDA (Lock him up!). But the problem is that Omtzigt has a huge ego and he has quite a cult following so he won't just give up his seat. If the CDA throws him out the coalition has lost it's majority and Omtzigt probably will join Baudet's party within a matter of days/

Omtzigt has claimed this all was a misunderstanding.

Hilarious that it was Omtzigt's own party leader Sybrand Buma who recently stated in parliament that the Netherlands should "not be naive" about the possibility that we are being influenced by Russian propaganda as well. I find this MH17 revisionism to be very problematic, both on Omtzigt's part and on the part of FvD.

Another week, another FvD seat. The government lost three seats this week and is now at -11 compared to GE17. The dividend tax issue clearly hurts the government and helps the left, who have been coherent, convincing and effective. Peil.nl today:
()

The government parties seriously have to watch out that they do not become too unpopular, otherwise the local elections, to be held four months from now, may get painful. D66 had a particularly good result in 2014, benefiting from the fact that Rutte-II was at its low point in terms of popularity back then, and is likely to lose seats in the high-profile big cities. The espionage referendum, held at the same day, being in the back of their potential voters' minds will not help either: D66 has to toe the government line (in support of the law) despite having voted against it, GL can freely oppose it.

For reference: this is the Peil.nl poll of March 9, 2014. The Peil.nl poll closest to the local elections 2014 that I could find.

()

Whoa, I had totally forgotten that the SP were so high in the polls back then, even though I did recall them gaining quite a lot in the 2014 local elections.

Apparently the PvdA were at about the same level of popularity as they are now, but depending on Asscher's success they might rise a bit more before the 2018 election. Unfortunately for the PvdA, however, DENK's participation (and the participation of parties that attract the same demographics, such as NIDA in Rotterdam and PvdE and the Islam Democrats in The Hague) will definitely hurt them in the high-profile big cities. So will GL's popularity.

The VVD lost quite a bit in 2014 and should be able to make some gains if they do not become too unpopular before March; the fact that FvD will only stand in Amsterdam will help them. The PVV being on the ballot for the first time in many places should not pose serious problems to the liberals, as the number of VVD-PVV swing voters appears to be really limited nowadays. In addition, Wilders is not on the ballot and there are bound to be a lot of scandals once the PVV candidates are announced.

But the election is probably going to be most painful for D66, who will lose to GL and perhaps even to the PvdA, but also to DENK: in 2014 D66 managed to do very well with Muslim voters.

GL should be able to top the poll in Amsterdam and Utrecht (2014: D66). The Hague will be interesting: D66 came first there in 2014 and is likely to lose, but so are the PVV and local party HSP. GL, VVD and local party Groep de Mos will gain. I would not rule out the possibility of the PvdA topping the poll in The Hague again. In Rotterdam, the question is how much the PVV's participation will hurt Leefbaar, which has an alliance with FvD. I would still place my bets on Leefbaar topping the poll, but they will not keep the 14 seats they won in 2014 and may end up in the high single digits.

https://www.noties.nl/v/get.php?a=peil.nl&s=weekpoll&f=2016-11-06.pdf

David is right, there aren't a lot of PVV-VVD swing voters. 12% of VVD voters would have considered voting PVV while 8% of PVV voters consider voting VVD. This poll actually is from 2016 but I don't think the number is a lot different now. But in both 2012 and 2017 there must have been some PVV supporters who initially were going to vote PVV but decided to vote VVD at the last possible moment to stop the left (2012) or because of Rutte's strong response to the diplomatic row with Turkey in 2017. They're probably back to hating Rutte/the VVD now just like they immediately jumped ship after the VVD-PvdA coalition manifesto was released in 2012.

But VVD voters and PVV voters have very different demographics (just look at peil.nl's demographic breakdowns of the 2017 election). Josse de Voogd once released a GL vs SP map ("anywheres" vs "somewheres") and I think a VVD-PVV would look quite similar (once you adjust it to the VVD's 13-seat margin over the PVV). There probably would be some differences (big cities perhaps?).

He heard your request

https://twitter.com/Jossedevoogd/status/930156582641520640

()

Rotterdam seems to be the big city you are talking of that votes strangely. Rotterdam never struck me as the kind of town to like Baudet's very "Amsterdam" characteristics :D .

He didn't do a VVD-PVV map and I was talking about that, but it would look very similar to those maps anyway. I wish we had a FPTP system only because Josse de Voogd would appear on television more often (with even better maps :D).

Martin Bosma (PVV) pulled a #LockHerUp and demanded that Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren (D66) be imprisoned for 30 years for treason. As Deputy Mayor and alderwoman in Amsterdam, Ollongren once stated that the "Republic of Amsterdam" should secede in case the PVV tops the poll nationwide.

No mention of Baudet asking why dual nationals should hold public office during the first debate? Let's not take away credit where credit is due, he was the first one to hint that Ollongren was part of a fifth column.  

It was actually Wilders who started about Ollongren's dual citizenship; Baudet came to his aid in an interruption with additional legalistic arguments. However, neither Wilders nor Baudet suggested Ollongren was part of a fifth column. Wilders: "Nobody says I do not trust Ms. Ollongren, for example. But if we talk about holding dual citizenship, I am consistent" (click (https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/plenaire_verslagen/detail?vj=2017-2018&nr=16&version=2)). Of course his claim to consistency is untrue, as he did not introduce a motion of no confidence against Marlies Veldhuijsen van Zanten in Rutte-I, but I do not think he or Baudet suggested that Ollongren is part of a fifth column.

For the case of Wilders, I am not refferring to him (because we all know who he thinks the fifth column is, and its not Ollegren), but your post over the PVV above  

I'm also refferring to Baudet's question, where he asked if it was acceptable if dual nationals should hold office, hinting at the fact that Ollegren may not have the interests of the Dutch people at heart.

https://soundcloud.com/methetoogopmorgen/de-stemming-van-vullings-en-van-weezel-23

(minute 19 for the full sh**tshow in the debate, 20.20min for his question)

I'm surprised given your previous sensitivities on such an issue this wasn't brought up earlier.  

I do not completely understand your post, but I also do not think that by asking that question Baudet suggested that Ollongren does not have the Dutch interest at heart. I do not think he meant that at all. His argument was based on constitutional law. I find this to be a trivial issue, but do not see why it would be illegitimate to discuss it.

This happened after Wilders brought up the subject, by the way.

You are right, it is a pure coincidence that he decided to defend this aspect of Constitutional law.

(Hilariteit)

Who said it was coincidence? It appears that you seek to revive your little personal vendetta, for which I have no time, but your argument falls flat.

I only brought Baudet's objection to dual nationals and Ollongren up for the sake of balance. Carry on thinking you are the center of the world though.

It was you who started about me, but ok... ::)

PVV and 50PLUS are going to try to "filibuster" the repeal of the property tax exemption for homeowners who fully paid off their mortgages. Martin van Rooijen (50PLUS, 75 years old) will try to speak for 15 hours while a PVV lawmaker will try to speak for 20 hours. This is highly unusual in Dutch politics. They can't talk about random subjects btw, they have to speak about the property tax exemption (or things closely related to it).

Van Rooijen already has begun. He's currently talking about his period as State Secretary of Finance during Den-Uyl 1 in the 1970s (yes this guy was State Secretary/Deputy Minister in the 1970s and randomly decided to return to politics 40 years later).

Do you feel better, now that Germany is having trouble forming a government?

Yes. Schadenfreude :).

The filibuster didn't work out. The debate ended at 05:00. Van Rooij's performance was quite well-received actually.

Wilders seems to have gone off the deep end. He now calls Russia a potential ally instead of an enemy. Wilders was one of the few European far-right politicians who wasn't openly supportive of Russia (or atleast he did nothing to make us think so), mainly because the MH17 crash. I guess Wilders also didn't need Russian donors because he used to have good ties with some American organizations :P. But now he will be visiting Moscow soon. Maybe he's doing this to get some of Baudet's voters back? Baudet regularly dabbles in pro-Putin MH17 conspiracy theories.


Internal PVV documents from 2014 showed Wilders already instructed his MP's to refrain from too much Russia-bashing, so this isn't completely new. His Russia trip still looks a lot like a (suspicious) policy U-turn imo.

What a mess, lol. All current double-digit parties lose, almost all single-digit parties win.
()

PvdAmentum though

Northern Europeans always come back to social democrats...:P

I fully stand by my prediction that the next general election will be a VVD-PvdA horse race.

Can't wait for the inevitable PvdA-D66-PVV-PvdD coalition of chaos.

Peil.nl today. Not tired of winning yet! Also watch the PvdA's recovery.

()

PvdA will win 60 seats in 2021 (or probably late 2019 if the coalition wins only 31 seats in the senate). Watch it happen lol.

Anyway, other polls show a slightly different picture for the PvdA (and also for the PVV), but peil is the only one that does weekly polls :(. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Dutch_general_election)

Interesting how the pollsters suddenly come up with diverging findings again, unlike right before the election. Really makes you think...

http://www.weetmeer.nl/buurt/select

I just found this goldmine. It allows you to select neighborhoods in the Netherlands and it basically shows some statistics (income, median house price, demographics) and it also shows how it voted in 2012 (sadly no numbers for 2017 :(). I'm not sure how reliable the information is. They base the vote on precincts within the neighborhood, but if there were no precincts in the neighborhood they base it on nearby precincts in other neighborhoods. One extremely wealthy area in Wassenaar that one would expect to vote 65% VVD or so voted 38% VVD in 2012 according to this site :P (no precincts). Perhaps David knows whether this is reliable? The municipality of Amsterdam always releases the election results by stadsdeel anyway as far as I know.

Duindorp's statistics are telling. When will that place become a bohemian district.

Thanks for sharing this! I think I can find out. Which area is it? Haven't found out how this works yet.

Rijksdorp met De Pan. There was no voting booth in that area so they based it on voting booths in other areas. It's extremely wealthy (also was in a Quote list of places with the highest house prices) yet the PVV was more overrepresented there than the VVD, while the VVD usually scores 65-70% in these places. Some things look a bit weird. Aerdenhout-Zuid has a huge median house price, but the average income is much lower than you would expect, it's lower than in other areas in Aerdenhout even though these areas have much lower median house prices (and indeed these other areas are also less notorious :P). Then again, Aerdenhout-Zuid is 44% 65+ while other areas in Aerdenhout are closer to the national average in this regard so old people having huge houses and "low" incomes (still double the national average lol) probably explains it.

The numbers for the place where I lived seem right. It definitely is true that the closest high school was criminally far away :P.

As you said, no precincts in Rijksdorp/De Pan, and the closest area in Wassenaar is one of the village's more working-class areas (these exist!) where in one precinct the VVD got 28% and the PVV 22% in 2017, and in another one the VVD received 36% and the PVV came second with 13%. 38% VVD is probably right for these two precincts in 2012. The VVD percentage would probably be lower still without Rijksdorp/De Pan voters voting there. I think we can safely assume that Rijksdorp/De Pan itself is 50%> VVD.

Following the rather grave mistakes that were made in the process of coming up with the final result of the GE earlier this year, the government plans on revising the Electoral Law and giving the Central Election Commission more time to publicize the final result. The revised Election Law will also force municipalities to publish election results by precinct, because it would currently be too difficult for voters to track whether any mistakes had been made in the counting process. Great news!

Emile Roemer will step down as leader of the Socialist Party and will be succeeded by Jan Marijnissen's daughter Lilian. Not great optics for a formerly communist party.

The Dutch version of The Onion:

Lilian Marijnissen: "I want a Netherlands where your surname isn't decisive for your opportunities in society." :D :D :D

Apparently, Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Sadet Karabulut had also declared herself a candidate, but the parliamentary group decided "in harmony" that Marijnissen would be the best successor...

Not a great decision in my opinion. The problem in the previous campaign -- and during the parliamentary term -- was not Roemer, who actually did a decent job during the debates, but the fact that the party's focus was not broad enough (healthcare, healthcare, healthcare) and, in the view of the public, did not seem to propose any ideas on other issues, even if they do have these ideas. However, this was not Roemer's decision but the real leadership's (Meyer, Janzerdaddy), and under Marijnissen they will doubtlessly continue to do this (whereas Karabulut would have been more of an "intersectional" party leader, not to BIJ1/GL degrees, but she would talk about discrimination etc. as well).

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management today announced that the Netherlands will join Austria in taking Germany to the European Court of Justice over its contentious motorway toll plans. Under the proposed system, Germans will get a full refund for this toll through the motor vehicle tax whereas foreigners have to pay full price. According to the Dutch Infrastructure Ministry, this amounts to discrimination and "goes against the principles of free movement [within the EU]." In total, Dutch motorists are expected to spend 60 to 100 million on tolls in Germany, 40% of which will be paid by individuals and companies in the border area.

I think Roemer was a liability (he definitely had his chance in 2012 and people just don't take him seriously anymore), but replacing him with the daughter of Marijnissen who has been in office for like 8 months after an "internal election" doesn't look great. I somewhat understood the party's strategy of focusing on healthcare as polls showed people thought it was very important and focusing on immigration/integration would be very hard for the SP. A large part of their base probably wouldn't appreciate a vocal left-wing immigration policy while the SP "elite" and a smaller (but not insignificant) part of their base wouldn't accept a tack to the right on immigration.

The SP's focus on healthcare is the sort of thing that looks great on paper but just didn't work in reality. I'm not saying they should have spoken out more loudly on immigration and identity issues, but a less "ideologically rigid" and therefore narrow focus on bread and butter stuff would have helped, I think. For instance, a left-wing communitarian approach to identity issues (without actually letting go of their left-wing stances on immigration etc., which they are clearly unwilling to do) could have worked greatly and could actually be one of their strengths. Instead, they chose just to ignore the theme altogether. Roemer not appealing to non-working class people would have remained a problem, which is why replacing him is not a bad idea in itself, but they will not broaden their appeal without a different electoral strategy, and I doubt they understand it.

Meanwhile, I saw that Mark Lievisse Adriaanse, NRC Handelsblad reporter and an SP member himself (at least in the past, a quick Google search shows (https://www.sp.nl/tribune/2011/tribune-72011-linksvoor-mark-lievisse-adriaanse)), wrote an article (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/12/13/lilian-marijnissen-is-de-gedroomde-actieleider-a1584784) on Lilian Marijnissen that might as well have been published by the SP... ::) Like you, I am not as convinced. Bad optics, as you said.

RIP "liberal" NRC. They've truly gone off the deep end :(.

Lmao: in the groupthink world of the SP leadership, the party's problem is that it had become "too elitist, almost like GL". They blame Sharon Gesthuizen, the former MP and rebel who challenged Ron Meyer for the position of chairman and afterwards wrote a book on the culture of fear within the party, because of her plea for a more open/"humane" refugee policy. Roemer also mentioned this more than he probably should have during one of the television debates in the runup to the election.

While I would of course love the SP to take a more restrictive approach on immigration (though it's more likely that they keep their position but stop talking about it), I don't think this was one of their main electoral problems at all (their positions are not even different from those in 2006), and it is frankly delusional and reeks of groupthink to blame it on Gesthuizen -- as if the average voter even knows who she is.

Reporters also found that Lilian Marijnissen knew 1.5 months in advance that Roemer would resign, whereas Karabulut learned this one day in advance. Never change, SP.

nice

Formely Maoist cult/sect with charismatic leader (who is paranoid and likes to keep decisionmaking power within his inner circle, because of course) who is "a man of the people" moderates politically and becomes electorally successful, but remains the same old cult/sect internally. To most voters this doesn't matter in itself, but of course the consequences of this structure lead to poor decisionmaking and turn off talented potential candidates and people with good ideas who happen to be too critical.

DENK have decided to stand in the Rotterdam local election. This will mainly hurt NIDA, who won two seats in 2014 and are more explicitly Islamist than DENK. NIDA were unwilling to cooperate with DENK because they considered DENK to be too polarizing and not sufficiently constructive. It will be interesting to see how this affects both parties. "Moroccans to NIDA, Turks to DENK" would be my first guess (NIDA is led by a Moroccan Dutch guy), but if a Moroccan Dutch person will be selected as political leader of DENK Rotterdam this dynamic may be different.

The parallel between DENK and the PVV, who will be standing in Rotterdam to the detriment of Leefbaar, who are more constructive, continues to hold up very well.

#tbt: Jan and little Lilian Marijnissen in the GE 1989 campaign.
()

The previous chairman election also was a sham, it was painfully obvious that the leadership wanted Meyer to win and was prepared to rig the election. Members really don't have anything to say in the SP (though they actually have members, unlike a certain other party :P). The internal leadership election also wasn't really fair as Marijnissen has known about Roemer's resignation for 2 months while Karabulut only knew it a day in advance. The SP also has the tendency to shut down local chapters which aren't "visible on the streets" (which is ironic as this tend to be the SP chapters that are part of municipal coalitons and actually have influence on policy). Replacing Roemer with Marijnissen also is in line with this, Marijnissen had high positions in labour unions so she will be much more of an activist than Roemer (this is what the SP leadership wants).

Jesse Klaver (GL leader) wants to broaden his support base. Currently GL is mainly backed by high-educated Randstad students (thank God I don't study in the Randstad :P), but he wants to appeal to lower educated people outside of the Randstad as well (and any left-wing party that wants to win the election needs those people to vote for them). I'm not sure whether this will help them, voting GL probably still is a bridge too far for rural voters who might have centre-left sympathies. Then again, if he manages to unite the GL voters (disproportionally young high-educated urban voters) with the more traditional PvdA base he will be a formidable contender in 2021 (or earlier). But in recent years the PvdA wasn't dominated by those young urban high-educated voters to the degree GL was, VVD actually soundly defeated the PvdA in 2012 among younger voters. So I strongly doubt GL can revive the PvdA 2012 coalition, unless the next elections are completely dominated by economic issues (rural voters tend to swing to the left in these elections) and the PvdA doesn't get it's act together. The GL base and the people Klaver is reaching out to probably are incompatible, unless 2021 is an austerity election or something like that.

In some late-night talk show Klaver also eloquently described how the professor in Amsterdam and the primary school teacher in Drenthe have the same dreams. Indeed, this speech probably deeply impressed the professor in Amsterdam while leaving the primary school teacher in Drenthe thinking "So what?". Then again, primary school teachers are very left-wing, so perhaps this isn't a great example. But you guys probably get the idea.

The first scandal with a PVV candidate for the municipal election is in. PVV Rotterdam candidate #1 Géza Hegedüs paid his respects to well-known Shoah denier David Irving. In 2014, he wrote on Irving's Facebook page: "Happy birthday and many more healthy and productive years! You really have my respect!" ::) Would be surprised if he isn't sacked right away, but that the PVV hadn't found out about this in advance is truly unbelievable given all the past scandals.

Edit: There is apparently a podcast by Neonazi group Erkenbrand in which Hegedüs, who is of Hungarian descent, voices his support for Jobbik but decries the party's "moderation" and laments that the party does not talk about Jews and Roma anymore. He also called for the deportation of Surinamese Dutch people. Holy sh**t.

Edit 2: Aaaand he's gone. PVV press statement: 'To our deepest regret, we have taken notice of new information about #1 candidate Geza Hegedüs, which was unbeknownst to us. This information is unacceptable and does not suit a PVV politician. The candidate has immediately been removed from the list. Wilders: "I deeply regret this. Had we known about this beforehand, Mr. Hegedüs would never have been accepted as a candidate on the list. The PVV will announce the next #1 candidate next week."' Leefbaar Rotterdam will be delighted.

What on earth was the PVV even thinking when they signed up for 60 municipalities? They don't have members (except for Geert Wilders and the Wilders Foundation lol), there are no internal debates and they barely have local infrastructure so how were they going to find hundreds of good potential candidates? Luckily for Wilders FvD won't participate in a lot of municipalities. I wonder what FvD would score if they participated in all municipalities while Wilders stays home. FvD's party structure probably makes it easier to find good candidates for local elections.

FvD would also have suffered from tons of scandals like this one. Most people with Nazi sympathies and ideas like the ones Hegedüs espoused despise the PVV for being Zionist (and funded by Jews), but have no problem with FvD. While FvD are pro-Israel too, evidenced by their voting record in parliament as well as Baudet's social media statements, they have also won the support of a lot of people who are not kosher (see Erkenbrand, who adore him), which is unfortunately related to Baudet's alt-right dogwhistling (e.g. the homeopathic dilution comment, the Russia/MH17 stuff, De Haze Winkelman peddling the Coudenhove-Kalergi conspiracy theory, the memes). These people would love to run for their local councils at the FvD slate and could damage the party immensely.

Don't think they will end up running in 60 municipalities at all. There would have been more news by now if that were the case.

But it fits a PVV voter?

Yeah, Erkenbrand also likes Baudet because he is much more of an intellectual than Wilders, they dislike "dumb" skinheads and they demand a "certain level of intellectual capacities" from their members (say the guys who boast about using violence in their discord safe space).

But the FvD actually is an open party which you can join and which organizes a lot of events where members actually cay say things. They obviously can't run in all municipalities in the near future (unless they completely ignore vetting, which would indeed damage their party), but the FvD will have an easier time finding potential politicians because of their relative openness. Meanwhile the PVV is all about Wilders and doesn't have any members and it also doesn't really allow sympathizers to influence the party. It's hard to create a pool of potential politicians if you don't have any members.

I don't think anybody should be impressed by the intellectual capacities of the hbo "students" of Erkenbrand who think they are original for "discovering" Spengler (just like far-right manchild Sid Lukkassen, who can weirdly still remain a VVD local council member somewhere on the border with Germany; wonder if he will be deselected?). Though yes, as almost always, I of course agree with your main point.

FvD third largest party and bigger than the PVV (though all within MoE) in today's Peil.nl poll.

()

Would parties like VVD and CDA be open to working with FvD?

Perhaps not impossible, but it would be difficult. Baudet's worldview and policy positions (most notably leaving the EU and introducing Switzerland-style direct democracy) are simply rather far away from those of VVD and CDA. His hyperbolic statements, trolling and dogwhistling do not help either.

Of course, the issues with cooperation with the PVV were somewhat similar in 2010, and both VVD and CDA may come around (never underestimate the "flexibility" of the VVD in particular), and a lot may change in the coming years, but for now it seems difficult to me.

A complication for FvD would be that they are very vulnerable to the criticism of selling out to the "party cartel" -- just like they accuse D66 of doing. The PVV never had this problem.

Absolutely disgusting.

I find it hilarious. Seven parties virtually tied for second place : that's classic Dutch polling between elections for you!

Can't wait for PvdD to get double digits.

I can see VVD and CDA being open to cooperating with FvD if it's absolutely necessary (and like David said, VVD members are very flexible people unless they target our wallets :P), but I can't see FvD working with the "party cartel" unless it's at their terms.


Yeah, the Dutch public is rather volatile. At some point before the 2006 elections the PvdA was at 60 seats in the polls, they won 33. In 2010 nobody really expected Rutte to win the elections (it's a wonder he survived 2007/2008, the rest is history), in 2012 the SP collapsed from 35 seats to 15 seats in the polls (and the PvdA went from 15 to 35) and according to the polls in the months before the 2017 election VVD-CDA-D66-GL-PvdA was like the only serious option. And don't forget how many parties led atleast 1 poll in the 2012-2015 period. VVD, PvdA, D66, PVV and SP all led multiple polls at one point during that period (and the CDA won the European elections even though they never led a single poll during that period).

This graph is telling:
()

Next week the politician of the year will be chosen. Candidates are Jesse Klaver (GL leader), Jeroen Dijsselbloem (former PvdA finance minister), Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD parliamentary leader), Thierry Baudet (FvD leader) and Khadija Arib (Speaker of the House of Representatives). I'm surprised they didn't include Rutte, he won the elections by quite a big margin after all. Meanwhile I don't get why they included Dijsselbloem and Arib who haven't done anyhing noteworthy this year (especially Dijsselbloem surprised me). Baudet probably will win it though.

It would be superb trolling if he won it and didn't turn up. AFWEZIG!

SP and PVV have proven in the last two elections that your polling numbers mean nothing electorally until the final straight, where people make their coalition preferences known. They were still probably held in a positive regard by those who ended up voting PvdA/VVD-CDA in the respective elections. preferred party =/= who will you vote for if election were held tomorrow.

That said, I don't think people go to provincial elections thinking who they want in government, even though it obviously has an effect with the First Chamber and all. And turnout might be low. So its certainly going to be an interesting election as things stand.

How is Artikel 1 doing?

They changed their name into BIJ1 and they will participate in the Amsterdam municipal election. They might just win a seat as they got 2.3% in Amsterdam in the general election (thanks #woke VU students), but I doubt it.

Baudet won the politician of the year award btw.

Meanwhile a Canadian diplomat gave a house in Scheveningen to D66 leader Pechtold. Pechtold has known the diplomat for more than 25 years and the diplomat retired in 2004. He didn't register this gift, but according to Pechtold he doesn't have a working relationship with the man, so that would mean that it's a private gift and that he doesn't have to register it. Still terrible optics.

The left-wing opposition proposed that employers should pay much higher social charges on workers with temporary contracts. Currently a lot of people in the Netherlands have temporary contracts, and while the coalition tries to stem this tide by decreasing the gap between temporary contracts and permanent contracts (by reducing employment protection for permanent workers and increasing regulations for temporary workers), but the opposition thinks the coalition is not going far enough. GL-SP-PvdA will probably introduce a lot of similar proposals the coming couple of years (before GL/PvdA wins big in the next general election, suddenly forgets everything and joins VVD-CDA-D66).

I've grown to think that the growing amount of temporary contracts might be an undesirable developtment after all. Employers tend to invest less in people with temporary contracts, so this should harm labour productivity and innovation. Then again, as a proud neoliberal VVD member I'd prefer making permanent contracts much cheaper (beautiful euphemism for slashing employment protection) instead of penalizing temporary contracts. Permanent contracts are very strictly regulated (too strictly imo), while temporary contracts are basically unregulated.

De Correspondent today revealed (https://decorrespondent.nl/7738/thierry-baudet-ontmoette-in-het-geheim-een-amerikaanse-racist-van-alt-right/376817386-2d11d76b?pk_campaign=sharer&pk_kwd=twitter) that last October Thierry Baudet had a meeting with American white nationalist Jared Taylor, fouder of American Renaissance. They met for five hours and left deep in the night. Not great optics.

A scandal in the category "holy sh**t": sheltered employment facility Alescon hired disabled people through a temporary employment agency in order not to have to pay their employers as much as they would under the law. Under the construction, employees did not only get paid less, but they also did not have a right to a full wage if they fell ill. Judges have now considered this construction to be illegal, as it is a flagrant violation of the main principle behind sheltered employment facilities: paying disabled employees a fair wage within a position of legal certainty.

And here comes the shocker: until October, William Moorlag was the CEO of Alescon. Now, Moorlag is an MP. For the PvdA.

(...)

A social democrat using illegal constructions to pay his disabled employees a lower wage. Wow. And the PvdA will not punish him for it, saying Moorlag had "good intentions" and accepts the verdict of the court (well, duh). Even though the PvdA have always vocally opposed this type of legal construction. Moorlag's "good intentions" were that "this construction enabled us to hire more people" -- spoken like a true capitalist. Domela Nieuwenhuis just turned in his grave.

The PVV today announced the 30 municipalities where they will stand in the local elections. In GE17 they did better than the national average (13.1%) in all of these except for Urk (11%), Arnhem (12%), Utrecht (7.4%), and Stichtse Vecht (12.7%).
()

Being a PVV politician really hurts your career prospects. In 2016 an anonymous PVV MP apparently told a journalist that he had to remain in politics, even though he wanted to quit, because he was afraid he wouldn't find a job because of PVV background. I'm not sure whether it's that extreme, but being a PVV municipal council member doesn't help your career.

I'm not sure whether FvD has the same stigma. Baudet or Hiddema is on Business Class literally every time I happen to watch it (don't watch it frequently though) so perhaps being a FvD member isn't as much as a problem for businesses. Then again, I'm not sure whether Business Class is that relevant lol. I'm looking forward to senator Harry Mens though :).

A lot of potential PVV candidates also complained about the tight controls imposed by Wilders. Wilders wants them to almost exclusively talk about "de-Islamization", but a lot of potential PVV candidates (especially the ones living in municipalities with a negligible amount of Muslims) felt like this would force them to ignore local issues.

That seems to be one reason (along others) that PVV can’t branch out much. It seems to be the most fervent anti-Islam of the mainstream right-wing populist parties, and it seems that exclusively focusing on a religion doesn’t help them further their appeal

William Moorlag (the PvdA MP with the shady constructions) might resign after all. The PvdA youth wing has collected enough signatures for an internal referendum on his position. Gijs van Dijk (PvdA MP and former union leader) defended Moorlag, which is hilarious as they got van Dijk with his union experience in in order to "claim" these issues (employers finding loopholes in labour laws).

Meanwhile Erdogan wants to repair relations with the Netherlands, he even called Rutte, Michel (Belgium) and Merkel "old friends". A cynical person would say Rutte and Erdogan were completely fine with the diplomatic row in March. Newfound nationalism and a rally around the flag effect helped Rutte to win the general elections in a landslide while it helped Erdogan with his referendum.

Only 32% of voters think Pechtold should have resigned because of the gift he received. The Telegraaf ran a story on how 70% of right-wing voters though Pechtold should resign, but luckily for Pechtold not everyone in the Netherlands is right-wing (yet). And they didn't even count the VVD as part of the right, if you add the VVD in you get a completely different number (only 9% of VVD voters wanted Pechtold to resign). D66 still lost 2 seats in the weekly peil.nl poll though.

Pressure on Moorlag to resign is increasing. Following the campaign by the PvdA's youth wing, the executive board of the PvdA now wants Moorlag, who succeeded former Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem in October, to step down as well. De Volkskrant reports that there is a risk that Moorlag may refuse to resign. In that case, the PvdA would be left with only eight seats, one of them occupied by the Speaker. I don't really expect this to happen in his case, but you never know.

There have been problems with fireworks all over the country. Even as a right-winger raised in a relatively rural place I must say that I'm tired of it by now, maybe the call for banning or more strictly regulating it will grow now. Yesterday a man died in front of his children because he f**ed up with fireworks, but most of the victims are bystanders.

Also wanted to shamelessly abuse this thread for announcing that this will be my last post of 2017 on atlas, I have to get back to my parents and the oliebollen now :P.

Happy New Year!

Polls indicate that there has been a silent majority that is highly critical of consumer fireworks for years. According to a TNS NIPO poll (2017), 69% of the Dutch never buy any fireworks. And then look at the victims and the costs. Proponents always say that the problems stem from illegal fireworks, but apparently approximately 20% of legal consumer fireworks are defective. Fireworks, not Zwarte Piet, should be the most controversial Dutch "tradition". I have always supported a ban, but it seems things are finally going to change now, though I expect it to take a few more years and a lot more hands, eyes and lives.

This is an issue I definitely take into account when deciding whom to vote for in the local election.

The Islamic party NIDA, currently represented on the Rotterdam local council with three seats, will establish a branch in The Hague and stand in the municipal election in March. This will undoubtedly hurt the two existing Islamic parties on the local council in The Hague, the Islam Democrats and the more radical Unity Party (PvdE). NIDA have managed to fence off scandals in Rotterdam and operate in a professional way, which cannot be said about the crooks of the Islam Democrats and the salafis of the PvdE. It still remains to be seen whether DENK will also stand in The Hague.

Wait, how bad is it? I find it mildly annoying on New Year's because I can't go to bed for a little while after midnight due to the noise, but it isn't that bad.

I find fireworx highly annoying, but I guess a ban would be hard to enforce: people would only continue to buy it via Internet and Poland. Here, it's the Greens and the Pilz List who want to ban it. I'm still leaning towards banning it, because fireworks are mostly retarded: they can lead to heavy injuries while being produced (often by children in Asia), or when fired off. They are filled with powder containing massive cancer-inducing substances that are poisoning the air. They are a plague to animals such as cats or dogs who are traumatized. They are a plague for agriculture, because the exploded rockets are coming down on fields who are used for making crops and hey. Cows are eating the stuff and the cancer-inducing crap can be found in our milk. And the PM10 and PM2.5 particle concentration is going through the roof every New Year's morning. Once you wake up on New Year, it's like you are waking up in Shanghai or Beijing, with a thick layer of disgusting crappy air outside.

This is a thing that the Greens should actually push and not being traitors to the country by putting illegal economic immigrants over hard-working Austrians or Europeans.

I don't mind the beautiful fireworks on the night itself, but on December 31st the streets just become a warzone, particularly in the cities but also to a smaller extent in suburban and rural areas. I currently live abroad, but last year I could not even ride my bike to the nearest supermarket without being bombarded with firecrackers, which is a scary experience. And I'm a young guy. Elderly people are particularly terrified of the annual sh**tfest, lots of pets escape every year out of anxiety, and it isn't exactly good for the air quality either. For most people, the "tradition" of fireworks is just no fun anymore. It's become an excuse for young guys to make as much noise as possible and scare people.

The timeslot to set off fireworks legally was reduced from 10:00-2:00 to 18:00-2:00 a few years ago, but it is simply impossible for the police to prevent people from doing it anyway. A lot of people from the Netherlands tell me that they changed their minds on a ban on consumer fireworks this year, so I assume that the situation didn't improve this year.

Sylvana Simons presented her list of candidates for the municipal elections in Amsterdam. It's a goldmine :).

It includes a former occupy protester who got arrested during an anti-Zwarte Piet rally and wants to represent an "internationally oriented decolonized anti-capitalist world", someone called vreer (without capital letter), a 47-year old white heterosexual cisgender male bus driver born in Purmerend, Anja Meulenbelt (most famous pro-Palestine activist in the Netherlands, she left the SP because she thought they weren't anti-Israel enough) and progressive documentary filmmaker Sunny Bergman who blatantly admitted ignoring crucial details in her documentaries.

I actually am more #woke on some of their issues than you'd expect for a VVD member (though they'd undoubtedly see me as a posterboy of fascist white male privilege or so), but I don't think they are helping their cause. Still, a combination of #woke UvA/VU students and latte liberals might propel them to a seat or two in Amsterdam. Artikel1 got 2.5% in Amsterdam during the general elections (0.3% in the entire nation) and I believe they only need to cross 2% to get a seat.

The D66 youth wing will campaign against the "intelligence and security services act". The cabinet has said they will ignore the result of the referendum as they will abolish the referendum anyway. This might put D66 in a hard position because most of their voters (and their youth wing) opposes this law, while most of the VVD/CDA/CU voters support this law (especially the amount of VVD voters that support this law is ... concerning for a liberal party, peil.nl had it support among VVD voters at 85%).

I think Gretta "antisemite has almost become a badge of honor" Duisenberg is still the most famous pro-Palestine activist in the Netherlands, but yeah, Meulenbelt should be about as well-known and about as nuts. The pro-Israel cause needs more people like them.

The BIJ1 candidates introduce themselves here (http://www.bij1.org/gemeenteraadsverkiezingen-2018) and, as mvd10 said, it is truly a goldmine, so check it out. Google Translate should work fine for the descriptions. The best ones: vreer (no capital letter, pronouns them/that, "gender wanderer") and former Lolberlin professor Gloria Wekker, who thinks objectivity in science does not exist and should not exist and who wrote a book called "White Innocence" to blame all Dutch ypipo for colonialism, capitalism and everything bad in the world.

I personally don't know about their fate. You need to be insanely woke to vote for BIJ1, and with GL leading the opposition to the national government from the left this is a much safer option for most lefties in Amsterdam. One seat (or maybe two seats if they have a good day) would be the likeliest option, but zero seats isn't completely impossible either, as turnout in the Bijlmer, where they did best in the GE, isn't the highest in local elections. They got 10,197 votes in the GE in Amsterdam with 78% turnout. With an expected 50% turnout in the local election (but this may be much higher, in line with the GE) and a much larger electorate (all EU citizens can vote) of about 700k, you need at least 7,500 votes or so for 1 seat. Simons should be able to make it in, but I doubt their second candidate will.

I don't like criticizing academics by making caricatures of their arguments. Wekker is actually a decently well known anthropologist, and you should treat her arguments seriously.

Of course it was hyperbole, but Wekker's opinion of objectivity in science is something I completely unhyperbolically oppose. In "White Innocence" she literally states (https://twitter.com/LaScNo/status/945581627429842944) that she rejects the "untenable positivist position, with its requirements of neutrality, objectivity and replacability" according to which it should not matter who the person behind the scientist is and that someone's work should be duplicable. I do not have a PhD, but I have a decent scientific background and I find this to be an incredibly dangerous argument to make, potentially undermining any and all scientific findings; this truly plays into the hands of those who question universities and research in general (be prepared for those who think scientific findings on vaccines are "just based on the scientist's personal background"!). Perhaps this makes one a "decently well known anthropologist" in Lolberlin and on various other U.S. campuses, and I am prepared to take anyone's argument seriously regardless of their position, but according to me it makes her an activist more than a scientist.

SMH dude, rejecting positivism does not mean anti-realism or anti-materialism... If you are to take positivism seriously, that means that Saturn's rings did not exist before Galileo saw them!
Like the majority of the Western canon of philosophy is not positivist or empiricist, does this mean you don't read any of them?
Remember: we're talking about social sciences here...

I am not saying there are no legitimate criticisms of positivism, and I am not saying any science that is not based on positivism is inherently bad or problematic. However, I do think that if one is as prominent in activist circles as Wekker is and one combines this activism with one's non-positivist academic work within the field of anthropology, rejecting the traditional position regarding objectivity in science, then one could raise questions about the value of this person's work. I am not an anthropologist and it could well be that her anthropological work is decent, but if her analysis of Dutch society just consists of personal opinions (formulated in academic language) connected to non-positivist theories rooted in black activism and invented by other activist scientists who want to "deconstruct colonialism" or something similar, with the aim of accusing Dutch people of bad things and ultimately transforming Dutch society rather than producing objective knowledge to the benefit of everyone, then I will not exactly be inclined to take the argument as seriously as an article in a medical journal on the effectiveness of vaccines.

Edit as response to your edit: It goes without saying that the demands of Dutch politicians regarding the integration of minority groups have shifted over time and that integration policies have changed accordingly, and that migrant groups are not to blame for this (though neither are ethnic Dutch people). I doubt that this is fuelled by "racial" considerations, but apart from the last sentence I think Wekker is not necessarily wrong here.

The new party Ubuntu Connected Front (UCF) will stand in the local elections of both Amsterdam and Rotterdam, focusing on voters with an African and Caribbean background. It should be similar to BIJ1, but less intersectionalist and more exclusively focused on black interests. It has the potential to be a huge spoiler to BIJ1 in Amsterdam and hurt the PvdA in Rotterdam.

The Amsterdam branch will be led by Iwan Leeuwin, an activist and former member of the Amsterdam Southeast district council on behalf of GroenLinks. Leeuwin was basically kicked out of the party by GL Amsterdam leader Rutger Groot Wassink for saying an effigy of Nelson Mandela looked like Black Pete (hilarious story; can't really blame Leeuwin (https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/fileadmin/poms_import/nelsonmandela.png)). The effigy was later burned down, which ruined the opening ceremony of the Nelson Mandela Park. Strikingly, Leeuwin is the cousin of BIJ1 leader Sylvana Simons.

Kijken in de Ziel, a Dutch television programme in which a journalist interviews people from certain fields (like lawyers, doctors or journalists) featured prime ministers this time. Dries van Agt (former CDA PM) caught the most headlines. He criticized the CDA's new more nationalist course (he also said that the Netherlands has become too nationalist) and he admitted voting for GroenLinks (!). Van Agt is well-known for his pro-Palestinian activism, but he also was involved in some conservative think tanks in the early 2000s (some conservative intellectuals wanted to create a Dutch conservative party, eventually they thought the PVV was going to be that party but they left as soon as they realized Wilders' agenda didn't line up with theirs and the project died soon after that). To be fair van Agt backed out immediately when Wilders first got involved, but it's still curious.

I was a little surprised about the attention this received. Van Agt pretty much made it clear that he voted for GL already when the election took place. On March 10, he said (https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/waarom-coryfeeen-van-agt-en-vogelaar-niet-op-hun-partij-stemmen-en-flirten-met-groenlinks~a4472800/) in De Volkskrant that he would not publicize for whom he would vote, but that he had "great sympathy, yes, admiration even" for GL (really makes you think). Perhaps some people had been sleeping. Van Agt was a vocal opponent of the cooperation with the PVV in 2010 and solely seems to care about opposing Israel these days, so the announcement was not too surprising in the first place.

A more interesting aspect of the interview, in my opinion, was Van Agt's open criticism of the late Queen Juliana. According to Van Agt, Queen Juliana's "process of wear had started. There was little systematics, logic and method in [her thinking on] the subjects that were discussed" by the time that he had become Prime Minister (1977 until her abdication in 1980). This remark, in turn, was criticized by the former Speaker of Parliament Gerdi Verbeet (PvdA), as Queen Juliana cannot defend herself from Van Agt's accusations. Van Agt never had a good relationship with the royal family; Jan-Peter Balkenende and he are the only former Prime Ministers who are currently alive and did not receive the honorary title of Minister of State. Apparently (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/11/03/kamervraag-van-de-week-waarom-is-van-agt-geen-minister-van-staat-a1481915) Queen Beatrix and Van Agt did not like each other either: they have very different characters, Van Agt screwed up Queen Beatrix' first formation in 1981, and he had a rocky relationship with his successor Ruud Lubbers, who is liked by the royal family.

Peil.nl poll for the upcoming local election in Amsterdam:

D66 9 (-5)
GL 9 (+3)
VVD 6 (-)
PvdA 5 (-5)
SP 4 (-2)
DENK 3 (new, +3)
FvD 3 (new, +3)
PvdD 2 (+1)
BIJ1 2 (new, +2)
CDA 1 (-)
50Plus 1 (new, +1)
Elderly Party 0 (-1)

The current D66-VVD-SP coalition would lose its majority. Painful numbers for D66, suggesting that either their achievements as part of the local government or (more likely) their participation in the national government is not valued too highly by many of their 2014 voters in Amsterdam. Another cold shower for the PvdA as well.

A SP+VVD coalition, dear god this is si trash

PvdD surging!

The poll seems to be in line with the general election result of 2017. D66 had 18% in Amsterdam (GL was larger), which is about 9 local seats. People forget that 2014 was the highpoint of D66 where it frequently polled first. To me this poll suggests that D66 is not really punished so far since they enter the national government

You're absolutely right, my suggestions were probably overly influenced by wishful thinking. I also think that part of the reason why D66 had an unusually good election in 2014 in Amsterdam was that there was an "anyone but the PvdA" vote (related to the party's style of governing in the capital, not to the party's national lack of popularity) and D66 were regarded as the only other party that could top the poll.

Meanwhile, the SP is receiving quite some criticism from the left after allegedly pulling a 180 on the subject of EU agreements on migration with third countries. Roemer had opposed the deal with Turkey, calling it "dirty" and criticizing it for not meeting human rights standards. However, Lilian Marijnissen, the new party leader, now stated in De Volkskrant does not oppose migration agreements with third countries in principle, but that it depends on the context. Technically Marijnissen does not necessarily contradict Roemer and his position on the agreement with Turkey, but to me it appears that something has changed: Marijnissen confirms that she would not necessarily oppose a migration agreement with Morocco, while she had to agree with the reporter that there are not many African countries with a better human rights situation than Turkey. She also says that "it would be moronic" to oppose migrants applying for asylum in third countries and that "in principle, it is desirable that migrants are taken in by neighboring countries." Roemer, on the other hand, appeared to reject the underlying idea of such migration deals, namely that migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum in Europe. It is hard not to see this change as the fulfillment of Jan Marijnissen and Ron Meyer's wish to ditch the Roemer/Gesthuizen policy and tone on migration, which they regarded as too refugee-friendly and out of sync with the views of the Dutch working class.

Local politics are much less partisan. Keeping the whole thing running is the most important thing. That could change in 2018 though, Amsterdam's seriously overheated housing market is becoming a huge issue and SP and VVD/D66 have big differences on that issue. There also are some VVD/SP coalitions in provincial governments. Literally nobody knows what provincial governments do (something with the roads I believe).

Speaking of D66 it looks like they are going to put elected mayors to the parliament but could potentially get shafted by the CDA in the First Chamber (Senate). Potential Thom de Graaf 2.0.

I don't think Ollongren will resign if this fails, but it might be nasty for them. Then again, do D66 voters really care about their so-called "crown jewels" anymore (basically more democratization)? Basically ditching the crown jewels and becoming a generic centrist progressive anti-PVV party probably was a great move by Pechtold, the "crown jewels" were never going to pass parliament twice with a 2/3 majority (which is necessary for constitutional changes)

I wonder which former CDA/VVD bigwig who was last relevant back in the 80s/90s will block one of D66's crown jewels this time. In 1998 Hans Wiegel (charismatic former VVD leader who was last relevant during van Agt I in the late 70s but still continues to appear on television) blocked the referendum and in 2005 Ed van Thijn (Amsterdam mayor in the 80s) blocked the elected mayor. May 18 1998 became the "night of Wiegel" and March 22 2005 became known as the "night of van Thijn". I bet Eelco Brinkman (CDA) desperately wants to have something named after him, otherwise he'll be known as the 1994 CDA candidate who got savagely and spectacularly sabotaged by the incumbent CDA (!) PM during his campaign. He fits the bill perfectly.

Peil.nl (https://www.noties.nl/v/get.php?a=peil.nl&s=weekpoll&f=2018-01-21.pdf) today:
VVD 27
D66 16 (+1)
FvD 15
PVV 15 (+1)
PvdA 13 (-1)
CDA 14
SP 14
GroenLinks 13 (-1)
PvdD 7
ChristenUnie 5
50Plus 5
SGP 3
DENK 3

In Groningen another severe earthquake took place. In this light, the government's gas drilling plans have become controversial again: according to critics, the amount of gas extracted is not decreasing quickly enough. In addition, claims for reparations have not been dealt with during the very long formation process, which understandably has pissed people off.

"What should happen with gas extraction in Groningen?"
Immediately end it - 19%
End it in the coming few years - 23%
End it gradually - 45%
Continue extraction as is now the case - 8%

Those who want to end it now or in the coming few years were asked whether they would find it to be acceptable to pay 150 euros more in taxes on a yearly basis if gas extraction were to be terminated. 48% said this would be acceptable to them, 44% said it would not.

52% view PM Rutte's role in the gas extraction issue as negative, 28% are neutral and only 11% regard his handling of the issue as positive.

Following America's most recent SJW fad, statues, roads and schools named after historical figures from the Golden Age have now become controversial in the inner city of Amsterdam, and the whole country has to know about it. A school in bobo Amsterdam East named after Jan Pieterszoon Coen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Pieterszoon_Coen) will change its name. 65% oppose this (including pluralities of the D66, PvdA, SP and PvdD electorates), only 23% support it.

As a gotcha, pollster De Hond included a question on approval of the name change of Amsterdam's Stalin Avenue to Freedom Avenue in the 1950s, as if Stalin has been an important figure in our national history. 49% support the name change that took place at the time, a whopping 37% oppose it, including a plurality of VVD voters (lol).

lol

()

Poll local election Rotterdam. Big loss for Leefbaar Rotterdam who are allied with FvD. Suprised to see that Leefbaar Rotterdam and PVV are smaller together than Leefbaar Rotterdam in 2014. Surprisingly the VVD will double the number of it seats according to this poll

()

Utrecht poll

That Rotterdam poll is terrible. F**k the PVV for screwing over Leefbaar, a highly effective and successful party.

In The Hague, the braindead part of the local PVV (consisting of former MPs Karen Gerbrands and Willie Dille) has successfully managed to chase away the (more or less) normal part, consisting of Elias van Hees (who already left last year), Danielle de Winter and Tim Vermeer. Hope they will get a nice seat loss. This is likely to happen and will probably mainly benefit local party Groep De Mos, led by former PVV MP Richard de Mos. Will be voting VVD myself.

Why not Groep De Mos?

I am sympathetic to them and I actually just read their manifesto, which is quite impressive. I might give them a chance. At the same time, I very much feel that they are not there for voters like me.  They are there for working-class people who have been living in The Hague for generations: for "Hagenezen" (which they use in their manifesto all the time as well), not for "Hagenaars". This is a good thing, as these people are usually ignored by most other parties and deserve to be represented well, which De Mos does absolutely does (while the PVV does not). But these voters' needs and desires are not necessarily always my needs and desires. For instance, Groep De Mos seems even more car-oriented than the (greenish) VVD, whereas I would like upgrading the bikelane and public transit system to be prioritized. In addition, Groep De Mos is also explicitly a party for the elderly and therefore comes up with proposals such as free public transit for pensioners. This sort of ideas seem unnecessary and needlessly expensive to me: just like all poor people, poor elderly people already get a lot of freebies, including access to public transit at a reduced price, and the very many elderly who have more money to spend clearly don't need it. Still, as I said, I am quite impressed by their manifesto and will consider them more seriously than I previously did.

Some controversy over the decision by Minister Kaag (Development Cooperation, D66) to pay 13 million euros to UNRWA immediately. The Dutch government was already going to contribute this amount of money, but following Donald Trump and Nikki Haley's decision to slash U.S. funding to UNRWA, Kaag decided to have the payment take place immediately.

MP Danai van Weerdenburg (PVV) referred to Kaag's personal commitment to the UNRWA (she worked there in the past), to which Minister Zijlstra (Foreign Affairs, VVD; Kaag was in Davos) rather angrily responded that he was fed up with the right-wing opposition's tendency to point at Kaag's spouse, a Palestinian former PLO official, to discredit her -- which Van Weerdenburg had not done here. She thanked Zijlstra for his addition.

But opposition to Kaag's decision did not only come from the PVV. SGP leader Kees van der Staaij noted that it has become a habit of Development Cooperation ministers to try and "act brave" by making payments to organizations hit by Trump's budget cuts: Kaag's predecessor Lilianne Ploumen (PvdA) became well-known for her initiative SheDecides, defying Trump's reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy. Van der Staaij was dissatisfied with Kaag's decision, and the government, with a majority of one in both houses of parliament, might need the SGP in the future.

It also turned out that coalition parties VVD, CDA and CU were not amused with Kaag's decision. Not without reason, as state broadcaster NOS found out that Kaag had not discussed her actions with the coalition and bluntly announced her decision 30 minutes after intra-coalition talks had finished. As a response, MPs Bente Becker (VVD), Anne Kuik (CDA) and Joel Voordewind (CU) put forward ten critical parliamentary questions to Minister Kaag. CU, CDA and VVD also decided to show their dissatisfaction with regard to the course of affairs by putting the issue on the agenda in three upcoming debates. This shows how limited Kaag's manoeuvring space on this highly explosive theme is: VVD, CDA and CU clearly seek to show Kaag that she will not get away with similar decisions in the future.

Meanwhile, trust in most ministers has gone down since the government assumed office. Only minister Zijlstra of Foreign Affairs (VVD) has become more trusted.
()
Trust in ministers Slob (CU), Ollongren (D66) and Kaag (D66) has declined the most: -0.7. For Slob this probably has to do with teachers' wages not going up by enough according to the labor unions, for Ollongren it definitely has to do with her initiative to abolish the referendum and with her defense of the law on the Intelligence Services that will be subject of a referendum in March, and for Kaag I don't know.

The Hague poll:

D66 8 (nc)
VVD 6 (+2)
GL 5 (+3)
De Mos 5 (+2)
PVV 4 (-3)
PvdA 4 (-2)
CU/SGP 3 (+2)
CDA 2 (-1)
PvdD 2 (+1)
The Hague City Party 2 (-3)
50Plus 2 (+1)
SP 1 (-1)
Islam Democrats 1 (-1)
PvdE 0 (-1)
NIDA 0

Conducted by junk pollster I&O, though; seems as if the Muslim parties (ID, NIDA, PvdE) are being underpolled.

Lol66: Ilhan Tekir, former GL local council member in Gorinchem who was kicked out of the party after stating his support for Turkish president Erdogan and that he had voted for him (including whataboutery about "the long arm of Israel and America [in Dutch politics]") is now the leader of D66 Gorinchem -- and that is completely fine with the national leadership of D66, the Gorinchem branch claims. According to the current D66 leader in Gorinchem, Francis Alba Heijdenrijk, Tekir's statements need to be viewed in "the context that existed after the failed coup"; moreover, "Erdogan is an important cooperation partner for Europe" and "many other Turks vote for Erdogan too". Tekir would be a "passionate Democrat" (lol) for whom "the interest of D66 comes first."

Negative press for FvD and the PvdA these days.

Baudet declined to dissociate himself from the comments that Yernaz Ramautarsing, #2 FvD candidate in Amsterdam and previous candidate for the Libertarian Party (GE 2012) and Artikel 1 (EP 2014), made about differences on average between peoples in terms of IQ. Ramautarsing, a proud libertarian and follower of Ayn Rand who is black and from Suriname (and opposed to Zwarte Piet!) and who grew up with a single mother in the most black neighborhood in the country, stated in 2016 that "I would loved for it to be different, that black people were extremely intelligent, that Surinamese had the highest average IQ in the world. But it is not true. You can take someone from Syria, where the average IQ is 84, into the Netherlands, where the average IQ is 101. This person will indeed earn less than many natives. But is that racism? No, there is a relationship between IQ and income." For some reason, these comments have now again gone viral, and Baudet's refusal to dissociate himself from them drove Deputy Prime Minister Kajsa Ollongren (D66, Interior Affairs) to state that FvD have gone further than the PVV and pose a threat to the "fundamental values of our democracy." In response, Baudet filed a complaint with the police for both libel and slander. Every freshman in law school knows that this complaint will not hold up in court, but people do everything for PR nowadays. Unwisely, MP Theo Hiddema also decided to double down on Ramautarsing's comments, saying that "this has all been scientifically proven." All this, I think, is very damaging to FvD because it will increasingly be perceived as a far-right party. This will make the party less palatable as a coalition partner to VVD and CDA, which, in turn, would mean that the party would have less opportunities to exert direct influence on policy: I increasingly feel that FvD is going the PVV way.

Meanwhile, there is much media attention for the lack of internal democracy within FvD. People are not dissatisfied with Baudet himself but with Henk Otten, treasurer on the FvD board, who apparently has a rather dictatorial style and was the main actor behind the move to shut down the provincial FvD structures. Certain prominents cancelled their membership. I doubt any voter will care about this, but it's not the way any party wants to be in the media.

Fortunately, there is also the PvdA. The Moorlag scandal on sub-minimum wages for employees with special needs ended with a painful defeat for the new Corbynista chairwoman Nelleke Vedelaar and with Moorlag remaining part of the PvdA parliamentary group. However, the PvdA group leader in the Senate, Marleen Barth, resigned today. When her husband Jan Hoekema's term as mayor of Wassenaar had expired, she had sought to negotiate a reduced rental price to continue to live in the mayor's mansion, NRC Handelsblad revealed in January. This week, the important Senate debates on the initiative to change the organ donation law from an opt-in system to an opt-out system took place. These debates had been on the agenda for months and the vote was bound to be very close. Ultimately the vote was postponed, but Barth was already enjoying her holiday on the Maldives when that decision was made and didn't think participating in the debates was too important. This proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back. To many, Barth is the absolute personification of the entitlement mentality many PvdA elected officials used to have, and I think it was high time that she left.

Her husband also wasn't very popular in Wassenaar (he was mayor there). That Wassenaar didn't have a VVD mayor for literally a decade already baffled me, but you really f**ed up when people in Wassenaar mockingly call you "baroness" and "regent" (then again, there are some less wealthy parts in Wassenaar).

Yet another prominent FvD member left their party btw. Bad optics for Baudet. Ollongren seems to be the far-right's new favourite scapegoat. I expected this role to go to Kaag, but practically nobody cares about foreign policy and Kaag has made just 1 controversial decision so far.

Cooperation between FvD and mainstream parties will be practically impossible with those comments by prominent FvD politicians, but with FvD's obsession with the party cartel cooperation probably wasn't going to happen anyway. Argh, we should have gone with VNL in 2017 :P.

FvD are a G-dsent for D66. After 2006 they managed to climb out of the abyss by adopting an anti-PVV strategy as Wilders got more popular. But the PVV are old news now, and as D66 have entered a rather right-wing government, they have to find a way to maintain support. Becoming the "anti-FvD" allows them to do so while not endangering the stability of the government at all.

As for Ollongren, it is clear that she is supposed to succeed Pechtold as D66 leader. I think she comes across as a cold, distant regent (who has never been on any ballot) and I wonder whether she will have the connection with the base that Pechtold has, but we shall see. Ollongren's "task" to abolish the referendum would always hurt her, and the 180 on the intelligence law, unpopular with the D66 base, made things worse. I wonder whether the Ministry of the Interior was really the right place for her. Then again, if her image among D66 voters does survive this (and sniping at FvD will certainly help her), she will be in a great position to lead the party.

Then FvD: indeed, Susan Teunissen, #3 on the GE list, left the party over the lack of internal democracy (not the IQ stuff). The second FvD seat will go to her if Hiddema resigns (or dies, G-d forbid; he is 73), and nobody knows what would happen then: in the worst-case scenario for FvD, she would take the seat as an independent. This also means that Baudet will not necessarily be able to catapult Hiddema to the Senate in 2019 should he wish to do so, which is now only possible if Baudet is sure that Teunissen will not take the seat and become an independent.

My god that debate over Amsterdam was a sh**tshow. Worse thing is it was the national leaders and not the usual amateurs that lead party lists. A debate completely hijacked by the attention seekers, the non-issues and the people who indulge in their edginess, or are looking to present themselves as the ying to Baudet's yang (see the part about D66 above). When the SP is the least annoying presence on the platform its time to switch off. 

The Dutch far right seem to be entering Catch-22 levels of repeating the same mistake of entrepreneurial politics over grassroots movements. In order to get their electoral platform they need an out-there figure. Said figure is inevitably a self-obsessed maverick with a burgeoning calimero complex against "The Media/The Establishment" for the voters to identify with. The success that said figure enjoys leads him/her to move beyond the actual project of building a party and a political movement and instead enjoy the excesses and attention of the very elite they criticise. The serious members jump ship from the scam.

I was belittled on here for saying that many of these political entrepreneurs were egomaniacs to a higher degree than the rest of the political class, and that this would eventually work against them, and lo and behold Baudet has proved me right once again, as did Fortuyn, Verdonk, Wilders, Roos etc.  Given the FvD is not only such a movement, but one directly descended from a student  fraternity, you do have to be a bit thick to think internal democracy would be a pillar of their platform. "Fool me once", etc

Didn't watch; debates on local politics with national politicians are always terrible, but yes, judging by the reviews this one was even worse.

The government is going to make it more difficult to receive social benefits for those who have occupational disabilities and can barely (or not at all) work, though this policy will only apply to new cases. Ultimately, approximately 9% fewer people will receive "Wia" social benefits, Minister Koolmees (D66, Social Affairs) stated. Another 4% will be declared partly disabled instead of fully disabled, which means that they will receive fewer benefits than now. The consequence will be that some of these people, who will inevitably be unable to find work, will only receive the most basic type of welfare.

EenVandaag will no longer use pollster GfK to produce the De Stemming poll, but publish Ipsos' polls instead. This decision was presumably based on the fact that De Stemming proved to be the single least accurate poll in the 2017 GE, whereas Ipsos was the most accurate. It does not seem as if GfK is still conducting polls, so I think we have four pollsters now: Ipsos/EenVandaag, Kantar/TNS and Peil.nl/De Hond, who are all decent, and I&O, whose polls should really not be taken seriously.

The 1-seat majority is a problem. Omtzigt also got away too easily, and the same might happen with van Haga if he doesn't want to give his seat up (if the reports about his behaviour are true I can't really see him giving up his seat voluntarily). There have been stories about this for weeks, but the revelations from the NRC article are much worse than what we already knew. I wouldn't be surprised if some parties decided to attack the VVD with this, the housing market is a big issue in Amsterdam, and a VVD MP being a "huisjesmelker" is bad optics. The VVD won 15% in Amsterdam during the general election, so I imagine D66 or maybe even a party to the right of the VVD can use this. Then again, I'm not sure whether VVD voters in Amsterdam(-Zuid) really care about this. The Amsterdam VVD often is perceived as being completely out of touch with (read: more left-wing than) the VVD in the rest of the Netherlands, but this mostly goes for issues like immigration and law and order.

Zijlstra's lies are terrible too. This probably will hurt Dutch foreign policy. We should have gone with Han ten Broeke anyway. Zijlstra would have been good at a law and order ministry or any economic ministry except for Finance but he doesn't have any qualifications for the Foreign Affairs job other than a random anonymous VVD MP claiming that he knew a lot about foreign policy and his travels abroad. This makes you wonder about his other stories (he once claimed to have witnessed a terrorist attack in Bogota, Colombia). Maybe he even invented the story of him being secretary of a racing pigeon club!

I guess this means that Dijkhoff definitely is the VVD heir apparent. I mean, we already knew it but after Schippers' decision to leave politicis, Hennis-Plasschaert's resignation and Zijlstra's gaffe it's pretty obvious that those three won't succeed Rutte. Dijkhoff also has been more vocal in the debate about Dutch cultural heritage. Seeing a VVD politician talking like a right-winger is quite refreshing, usually it only happens once every 4 years :P.

More bad news for Zijlstra: apparently he didn't just lie about him seeing Putin speak, he also might have lied about what Putin said ("he gave his own interpretation"). Rutte has said that he supported Zijlstra, but we know that doesn't mean much (he also "supported" former Security and Justice minister van der Steur).

I have 2 questions. (Sorry, I just haven't payed that much attention since the GE last year, though I went and read the entire thread today from the beginning.)

One, how has FvD essentially replaced PVV?
Two, when are the municipal and local elections and where can I watch them?

1.
I wouldn't say that FvD has replaced the PVV. In most polls the PVV still is slightly ahead of FvD, and they attract quite different voters. FvD is a form of "upscale populism" and ideologically there are some small differences. But Wilders is in trouble, and the recent problems with local candidates showed the PVV's weaknesses, but Baudet also has had some scandals recently
2.
March 21. I'm not sure where you can watch, but I'm sure someone will post a link to a livestream on that date. The same day there also will be a referendum on a law that granted extra surveillance powers to the intelligence services.

Is there polling for this referendum anywhere?

Rumor has it that Ten Broeke has f**ked his assistent in parliament, in the chair of the Speaker, that there is CCTV footage as evidence for this, and that this is the reason why the VVD have viewed Ten Broeke as a liability. Retarded move if true.

why though

Where did you read this? I'm interested :P.

Anyway, I've heard two things about Han ten Broeke. The first story is that "something" happened and that he won't become minister after that (Berckmoes apparently also wrote that "something" happened in her book so it might be true after all, but I haven't read the book yet). I guess the "something" could very well be what you read, but lol. In that case Han ten Broeke definitely shouldn't become minister. The second explanation is that he and Zijlstra really, really hate each other and that Han ten Broeke won't become minister because of that.

Was Berkmoes the assistant or just a source?

Reminds me of something out of House of Cards...

Well, she never said that. She just said that something happened, which can mean a lot of things. And Berckmoes was a MP, so she couldn't have been the assistant.

I badly want Hans van Baalen as Foreign Minister btw.

Can't MPs be junior ministers in some capacity? Or do they always fill purely legislative functions?

Senate voted 38-36 for the new opt-out organ donation system; Zijlstra just resigned as FM

RIP Zijlstra. There used to be a time when I firmly was on the Zijlstra-for-PM bandwagon. How things change :(.

My own list of potential successors:

Han ten Broeke (VVD MP, 2006-)
Extremely qualified and well liked across the political spectrum, but for some reason he already got passed over twice so I don't think he'll get it this time.

Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert (VVD, former Defence Minister 2012-2017)
She was meant to become Foreign Minister but the Mali scandal (young soldier died because of mistakes made the the Defence Ministry) forced her to resign, and getting a promotion literally 3 days after being forced to resign would be terrible optics. The scandal still might be too close for her to return to frontline politics, but that she remained in politics as a MP shows that the VVD still sees a future in her as I don't think she plans to stay a backbench MP until 2021.

Hans van Baalen (VVD, MEP 2009-)
Qualified, but perhaps a bit too "neocon", he'd definitely clash with Kaag (but that didn't stop them from appointing Zijlstra though). His move to the European Parliament in 2009 also looked a bit like a kick upstairs. It was during the aftermath of the Rutte-Verdonk clash and apparently van Baalen (a clear right-winger) was rather supportive of Verdonk unlike Zijlstra who clearly supported Rutte despite being very right-wing. Meanwhile van Baalen also got passed over thrice despite being very qualified for Defence/Foreign Affars

Barbara Visser (VVD, Defence State Secretary 2017-)
Too inexperienced so I'm pretty sure she doesn't get it, but that didn't stop them from appointing her as State Secretary of Defence, but that's a much less important position than Foreign Affairs Minister. Then again, she has 3/4 months of experience with Foreign Affairs, which is more than Zijlstra got :P. But she's an outsider, I think it's more likely they come up with an unknown VVD sympathizer from academia or the civil service (or maybe someone from the Senate).

This is my personal list based on guesswork, so I easily could have missed someone. No rights can be derived from this list ;).

I knew it, I've read this story before!

https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/zat-halbe-zijlstra-nu-wel-of-niet-met-poetin-in-een-buitenhuis~a4524949/

A Volkskrant article from 2017 already cast doubts Zijlstra's story. Why people didn't jump on this earlier surprises me.

Not at the same time. Banned by the constitution:

Promoting Hennis to the MFA was always a bad idea and Barbara Visser barely has any foreign policy experience. I hope the VVD don't make the same mistake of appointing someone unqualified to the office and just go with Ten Broeke or Van Baalen.

Names also frequently mentioned: Edith Schippers, who is really close to Rutte but has no foreign policy experience (this is probably a non-story, as she seemed to feel relieved not to be a minister anymore), and Renee Jones-Bos, the ambassador of the Netherlands to Russia, former secretary-general at the MFA, former ambassador in Washington DC, and apparently a VVD member. She is fluent in English, French and Russian.

Former Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (1982-1994) just died. He was the longest reigning as well as the youngest PM in the country's history.

RIP Lubbers. He completely dominated the political scene in the 80s (his position somewhat weakened in the 90s as far as I know). Great PM who fixed the Netherlands in the 80s and 90s. Interestingly enough both he and Dries van Agt (CDA PM from 1977 to 1982) became much more left-wing in the last decade. Some people see Lubbers as the Dutch version of Thatcher, but he became active as a humanitarian activist after his premiership.

SP, GL and PvdA signed a pact with NIDA in Rotterdam to keep Leefbaar Rotterdam out. NIDA is an Islamic party. It might work in Rotterdam where 45% or so is non-white, but I don't think this is very smart as Islamic parties are extremely toxic among non-Muslims (95% of the Dutch population). If the PvdA ever wants to win the policeman in Tiel back they're doing it the wrong way. A "Hillary" coalition between minorities and educated whites might be possible in the US and some Dutch cities, but it won't work in the Netherlands where 85-90% is white (and educated whites always have the VVD or even the CDA anyway).

Lubbers fixed the economy and deserves credit for it, but the fact that his governments continued to ignore the problems with guest workers and kept allowing chain migration to happen has caused many of today's problems. In addition, as GeenStijl said, he was "the OG of #MeToo" -- not only in New York at his UN job, but also before, in The Hague. Apparently Lubbers was severely depressed at the end of his life.

As for the "Left-Islamic Coalition", as Leefbaar named the GL-PvdA-SP-NIDA bloc: they enter the election as an alliance and want to form a coalition afterwards. I guess they will want to enter the government together with D66, as they will not even come close to 23 seats by themselves. However, D66 will not be eager to "undo" everything they did in the last four years (even with a clearly more "lefty" profile than before), and they will also want a coalition partner to their right. The VVD are set to win seats.

Not smart for the Left-Islamic Coalition to announce it beforehand, because this will scare off white working-class voters for sure and diminish their total number of seats. I especially don't understand why the more culturally conservative national SP leadership allow Rotterdam SP leader Leo de Kleijn to do this, as the SP is the party that would be hurt the most by this.

How Islamist is NIDA? Are they the weird woke Islam you get on campuses or what?

I have no idea how "weird woke campus Islam" is, as this doesn't exist here, but I wouldn't say they are "woke": they are a conservative Muslim party (with left-wing socio-economic views) who explicitly derive their ideology and values from the Qur'an but appear to respect democracy and the rule of law as we have it in The Netherlands. However, they do have connections to some more shady peripheral organizations and persons. NIDA Rotterdam leader El Ouali, for instance, was a speaker at a controversial event organized by a group linked to Hamas.

C A L E I D O S C O P I C

F
E
M
I
N
I
S
M (https://haagsestadspartij.nl/personnel/10-olave-basabose/)

I went to high school with someone like that. Very interesting to talk to but very weird.

I would define it as the sort of person who says stuff like "yas queer hijabi representation!", and very earnestly quotes Edward Saidisms constantly.

Very interesting and terrible at the same time. I was in contact with quite a few of the (very few) Muslims in my program. They seemed more like the general DENK/pro-Erdogan/Free Palestine type (and very anti-Assad; rightly so!); most of them supported D66/GL (but one of them voted VVD!) before DENK came into being, but even then they were not really into "wokeness". I can handle that much better. I do think NIDA come a little bit closer to woke Islam (I believe they even said something about the LGBT community as "great allies", but am not sure anymore).

Peil.nl today, in the week of Zijlstra's resignation and the debates on the abolishment of the referendum:

VVD 27 (-)
FvD 15 (+1)
SP 15 (+1)
D66 14 (-2)
PVV 14 (-1)
CDA 14 (-1)
GL 14 (-)
PvdA 12 (-)
PvdD 7 (-)
CU 6 (+1)
50Plus 6 (+1)
SGP 3 (-)
DENK 3 (-)

- 86% percent say that Zijlstra rightly resigned, only 33% say it is coincidence that it is mostly VVD ministers who are involved in scandals and have to resign, 66% say that Pechtold's comments regarding Russians were inappropriate. 49% would also have voted for a motion of no confidence against PM Rutte for failing to timely inform the parliament about the fact that Zijlstra's comments were untrue, 46% would have opposed such a motion.

- Eighteen of the most prominent Dutch political scientists wrote an op-ed in NRC in which they warn that abolishing the referendum will increase political distrust among lower educated people in times where the gap between "The Hague" and lower educated people is already quite big (due to the decline of the people's parties with roots in society, secularization, individualization, decline of party membership...). The National Voters' Study (NKO) 2017, held after every GE, shows that 59% of the electorate support referendums and only 25% oppose them, which makes the government's argument regarding "declining support" for the referendum seem questionable.

- The uproar within FvD continues (but apparently does not affect their polling numbers): three more 2017 GE candidates (Arthur Legger, Gert Reedijk and Freek-Jan Berkhout) gave an interview to NRC in which they criticized the leadership's way of treating former party prominents. The leadership then cancelled the three men's memberships. Legger, Reedijk and Berkhout also loathe the "radicalization" of the party ("the party is becoming far right"; "Baudet himself introduced the issue of racism and white supremacy. He follows the way of Trump and his strategist Steve Bannon.") They say Baudet is deliberately seeking how far he can go in moving the Overton window. They don't know if he is racist himself, but they think it does not matter because he spreads the ideas regardless.

PVV: Centered around Geert Wilders, focused on (and obsessed with) opposition to Islam. Main target audience: working-class Dutch people, elderly people.

FvD: Centered around Thierry Baudet, broader focus on "breaking the cartel" of establishment parties and changing the Dutch political system; however, being anti-immigration and anti-EU are also major components of the party agenda. Main target audience: middle-class people who used to vote for CDA and VVD.

In terms of policy positions, both parties are really close to each other. It's mostly a difference of personalities, focus, use of language...

()
The formation process in Rotterdam is going to be hellish. Based on Peil.nl's latest poll, the Left-Islamic bloc would need both D66 and DENK for a majority (of only 23/45 seats). While NIDA are cooperative and constructive, forming a coalition with DENK would be a world of pain. DENK and NIDA would continuously fight each other.

At the same time, there is no clear alternative if GL-PvdA-SP maintain their alliance. Leefbaar-D66-VVD-CDA (current coalition + VVD) would not have a majority, and for D66 to cooperate with Leefbaar, the latter would have to renounce their ties with FvD. The Rotterdam VVD are willing to cooperate with the PVV as well, but the CDA aren't. Even a centrist coalition of GL-PvdA-D66-VVD-CDA does not have a majority. And keep in mind that coalitions on the local level are expected to have broad support on the council, they are not "supposed" to have a majority of only one seat. To be continued...

Here is Leefbaar's ad (https://www.facebook.com/fractieLR/videos/10155993592840351/). I like it :)

were PvdD not invoted to the left-Islam bloc?

also will Aboutaleb lose his position if  the PvdA is weakened?

They don't "do" alliances with anybody - and presumably no coalitions either.

He was re-elected to a second six-year term in May 2014, so he has 2.5 more years. He is popular and not very controversial, so I imagine that most parties would support his re-election regardless of his political background. However, May 2020 would also be a very convenient moment for him to call it quits and enter the national stage if Rutte III is still in office, as he does have national ambitions and the next GE is set to be held in March 2021.

Isn’t their whole raison d’être not gaining power and just bringing attention to animal issues?

Yeah, basically. That, and arguing for a radically different, green, non-capitalist economy. They will not make any compromises in that.

I suppose they have to...I imagine half their voting base would splinter off if they ever compromised.

Hilarious: approximately 40 local PvdA branches will stand in the election under a different name not linked to the national PvdA, so that it will appear as if they are a local party. They do so because of the negative image of the PvdA. In the past, local branches were explicitly ordered to avoid doing so even when engaging in so-called progressive alliances, where the PvdA would run one list together with other left-wing parties. But now the party has changed its position. "To us, the point is that you have a progressive agenda and are truly rooted in society. The choice of the name of the list, that's up to the local people with their expertise." For example, the PvdA in Cranendonck is now named "Pro6", and the PvdA Nederweert is "Nederweert Different".

sp.a doing the same here, although I think in both cases the other reason than the poor brand is that it opens their list to grassroots, usually single issue movements that have evolved outside the party structures (PTB were particularly effective at this in their strongholds). I imagine one of the key criticisms aimed at the social democratic parties in our countries is their internal machinations take precedence over real issues. add to that the fact that some people want to influence local politics without necessarily joining a party.

tldr This is probably going to be a long term trend in local party politics, these guys are just doing it earlier because of the "brand" problem.

You are right, this is a process that had already been taking place on the left; it has just been accelerated now.

The Hague poll (I&O; compared to 2014 result):
VVD 7 (+3)
D66 6 (-2)
De Mos 6 (+3)
GL 5 (+3)
PVV 4 (-3)
PvdA 4 (-2)
CDA 3 (-)
PvdD 2 (+1)
City Party 2 (-3)
SP 2 (+1)
50Plus 2 (+2)
Islam Democrats 1 (-1)
CU-SGP 1 (-)
PvdE 0 (-1)
NIDA 0

Very good poll for the VVD and for De Mos.

https://twitter.com/joostvanspanje/status/967428230595727360?s=20

This was an interesting take. I'm still unconvinced though. I wonder what the Dutch posters think

What was it supposedly down to then?

I guess it's possible. In 2010 the PvdA was in Balkenende 3 and the coalition deal definitely wasn't a bad deal for the PvdA but they still polled at roughly 20 seats a few months before the election. In 2012 they had been in opposition for Rutte 1 (VVD-CDA with PVV support) for 2 years and they polled at 15 seats or so. Both times they got bailed out by a shiny new leader and a classic left/right horserace (VVD vs PvdA). Asscher definitely wasn't as respected as Job Cohen or as charismatic as Diederik Samsom, and there wasn't anything remotely close to a left/right horserace (economic issues took the backseat in 2017). A lot of the PvdA 2012 votes were borrowed votes that were bound to leave the PvdA (the same goes for VVD 2012). PvdA lost quite a lot of votes to D66 and even VVD/CDA, if these voters had voted PvdA in 2017 they could have won 20 seats, and I don't think these voters left the PvdA because it was too right-wing.

But I still think the coalition explains a lot of the PvdA loss. Perhaps Rutte 2's economic policies were supported by voters (but only in hindsight, in 2014 or so Rutte was really unpopular), but we shouldn't forget that D66/CU/SGP voted for most of Rutte's agenda, and CDA voters probably also broadly supported it. So I think most of the support comes from VVD/CDA/D66/CU/SGP/whatever is left of the PvdA, people who voted PvdA in 2012 and voted GL/SP/PVV or abstained in 2017 probably didn't really like the coalition.

In the first few weeks after the coalition agreement conventional wisdom was that the PvdA actually got the best deal, but in the end it was a lack of visibility that killed them as the junior partner always is going to be less visible than the party that delivers the PM.

Dutch voters do tend to vote prospectively rather than retrospectively, and I do think that the fact that the PvdA weren't able to (credibly) profile themselves as a party on the left and that other parties had a much clearer profile was the direct factor that led to their loss. In that sense I suppose the authors of the NKO position paper might be right.

However, the fact that the PvdA completely failed to do so has everything to do with the fact that they defended and carried out not-so left-wing policies in the government. So their participation in the government still matters a lot in an indirect way. The VVD "owned" the baggage of the government and won the election with it, but this baggage was less popular with PvdA voters and therefore the PvdA decided to run on a different message. The message was never clear: Asscher explicitly preferred to come up with a nuanced story nobody really understood. The bottom line, to me, remains: the PvdA hadn't lost as much as they did if they had not done in the government what they did.

I do think, however, that Samsom will now feel as if he has been proven right. He foresaw this and said he would unapologetically run on the government's achievements. I think he would have lost just as many seats, though.

The SP Rotterdam have received a lot of criticism for their decision to participate in the alliance with PvdA, GL and NIDA, particularly since NIDA have defended Turkey's operation in Afrin, something the national SP vehemently oppose. SP MP Sadet Karabulut, who is Kurdish, already tweeted that "this was a local decision...", implying that she isn't too happy with it. Meanwhile, NIDA (and surprisingly not DENK) have been endorsed by the Dutch branch of the AK Party: apparently, some AK person, a former CDA city council member, is on the NIDA list.

Meanwhile, voters are receiving their voting card(s): I have received both.

Referendum poll (EenVandaag/Ipsos): 48% support the intelligence law, 32% oppose it, 20% don't know.

Do you not have a seperate one for provincial and local anymore?

New s p i c y remarks by Yernaz Ramautarsing, #2 FvD candidate in Amsterdam, which were leaked from a WhatsApp discussion group. Which only lowlifes do, but I love the gossip anyway. Now published in De Telegraaf.

Snippets:
- Society becomes less intelligent because of LGBT emancipation, as gay people have higher IQs on average and now do not procreate anymore.
- Taxes can be compared to rape.
- When people in the WhatsApp group confront Ramautarsing, who is black, with Baudet's quote that he would like to live in a "predominantly white country", Ramautarsing says he "has no problem understanding this due to the threats from non-white countries. It would be different if he wanted to keep out pro-Western pharmacists because of their skin color. White immigrants usually cause less trouble and cost the state less."
- About white people: "Seldom seen a race with so much self-hatred who feel such little need for self-preservation. White people crazy." But also: "I am the result of racial mixing. I am not opposed to diversity."
- On Trump: "Travel ban was a good one [in street lingo, D.] as well. 9/10 in geopolitics this year. Recognize the Armenian genocide and kidnap Bouterse and it would be 10/10."

I heard through the grapevine that there is more to follow.

The next provincial elections will take place in March 2019, so the government can enjoy its majority in the Senate for (somewhat more than) one more year. This time it's only local elections and the referendum.

Told you so. De Volkskrant published a much larger article on the same WhatsApp group, in which about 50 people, members of various political youth organizations (including the FvD youth), discussed politics. Three eventually snitched because they noticed that they started to consider "extreme" remarks about refugees to be normal simply due to the exposure to them.

More Yernaz R. remarks:

- "Keeping the Netherlands dominantly white has nothing to do with ethnonationalism. It simply has to do with having enough children and watching out with migration."

- Supports the death penalty: "cheaper to execute a pedosexual than to incarcerate him for life" + "we could have popped Volkert van der Graaf [murderer of Pim Fortuyn, D.] and Mohammed B. [murderer of Theo van Gogh, D.] immediately."

- Supports a free market for organs. Opposes the new donor law: "The best reason not to become a donor is the fear that your organs will be used to save Antifa thugs and contribute to the destruction of the West."

- Ramautarsing shared articles about straight men having sex with each other: "1) this leads to clicks 2) it makes them seem pro-gay 3) they don't give a sh**t about the traditional family." These articles "destruct the nuclear family" and "men who have sex with men are not straight." He also opposes polyamorous relationships.

- During a lecture on the death penalty: "Hahahaha international law."

Some more (and more extreme) statements from members of the FvD youth were also published, perhaps to make it seem more "incriminating", but it does not seem as if Ramautarsing endorsed such remarks, otherwise this would surely have been published by VK. It is also mentioned that more left-wing people in the group made racist statements towards Ramautarsing ("house negro"; "slave of his master Thierry").

All in all a dumpster fire, but at the same time I think the traditional media and many of their readers do not understand the specific dynamics in WhatsApp groups like these. Those are all not necessarily completely serious statements.

Ramautarsing's statement: "I want to have nothing to do with racism. As a Dutchman with a Surinamese background who grew up in the Bijlmer, I know what discrimination means and in politics I wish to dedicate myself to fighting it. My words have been wrongly interpreted, which I regret."

Ramautarsing resigned: he will not take up his seat if (when) he is elected in Amsterdam. Says there was a big amount of trolling in the group and he defended positions he doesn't really support, and says he absolutely rejects the idea that LGBT rights have made society less smart.

The snitches were doxxed on GeenStijl: one of them, Mathijs Kramer, is a D66 candidate in Dordrecht. How low can you go?

I'd say promoting bizarre pseudo-scientific racial theories, homophobia and saying the NL should not accept immigrants with down syndrome "because we already have enough downies who cost a ton" is already a lower bar.

That last statement about people with Down syndrome was not by Ramautarsing but by some other FvD member in that group:
No mention of Ramautarsing saying anything about this -- and it would definitely have been included had he voiced his support for this position.

While Ramautarsing's statement about gay rights making society less intelligent was ridiculous, I don't see why it's homophobic as he did not call for rolling back gay rights.

Apparently this group was meant (http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl/2018/03/yernaz-ramautarsing-fvd-wordt-neergehaald-door-de-volkskrant-en-de-telegraaf-om-een-puberale-groepsapp/) as a closed group in which all sorts of sometimes crazy viewpoints were discussed (including far-left ones and pro-jihadi ones), without taboos. Ramautarsing obviously made a big mistake by continuing to participate in these discussions, because from day one it should have been obvious that someday this information would be leaked. But people who are triggered because they are confronted with un-PC and sometimes ridiculous viewpoints should just get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat.

Some impressive head-in-sand and whataboutery in here.

Panic starting to set into the JFvD ranks I see.

It's called context. Wouldn't expect you to get it, but others who read this might. I am always the first one to post about FvD scandals in this thread, just like I post about other parties' scandals, but I also try to offer context; the type of context De Volkskrant might not offer.

You should ask a JFvD member. I have no idea.

Do young people really believe they can write trash, then expect to seek power over people without standing by their words? Just because it's on the internet? Probably not - instead, anyone who has been active in youth politics will know this kind of personality, attention-seeking and ultimately self-destructive.

I think it's a learning curve: a lot of young people are steeped in irony and memes, and believe that its all very clever and funny to argue from absurd directions and use taboo references to nasty regimes, or jokingly argue for diabolical causes. Unfortunately this often spectacularly backfires offline, as we've seen many times from both left and right wing activists.

Completely agreed. Of course it was a mistake for Ramautarsing to assume he would be fine with so many people in that group rejecting his worldview and him, but it is through the free exchange of ideas that people learn things and adapt their views. This should of course happen behind closed doors. The problem is that a WhatsApp group can seem "behind closed doors"  but suddenly literally make headlines in quality newspapers.

On the one hand, "what has been seen cannot be unseen" and for this reason Ramautarsing basically had to go. On the other hand, it is a sad state of affairs when every online statement by somebody in the past, ever, can be used to discredit this person. It makes us less free.

The biggest cancer in youth politics is not people who make absurd, provocative statements because they're young and they're experimenting and learning, but people who have no views whatsoever (or brains, for that matter) and lick themselves all the way up.

Erm, perhaps it's a harsh lesson but people absolutely must have the freedom to report about the opinions of others, particularly politicians who seek authority and power over us. It is in fact a foundational freedom (free expression / press).

Quiet, the real scandal here is the D66 infiltrator leaking WhatsApp conversations! After all he's D66!!!

Stef Blok (VVD) will be the new Foreign Affairs Minister. No foreign policy experience, but he is the epitome of a safe pair of hands. I hoped for someone with more foreign policy experience, but Blok still is a great choice.

Nobody says otherwise.

Once again it's not someone with any experience but a confidant of Mark Rutte. Still, I agree that Blok is probably a safe choice.

New poll

Rotterdam
()

Amsterdam
()

Kantar poll (compared to last poll, which was published on January 31):
VVD 30 (+2)
PVV 16 (-2)
SP 16 (+1)
GL 16 (+1)
CDA 15 (-1)
D66 15 (-2)
FvD 9 (-3)
PvdA 9 (-2)
CU 6 (-)
PvdD 6 (+2)
50Plus 6 (+1)
SGP 3 (-)
DENK 2 (-)

Interesting how the polling results for FvD vary: Peil.nl today has them still at 15. I guess the truth lies somewhere in between. Meanwhile, the SP are doing well under their new leader Lilian Marijnissen, and the electoral setback that was expected a few months ago will probably not take place anymore.

Only 56% of the voters know that a referendum will be taking place; this was 86% the same time before the Ukraine referendum. 33% say they will definitely vote. Usually this would indicate that the threshold would only barely be reached, but this time the referendum is organized together with the local elections. This creates a situation similar to that during the water board elections, which take place together with provincial elections: some voters might not vote for the water board because they really don't have a clue, but most will vote anyway. In the end turnout for the referendum should be between 40% and 50%. Turnout for the local elections will be slightly higher than last time: 55% or so.

35% intend to vote for the intelligence law, 24% oppose it, 25% don't know and 15% will not vote. "Yes" leads in all the polls. It now seems that unless there will be a dramatic change in public opinion (there is currently no campaign at all, except for a few posters by the PvdA youth) people will vote in favor of the law by about 60-40, but possibly even a wider margin. The best argument for abolishing the referendum that I've heard so far.

It would be weird if the next election had VVD, SP, and FvD in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

All members under sixty?

All three of them, yes.

The posters are quite good: located above urinals in bars, they say "You wouldn't want the government to watch this, right? You do have something to hide."

Is there a law that SP has to surge then fall back to PvdA every mid-term?

New peil.nl poll has PVV at lowest level since 2008.

Seats (compared to last week):
VVD 25 (-1)
SP 16 (-)
FvD 15 (-)
GL 14 (-)
D66 14 (+1)
CDA 14 (+1)
PVV 13 (-1)
PvdA 12 (-)
PvdD 7 (-)
CU 7 (-)
50Plus 7 (-)
SGP 3 (-)
DENK 3 (-)

More interesting: their referendum poll has "yes" only leading by three points: 45/42. 13% are undecided. Peil.nl expect turnout to be between 40% and 45%.

55% think this law will improve security in the Netherlands, 46% think it is an unacceptable violation of privacy (respondents could express agreement with both questions). Based on voting intention in the local election, only VVD, CDA and PvdA (lol) voters would support the law: 67/19, 69/18 and 53/34 respectively. D66 voters in the local election will oppose the intelligence law by 47/44, which probably means that their larger GE17 electorate is even more opposed to it.

Meanwhile, there is commotion about the cooperation agreement between the Left and the Islamic party NIDA in Rotterdam, with national SP leader Lilian Marijnissen today stating that "I would not have made the choice" to cooperate with NIDA. Marijnissen she thinks the SP are ideologically too far away from NIDA: "They want a more prominent place for religion in society, while the SP consider the separation between church and state of great importance." Internally, most of the party appear to oppose SP Rotterdam leader Leo de Kleijn's decision to strike this agreement; De Kleijn even stated that he didn't particularly care for which of the four parties people would vote. Things got worse when this old NIDA tweet went viral this evening (see the picture):
https://twitter.com/NidaRotterdam/status/499999364514070528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&...
... which was immediately disavowed by PvdA Rotterdam leader Barbara Kathmann. I don't think GL, SP and PvdA quite understood what they were doing when they signed their agreement with NIDA.

The Left-Islamic alliance was disbanded by PvdA and GL following NIDA's refusal to denounce their 2014 tweet after 2.5 hours of crisis negotiations. The national PvdA and GL party organizations apparently pressured their local branches into doing so, as GL Rotterdam leader Judith Bokhove had first been unwilling to end cooperation with NIDA when Klaver had already stated that NIDA had to retract their statement. It is unclear whether the alliance between PvdA, GL and SP will still continue to exist. This incident might also have ramifications for the coalition formation process.

Polls show a big generation gap on the referendum law. Support for the law by age group according to the latest I&O poll:
18-34: 44% opposed, 34% in favor, 22% undecided
35-49: 45% in favor, 29% opposed, 26% undecided
50-64: 55/28 in favor with 17% undecided
65+: 63/21 with 16% undecided.
In total: 51/30 in favor with 19% undecided.

The youth organizations of government parties VVD, D66 and CU oppose the law too (but the CDA youth support it).
---

Meanwhile, the PvdD are introducing a new initiative law to ban Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. The difference with the previous initiative will be that a five-year "transition period" is part of the plan. The previous initiative passed in pariament with support of all non-confessional parties, but was soundly defeated in the Senate, where VVD, PvdA and D66 decided to oppose the initiative in addition to the confessional parties. CDA, SGP, CU and DENK will definitely oppose the new PvdD initiative, PVV and PvdD will definitely support it.

This is why I love Dutch politics: the tiny parties that would meet enter parliament elsewhere, and the bizarre alliances formed to pass/defeat legislation. :)

Most recent Rotterdam poll. Leefbaar up from 9 to 11, PVV down from 3 to 1 -- completely deserved. The only remotely realistic coalition based on these numbers is GL-SP-VVD-D66-PvdA, maybe with the CDA as well. A complete monstrosity, and suicide for the VVD. Negotiations are going to be terrible.
()

A local government department in Amsterdam of which I had never heard, OIS, conducted a poll. Quite brutal for D66 and PvdA. Good poll for the right: it would mean that the (leftish) VVD Amsterdam attract quite some D66 voters to compensate for the loss of voters to FvD.

Former party leader Frits Bolkestein criticized Amsterdam VVD leader Eric van den Burg for being too left-wing this weekend, saying that he would vote for the #5 on the list, Hala Naoum Nehmé.

As for D66, GL Amsterdam leader Rutger Groot Wassink said it best: "It did not even take them four years to become the same arrogant lunatics as the PvdA were in the sixty years before."

()

Bonus content: this absolutely brutal "Spot the differences" ad by the SP Amsterdam, attacking GL for supposedly being exactly like D66, symbolized by the cargo bike, the ultimate symbol of bougie white highly educated "progressive" vegan gentrifying Amsterdam -- the people who will now turn from D66 to GL. "Make a real difference. Vote SP Amsterdam."
()

What is the tomato-looking thing on SP's logo?

If something looks like a tomato it usually is a tomato. The SP has been using the tomato as a symbol for years.

This probably means that there will be a GL-D66-VVD coalition, with an outside chance for PvdA. SP would be out of the coalition

There was a coalition of LR-D66-CDA and it could continue by adding VVD. That will not be easy either, but is seems better than a 5 or 6 party coalition. It is clear that we desperately need some kind of electoral threshold

I agree that both would be options, but still negotiations would be difficult in both cases. In Amsterdam, GL have campaigned for a radically different way of doing things. They would lose credibility (also nationally!) if they enter a coalition with two parties, D66 and the VVD, that were not only part of the previous (current) coalition, but are also the epitome of the type of neoliberalism GL claim to oppose. Jesse Klaver probably won't be too pleased if they do this. But with one more seat, GL-PvdA-D66 is possible. That would definitely be an option all three parties could live with.

In Rotterdam, D66 have a markedly more left-wing profile this time (which is not only pre-election window dressing, but is also expressed in terms of candidates) and internally they are a mess. First they opposed renewed cooperation with LR as long as they do not renounce their alliance with FvD, which LR of course won't do, but now D66 leader Said Kasmi rules out cooperation altogether (https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/166122/D66-nu-definitief-niet-met-Leefbaar-in-college). Entering a coalition with LR, VVD and CDA will therefore be really difficult for D66, though I also think it could happen, especially if the (former) Left Alliance don't have a majority together with D66 and PvdD.

Sure, but why?

Both because tomatoes are red and because throwing tomatoes is a sign of protest. Back in the days, the SP were even more of a protest party than now, and they used the slogan "vote against, vote SP". At the same time, tomatoes are also healthy.

Peil.nl poll today, including voter movements. I'm a bit skeptical about that latter part but I am posting it anyway. "Van" means "from", "naar" means "to", "weet niet" means "don't know".
()

I have a theory that it's because the (useless) logo-shaped sponges they give out fit in the kitchen context.

I think though that the ball is supposed to symbolise the world and the white star on red background is the next best thing to the hammer and sickle, which obviously has negative connotations. Their sister party in Belgium PVDA/PTB also have the white star on red. And I'm pretty sure some other radical left parties in Europe that don't want to be associated with the USSR have it.

The results of the VVD commission who researched controversial MP van Haga's business dealings as landlord will be published after the elections. Who would have thought lol.

Lately there also has been a lot of commotion regarding the proposed increased salary for ING Group CEO Ralph Hamers (from 2 million euros to 3 million euros). ING cancelled this after a lot of public outrage. Klaver even wants to regulate the compensation of CEOs of systemically important banks, but VVD parliamentary leader Dijkhoff already said he wouldn't support that law. Instead he wants the law to only cover banks who still are living off taxpayer money (which seems sensible to me).

Personally I oppose government intervention in these cases and some of the arguments of the ING made some sense, but I really wonder wtf the people at ING thought. Did they really think this would go over well? I also doubt whether Hamers would have left his position as CEO of a huge systemically important bank for some overpaid third-tier position at Goldman Sachs where he'd be like 350th in charge, only because 2 million a year wasn't enough. They lost a lot of customers and left-wing politicians already are angling for a law that would regulate these things in the future. Good job ING :).

Former VVD leader Bolkestein said Rutte should succeed Tusk as President of the European Council in 2019. Rutte would be a great choice, but Rutte said he would remain PM the full term. Of course he can't say that he wants to be President of the European Council almost 20 months in advance, so a denial at this stage doesn't mean much.

Pretty interesting maps of local election results in the 1930s...

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond/2018/12/gemeenteraadsverkiezingen-in-de-jaren-dertig

This might be a silly question for the Netherlands, but are there any underserved demographics that a new party could win over fairly easily?

I don't think so, not here...

The election will take place tomorrow. Polls will open at 7:30 and close at 21:00. I will be counting votes, so no real-time results from me. I've never been this unexcited for an election. Only looking forward to seeing D66 lose and lose bigly in the big cities. Unfortunately many of these votes will end up with GL.

Referendum prediction:
For: 60%
Against: 40%
Turnout: 45%

On the local elections in the four biggest cities:

Amsterdam was historically notoriously red: the PvdA led the local government from the 1910s till 2014. As the white working class moved out in the 70s and 80s, however, the specific type of "red" changed, and PvdA voters were both "bougie" types and (descendants of) immigrants. In 2014 the PvdA lost spectacularly, both because of its unpopularity in the national government but definitely also because of locally-based PvdA fatigue in the capital and a number of disastrously expensive projects -- most importantly the new subway line which was supposed to open in 2007 or so but will now open this year and caused houses in the historical center to prolapse. For the past four years, the city government was led by a very big D66, who had become the big winner in 2014, together with junior partners VVD and SP, and there is quite some discontent with the way D66 have handled things. The biggest issues right now are connected, namely the lack of housing (prices in Amsterdam have increased to a level much higher than before the crisis) and the extreme increase of tourists, who often use Airbnb. Kajsa Ollongren, who was an alderman (alderwoman?) before she became Minister of the Interior in the Rutte-III government, especially receives a lot of criticism for essentially ignoring this issue for years while all stakeholders were telling her to do something. Another D66 alderman just did nothing. The SP's performance is generally seen as fine, to the extent that this is possible in a government with D66 and VVD; as for the VVD, there was not much criticism, but suddenly a sh**tstorm has targeted VVD leader and alderman Eric van der Burg, who, like most of the VVD Amsterdam, is clearly on the left of the party and once said "the more asylum seekers, the merrier." Last weekend, former national VVD party leader (in the 90s) and European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein stated that the VVD Amsterdam had been "way too left-wing for way too long" and said he would not vote for Van der Burg but for a more right-wing candidate at a lower spot on the list; yesterday, two days before the election, the VVD youth wing in Amsterdam came with a really critical press statement in which they said that they have no confidence in Van der Burg.

This election will be a two-horse race between GroenLinks and D66, with GroenLinks stating they reject the "neoliberal" D66-VVD housing policies. GL leader Rutger Groot Wassink is on the left of the party and recently had a conflict with national party leader Jesse Klaver on marching against "racism on the council" (implicitly referring to FvD) in a protest organized by Antifa-affiliated groups. Klaver wanted to ban him from doing so.  In the end he did march but did not sign the statement published by the groups. Coalition formation will be difficult, as the council will be very fragmented, with newcomers FvD (right-wing populists), DENK (basically the PVV but for Muslims) and BIJ1 (radical intersectionalists) sure to win seats and GL possibly in the drivers' seat. D66 Amsterdam is rather "bougie" and would rather cooperate with the VVD than with three left-wing parties or so. But GL-D66-PvdA should be close to a majority, so that might be feasible too -- but I wouldn't count on it.

Rotterdam is your classic blue-collar, historically super red port city: "the money is earned in Rotterdam, decided on in The Hague and spent in Amsterdam", Rotterdammers say. But Rotterdam is also the city of the Pim Fortuyn revolution in 2002: his brief political journey started by winning a staggering 35% of the vote in the 2002 local council election with his party Leefbaar ("Livable", it makes more sense in Dutch but only slightly so) Rotterdam. Fortuyn, of course, was killed a few months later, but Leefbaar lives on, got just under 30 percent of the vote and 14 seats in 2006, 2010 and 2014, and participated in the government from 2002 till 2006 and from 2014 onward. Due to the collapse of the PvdA in 2014, Leefbaar will by default be the largest party in 2018 as well; due to the fact that the PVV will now stand in Rotterdam it was expected that they would be losing seats to them and end up in the single digits, but the PVV have managed to screw up so thoroughly that they might only win one or two seats and Leefbaar should still get around 25% of the vote.

The coalition formation process is going to be hell. GL, SP, PvdA and Islamic party NIDA had started a "Left Alliance" to receive the initiative to form a government instead of "polarizing" Leefbaar, but this alliance disbanded after an old NIDA tweet in which Israel was compared to ISIS went viral and NIDA refused to distance themselves from it. The current coalition consists of Leefbaar, D66 and CDA, but renewed cooperation between Leefbaar and D66 will be difficult: Leefbaar had to move to the right in terms of rhetoric due to the fact that the PVV is standing and due to their participation in government (a Leefbaar alderman building asylum seeker facilities during the migrant crisis was painful), while D66 Rotterdam have moved to the left. The D66 and the VVD, led by a young entrepreneur who is supposed to be a hottie (judge for yourselves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjCUVAt_7q0)) with obvious national ambitions, will be kingmakers. The formation might take a long time and involve a lot of parties.

The Hague already is a fragmented mess with 15 parties on the council. In 2014, D66 became the largest party and formed a government together with PvdA, VVD, CDA and the local City Party, whose number one promise was that they would stop a new expensive cultural center from being built only to do a 180 right after the election. This time, D66, VVD or local Group De Mos will become the biggest party and receive the initiative to form a government. Group De Mos is led by former PVV MP Richard de Mos who came to dislike the PVV's extremism and now successfully runs a party with a working-class profile, slightly law-and-order oriented but much less so than Leefbaar in Rotterdam, focused on reducing bureaucracy for local entrepreneurs. Former D66 councilman Rachid Guernaoui is #2 on De Mos' list. Like the SP, they have the reputation to help people and entrepreneurs out if they have problems with the municipality. If De Mos becomes the largest, a coalition with D66, VVD and CDA could perhaps be formed. Groep De Mos aren't nearly as right-wing or polarizing as Leefbaar, so such cooperation should be possible.

Utrecht is slightly less interesting politically, basically being little Amsterdam (D66-GL-VVD government, GL will probably win this time) but with a smaller PvdA these days (younger population).

Yes, sounds just like the PVV but for Muslims...

That's what they say, yes. Please don't comment if you know nothing.

It just seems like a rather extreme comment to make without expanding upon the reasoning behind it.

I tried to make the post concise. Besides, I and other posters have been making plenty of posts about the phenonenon of DENK on this forum. It is also fine for you to ask about about DENK, of course. But if you're going to lazily translate something from their own web page and use that as "evidence" against my point, then I am going to respond flippantly.

DENK formulate their points in an inclusive way on paper, but their tactics in parliament are disliked across the political spectrum, with Speaker of Parliament Khadija Arib (Labour) having condemned these tactics many times. DENK have a habit of making videos of minority MPs in other parties who dare vote against DENK proposals and posting these videos on Facebook, often without context, to "expose" these MPs. Recently, DENK leader Kuzu was on Turkish tv calling five MPs with a Turkish background traitors for voting to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide; these five MPs were subsequently swarmed with death threats. They have also used fake accounts on Facebook to "wolfpack" people in order to have them stop criticize DENK. Journalists are often not welcome at events where most others (except PVV, FvD) do welcome them. And only this week DENK spread WhatsApp messages among the "base" with a comparison of DENK to other parties on a range of issues that isn't mentioned as openly elsewhere: DENK would be the only party in favor of providing security to mosques, "halal mortgages", "banning flags of terrorist organizations (PKK)", headscarves in the police, etc. In itself it is completely legitimate for DENK to have these views, of course, but it is striking how their communication is much more direct and different to the base than in public. Other Muslim parties, such as NIDA Rotterdam, did not want to associate themselves with DENK, because DENK was considered to be too polarizing whereas NIDA aims not to engage in that sort of politics. And of course there was the issue with Sylvana Simons, a well-known Dutch black activist who was a candidate for DENK but resigned because she was told not to talk about women's and LGBT rights too much. And those are just a few points.

DENK is pretty much a Erdogan front.

Turnout for local election and referendum in the big cities are roughly equal so far.
The Hague 14.5% for local and 13% for referendum
Rotterdam 14.6% for local and 15% for referendum
Utrecht 16.2% for local and 16% for referendum

Overal, the turnout for the local election will be a bit higher than the turnout for the referendum simply because in some places only the referendum vote is held which will have a lower turnout in general


Also agree on David, on paper Denk seems to be ok but in practice they are a turkish nationalist and pro-Erdogan party who only care about their own base

Problems in Amsterdam, where polling station workers in a precinct in West apparently "advise" Turkish voters to vote for DENK and accompany them in the voting booth, and in Nijmegen, where many people received four instead of two voting cards, allowing them to vote twice. Turnout is apparently really high in Amsterdam, where BIJ1, DENK and FvD have caused the campaign to be highly polarized, but similar to the 2014 election in the other big cities.

https://twitter.com/goossensjohan/status/976449247049547777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&...

Just voted in parliament, for Group De Mos and against the Law on the Intelligence and Security Services.

Sure, I overstepped my boundaries and made assumptions about things. I appreciate the response.

^ All good, thank you for your response.

16:30: referendum turnout 26.6% in Rotterdam, 24.6% in The Hague and 30% in Utrecht. As expected, the 30% threshold for the referendum result to be valid will therefore easily be reached. The referendum map will be really interesting.

In Maastricht, turnout for the local election was 25% and turnout for the referendum 26% at 16:30. As non-Dutch EU nationals are eligible to vote in the local elections but not in the referendum, and as they turn out at a lower rate than Dutch people, turnout for the referendum might end up slightly higher than turnout for the local election in the big cities (and middle-sized cities with many internationals, such as Maastricht), where many non-Dutch EU nationals live.

David, where is your profile if the all-important Urk council race? :P

Urk actually has been trending hard to the SGP the past decade. Probably a result of the CDA collapse and the increased importance of issues like the EU and immigration, and on those issues the leftish CU doesn't align with the conservative fishers in Urk. Maybe the ban on electric pulse fishing will play a role. French fishers ran a campaign filled with unscientific and unsubstantiated arguments against electric pulse fishing and because the French fishers succeeded in their campaign Dutch fishers who successfully invested in these technologies are screwed. I imagine this doesn't help the EU in Urk. But Urk doesn't have a SGP majority in the council btw, there are quite a lot of local parties there. They don't even have a SGP mayor (CDA).

The only PVV candidate on Urk has the fash haircut, and the local party that's big on the council there are exactly as Christian like the SGP. That's what I know about the race there. And, indeed, it is trending SGP.

At 18:00, turnout for the local election in The Hague was 33.8% compared to 38% in 2014. In Rotterdam, turnout was 32.1%, higher than four years ago, when it was 31%. Both places are probably not going to reach 50% this time. Amsterdam had 35% turnout compared to 27.5% in 2014, so much higher this time.

()

This is one of DENK's candidates in Utrecht. Notice anything strange?

()

I really wonder why he didn't just join GL. GL Amsterdam leader Groot Wassink is really left-wing so I'm sure GL Utrecht would have accepted someone as #woke as Jelle Bouwhuis lol.

>DENK
>White

Wait what?

Sort of hot for a politician, maybe, but still wouldn't hit it.


Is there any single site with election returns from across the country where we could follow? Or is it all fragmented?

Nos.nl will have a clickable map with the returns from all municipalities.

Thanks mvd and David. I was joking and wasn't expecting a response but your answers are great :)

Exit polls will be held in 6 cities tonight. Especially Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Utrecht will be interesting. There will not be a country-wide exit poll for the local election

()

Looks like the PVV font to me. Anyhow, I am genuinely interested to see whether the exit polls will work this time, and whether Dionne Stax will still present them. Also lol @ the inclusion of Weert and Emmen. Obvious that they don't want to come across as Randstad-centric.

Meanwhile, NRC Handelsblad and De Telegraaf journalists have been denied entry to the DENK event.

https://maps.nrc.nl/tk2017dev/tk2017sb.php

This is a map of voting by precinct in 2017, and here (https://lfverkiezingen.appspot.com/nos/widget/main.html) is the NOS map for the 2017 general election if you want reference material. The NOS probably will have a liveblog or a livestream.

I assume the intelligence services law will win by a decent margin. There is a huge age divide (young voters oppose, older voters support) but younger voters often don't turn out and even then a sizable amount of young voters supports it or don't care.

I think it'd be interesting to see how well GL does in Amsterdam. Groot Wassink (GL leader) is really left-wing and he tried hard to make this election about housing. Not that it matters since both D66 (the more liberal/right-wing party on housing) and GL (vocally left-wing) likely will be in the next coalition.

Given that Rotterdam will be the first exit poll, here are the 2014 Rotterdam results in percentages, compared to national result:

Leefbaar 27.5% (local party)
PvdA 15.8% (10.3%)
D66 12.7% (12.1%)
SP 10.5% (6.6%)
VVD 7.5% (12.2%)
CDA 5.9% (14.4%)
GL 4.9% (5.4%)
NIDA 4.8% (local party)
CU-SGP 3.2% (6.0%)
PvdD 2.5% (0.5%)

Bear in mind that the national numbers may be misleading since some parties participate in nearly all municipalities while other parties skip a bunch of municipalities.

Josse de Voogd on right now. He says we should look closely at the result in Weert as it's the most "average" municipality in the first hour. I don't know about possible local parties in Weert, but since it's Josse de Voogd he's probably right (and Weert is a pretty average Dutch municipality as far as I know).

I have a gut feeling  that anything can happen with the referendum, and that we might be surprised...

Lets see if CDA remains the largest party (besides the local party). I'm very curious of the performance of the CDA tonight.

Me as well. i wouldnt be too suprised that no will win eventually.

My expectation:

- big losses for D66 where GL will win the all the univiersity and big cities
- PVV will dissapoint
- VVD will suprise with a high score and will easily be the strongest national party surpassing CDA

Meh, I have spoken to a lot of people on university and even they are pretty divided. I know this is an useless anecdote, but these are the kind of people that should turn out en masse against the law. If it is defeated it might be by a weirdo coalition of young GL/D66 voters concerned with privacy and anti-establishment RWP's who don't have faith in the system. I would love to see the referendum map.

pls dont fail exit poll

Big SP loss, damn

Wow suprised by the exit poll in Rotterdam

Big losses for PvdA and SP. The left is punished by the (broken) left-islamic alliance

very dissapointing performance by PVV

Nida gaining votes while Denk is also performing well. Together they get more than 13% of the vote. Much higher than Denk last year

11 seats for Leefbaar, I think they're pretty happy with this since a lot of people thought they were doomed after the PVV decided to participate (PVV only won 2 seats lol)

A good performance by VVD. Im not that surprised about the PVV. Leefbaar has a pretty good record and history. Im worried about Denk.

()

Who would have thought that 20 years ago: the VVD larger than the PvdA in Rotterdam.

Too close to call for referendum

Turnout 48%
49% For
48% Against
3% blanco

margin of error 5%

David was right lol :P

Referendum maps will be beautiful (normal Atlas poster)

Yeah, I wonder who exactly opposed. The young voters who are concerned with privacy and the kind of people who vote against this because they lost faith in the system aren't usually on the same side, it would be an interesting map. I'm happy with this result, I also oppose the law but I recognize a new intelligence service law is necessary because of recent changes regarding communication technology.

The map will be interesting

My expectation student and big cities together with PVV/SP strongholds will vote against. Rural and suburbs will vote for

I guess the civic belt and suburbs will be in favor, cities against; in the south, divide between areas that are doing better (eastern brabant, more in favor) and areas that are doing worse might be visible.

Yeah, the strongest supporters of this law seem to be VVD/CDA/CU/SGP voters which would translate to wealthier suburbs and rural areas voting for this with the rest opposing it.

Utrecht
GL bigger than D66

GL 25% (+8.1%)
D66 20.6% (-5.8%)
VVD 11.4% (+0.6%)
Denk 6.4%
PvdA 4.3% (-5.8%)
SP 4.3% (-5.2%)
PVV 4.1%

Big losses for PvdA and SP, especially the latter is suprised
I am suprised so far how D66 is able to limit it losses

Also a very promising result for GL Amsterdam. Another huge SP loss.

()

Where would the SP voters likely go? I believe they are normally the most working class party of the less, so is it the PVV entrance, that also hurts them? And who is hurt most by the emergence of DENK and the other parties for non-western immigrants. I'm guessing PvdA primarily?

()

2014 (and 2010) results in Weert.



PvdA is most hurt by this, they traditionally won large majorities with non-western immigrants. I'm not sure where SP voters go to be honest.

Local parties won big in Weert (Weert Lokaal went from 27% to 35%), small losses for CDA and VVD, bigger losses for SP and PvdA.

SP is hurted by the GL, PVV and local parties. And PvdA probably to Denk and to BIJ1 in Amsterdam

Amsterdam, GL bigger than D66

GL 22% (+11.4%)
D66 17 (-9.6%)
VVD 12.4% (+1.3%)
PvdA 11% (-7.2%)
SP 6.8% (-4.3)
PvdD 6.7% (+3.9%)
Denk 5.7%
FvD 4.9%
CDA 2.6% (-0.2%)
Bij1 2.3%

Big losses for D66, disappointed result for FvD

GL wins Amsterdam (22%). Loss for D66 (from 26.6% to 17%). DENK at 5.7%, FvD at 4.9% and BIJ1 (Sylvana Simons) will enter the municipal council with 1 seat.

Unbelievable good showing for GroenLinks. FvD disappoints. CDA no longer has a seat in the capital. Very poor result for that party so far, will they finally get rid of Buma?

First results of the referendum are coming in. Groningen and Limburg are voting against

Polling station where I'm counting massively against (65% or so). Lower middle-class The Hague, PVV-VVD-DENK in GE17. Ethnically mixed area. You heard it here first!

Jesse Klaver on television. I probably have to stay neutral, but I still want to vomit.

:) It's disgusting.


Very interesting. When this is a trend, I believe the against-vote can pull out a win. 45/55 on NOS now, but I have no idea which % has been counted.

I cant wait for 2022 where they will lose. I just remember why I am on the right of D66

Interesting. I wonder how university precincts vote. There seems to be a red dot building up in the north of the country (which makes sense).

Local elections seems to be more interesting than Polish ones :I

lol GL is defintely not connecting high educated voters with lower educated voters

If they could manage to do that they could basically replicate the PvdA 2012 coalition. But I think it's more likely that the PvdA gets it's act together (or that people just forget Rutte 2).

First student city coming in

Groningen
For 27%
Against 71%

PvdA should replace Asscher if they want to recover and choose a new and more populistic leader who is tougher on immigration. I cant imagine Klaver is able to broaden much his party to lower educated voters. GL is not really winning big in places like Enschede as Amsterdam or Utrecht

nevermind it is a partial result, but seems pointing to a heavily devastated result for the PVV

The north so far is voting unanimously against the referendum

Partial, but looks very accurate, probably includes almost all precincts. We have a very big polling station and just sent our results one minute ago.

No posts anymore? Keep me updated guise :(

Utrecht referendum (partial I gues)

For 33%
Against 60%
Blank 6%

Den Bosch

VVD 12.5% (+0.1%)
D66 11.9% (-1.0%)
GL 9.5% (+2.3%)
CDA 8.8% (-2.7%)
SP 7.6% (-1.3%)
PvdA 6.5% (-2.0%)
PVV 3.4%

Wilders only 9.7% in his hometown

80% of the vote in The Hague

()

32/63 against in Amsterdam

The surprise of the night. CU is winning Urk from the SGP

The gap between for and against is tightening. If for wins then thanks to the Noord Brabant, the bible belt and the CDA hearland in the east where for is winning big

Finally home.

Referendum now 48.7%-47.6% with "against" in the lead. Will be tight. I hope the big cities can make the difference, but usually betting on cities outvoting rural areas isn't a smart thing to do...

In Tilburg, FvD-endorsed Lijst Smolders doubled in size from five to ten seats. With Leefbaar's share of the vote holding up pretty well despite the PVV's participation, FvD winning two or three seats in Amsterdam, local parties gaining again and becoming the largest party in many (most?) municipalities, and the referendum being unexpectedly tight, the "party cartel" isn't having a great night: fragmentation weakens their position the most. At the same time, it has to be said that the VVD made some gains that are impressive after almost eight year in government.

The Hague voted 53.9-41.5 against, Rotterdam by 57.4%-38.5%.

47-49.3 now. Only Amsterdam as biggest city is left. After that there are soms medium-big size cities as Arnhem, Lelystad and Tilburg and of course the student cities.

The Hague:

()

Really happy with this result. De Mos and the VVD should now form a government, perhaps with CDA and D66. Absolutely brutal for the PVV. Shows that PVV voters do notice when the party performs well: only a small loss in Almere (from 9 to 7 seats is not great, but respectable), where they are generally doing a good job at representing voters, and huge losses in The Hague, where they are absolutely useless and an embarrassment. Apart from this, 15 parties is really a lot... and 3 Muslim parties with 1 seat each, lol.

Pollster De Hond (peil.nl) is calling it for "against", as Amsterdam still has to come in and "for" cannot make up for the difference. I'm inclined to think he's right, but don't know if that's wishful thinking. Outside the north, the NOS map is really very blue...

Amsterdam and some student cities are still left as biggest resources for the for side

()

Rotterdam:
Leefbaar 11 (-3)
VVD 5 (+2)
PvdA 5 (-3)
D66 5 (-1)
GL 5 (+3)
DENK 3 (+3)
NIDA 2 (nc)
SP 2 (-3)
CDA 2 (-1)
PVV 2 (+2)
PvdD 1 (nc)
50Plus 1 (nc)
CU-SGP 1 (nc)

Leefbaar-VVD-CDA-D66 have a majority: 23 seats. The former Left Alliance are at 14. Together with D66 they reach 19, but from there it would become damn difficult. Muslim parties got well over 10% of the vote. The loss of the SP feels especially good to me. Leo de Kleijn is really an a**hole and deserved to lose for going full intersectionalist and continuing to embrace NIDA instead of following Lilian Marijnissen's more "workerite" way. Working-class voters were right to reject the SP Rotterdam.

In Amsterdam, GL-D66-PvdA have a majority; I'd be really surprise if they would not form a coalition.

Against is probably going to win. I dont see how for can overcome Amsterdam and the student cities with the vote left

The map is really interesting, with the opposing coalition formed of highly educated young people and minorities on the one hand and voters for non/anti-establishment parties and random Northerners on the other hand. The "against" vote is slightly stronger in the Frisian regions with less of a socialist tradition, which is also interesting.

I think the areas most supportive of the law correlate quite well with the areas where the combined score of VVD-CDA-D66-CU was strongest while D66 did badly, which makes a lot of sense, but in a weird way. And then there's the Bible Belt, of course.

For it just seems a classic right-left map to be honest. Big cities, the north, south east of Limburg and possible betuwe voting against which are or used to be left strongholds

It looks similar like this so far
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Tweede_Kamerverkiezingen_2003.png/800px-Tweede_Kamerverkiezingen_2003.png

I was perhaps thinking too much in terms of class, but yes, come to think about it, you are absolutely right. Spicy take: this is what a Labour vs. Conservative map in the Netherlands could look like. I would not consider high-end suburbs like Haren or Zeist, where "against" won, to be left-wing in any meaningful sense of the word (though Heiloo and Oegstgeest, which are really similar, did vote in favor), though.

Those are just lib dems places or Labour places like the GE2017 in the UK :P

Haha, yeah, agreed :)

Leiden:
D66 9 (-3)
GL 8 (+4)
VVD 6 (+1)
PvdA 4 (-1)
CDA 3 (-1)
SP 3 (-2)
Sleutelstad Party 2 (+2)
CU 1 (nc)
Leefbaar 0 (did not run; -2)
PvdD 0 (-1)

58.5%-36.4% against in the referendum.

Leiden had a D66-VVD-SP-CDA government. Painful losses for D66 and the SP. Like in Amsterdam, GL-D66-PvdA is an option here; but because of the fact that D66 are in the driver's seat here, D66-GL-VVD would also be possible. Interesting that the PvdD lost their seat.

Meanwile, Baudet is calling into question the Amsterdam result. Really disappointing behavior.

Expected end result 46.5-49.5-4

I am going to sleep

Goodnight!

Two random funny things:
- In Amsterdam, Sylvana Simons/BIJ1 seem to have missed out on a seat. LOL!
- In Brunssum, controversial, insane and probably corrupt Jo Palmen won the election again and even gained a seat.

The big patterns of the evening are as follows:
- Again gains for local parties
- More fragmentation on the local councils; more parties necessary for coalitions
- Losses of the traditional left to one-issue parties (elderly parties, Muslim parties, PvdD) and local parties; Christian parties and VVD not really affected by this trend
- Increasing polarization by participation fringe parties DENK, PVV, FvD, and/or small Muslim parties; DENK and PVV also outside Randstad metro

Isn't Haren quite left-wing? Normally these wealthy but progressive-leaning places have an overperforming VVD which compensates for the other right-wing parties underperforming, but the VVD only performs slightly better than nationwide in Haren. I believe it's literally the only municipality out of the 20/30 wealthiest municipalities to vote PvdA in 2012. Then again, I imagine leftists in Haren aren't very workerist :P.

The map indeed seems to be a combination of young people in university cities and people who lost confidence in the system (and used to vote PvdA in the past) which gives you an old PvdA victory map.

As for a Dutch Labour-Tory map: I imagine 2012 VVD vs PvdA would be 2015, as VVD-PvdA probably is a very class-based classical left-right battle. This referendum could be 2017, when Labour won wealthier places because either Brexit or supercharged turnout from less fortunate people. And young people probably voted hard against the referendum while they voted for Labour in the UK. GOP-Dem would just be right-wing parties vs left-wing parties (that would count PVV, CU and FvD as part of the right and D66 as part of the left). Some wealthier suburbs that voted VVD would be closer or even swing to the left because other right-wing parties barely win votes (Dutch Connecticut :P) while parts of Groningen (or Limburg) where the VVD isn't popular but CDA and PVV are would go for the right.

CDA probably still is the biggest national party, but the VVD did win some votes. It's disappointing that we didn't manage to win the local elections for the first time ever, but it's not a terrible result.

I don’t see a possibility for a majority coalition with this result. Coalition talks will be difficult

So there will not be any other referendum anymore?

Wouldn't beat yourself up about it. In the same way this election's issues suited GL, it didn't suit Rutte's style nor the VVD's program. I imagine turnout has an impact too. GL benefited from the "national" local debates being about housing in big cities for yuppies civil servants and students, pollution, and Lelystad airport, not to mention the Groningen gas fields and the Belgian nuclear plants being somewhat strong grassroots issues on either side of the country. I don't think GL have really evolved nationally from where they were a year ago, although now that the media are painting Klaver as the winner and the main progressive opposition other voters might follow.

VVD might be worried about the CDA picking off certain parts of their vote now, but the national issues and Rutte's personal popularity is enough for me to think they will perform in provincials too.

I think everybody kind of expected what was going to happen to D66 in the inner cities.

Which is the third Muslim party?

NIDA, PvdE and Islam Democrats

Great job on the Netherlands :P

An exit poll by a municipal institute for statistics in Amsterdam shows that turnout among voters with a Turkish background rose from 37% to 47%, essentially the same as turnout in general. The shocker is that a whopping 74% of this group voted for DENK. In 2014, 48% had voted for the PvdA; this time, only 4% did so.

Lol, Muslims are trying to be the new orthodox Calvinists...

What's the difference between the three parties?

Cracking up that PvdD almost beat SP in Amsterdam.

They did beat the PVV in The Hague (and the SP too). Also funny.

PvdE are really full Salafi, "used to be" pro-ISIS etc. NIDA have the most coherent view on society as a whole and are "inspired" by Islam; in Rotterdam they have sought to cooperate with SP, PvdA and GL in a "Left Alliance", but of course the pet issues (covert but clear Erdogan support, anti-Israel) cannot be forgotten either. Not really sure about the Islam Democrats, but they are probably less radical than the PvdE while more explicitly Islamic in voicing their views than NIDA. Though I guess many people simply base their vote on endorsements in the mosque or from neighbors who know candidate 8 on list X is a good guy -- just like a lot of non-Muslim voters do, of course, but I think this phenomenon might be even more relevant within Muslim communities.

Also worth noting that Muslim voters most likely bailed us out in the referendum and made the difference. No data on this yet, but I heard the "against" margins were massive in areas like the Schilderswijk (50%> Muslim) in The Hague, and it's not difficult to understand why that would be the case regarding this law: neighborhoods like these would be target number one for mass surveillance.

The results are somewhat misleading. CDA participated in more municipalities than the VVD. And I presume people who voted for local parties vote slightly different from the general public. Local parties are very weak in Amsterdam and Utrecht (2 GL strongholds). Local parties are strongest in the south because the KVP (which completely dominated the Catholic vote before depillarisation) used to let local politicians decide on local issues, and southern voters may not like the Hague-centric national parties. Social cohesion through things like Carnaval still exists in the south, so they are much more likely to vote for someone they know personally from for example the carnaval association.

In national elections without local parties and where all parties participate in all municipalities the VVD definitely would have won, otherwise the polls would be off by a lot.

GL profited from the big issues in Amsterdam, but they also managed to make the climate a big issue in the campaign which really helped them. Indeed they were less hurt by local parties participating, but outperforming their general election results in municipal elections still is a great result for them. I think it'd be interesting to look where exactly they won votes. Did they just double down on the kind of people who were already (close to) supporting GL or did Klaver manage to broaden their base to less cosmopolitan voters (which he wanted)?

And D66 always was going to lose. I believe they were leading the national polls by quite a lot 4 years ago, so they were going to lose anyway.

So who are the biggest winners and losers generally so far?

The GL win isn't all that impressive if you look at the D66, SP and PvdA losses, which are bigger than GL's gains in almost all municipalities. Even in Amsterdam, where people speak of a left-wing "victory", the losses of SP and PvdA alone are bigger than the gains of GL, not even taking into account D66. Meanwhile, CDA gain a seat and FvD win three while the VVD remain stable, indicating that there must have been D66 -> VVD voter movement too.

However, voter movement from D66 to GL of course does strengthen a more left-wing pole in the system, which might have repercussions for coalition formation and policymaking. In Amsterdam, a government led by the economically illiterate luddites of GL might seriously jeopardize the expansion of Schiphol Airport, which is infuriating.

Winners: local parties, GL, VVD, DENK
Losers: D66, PvdA, SP, PVV, the left as a whole

Some local parties have really impressive results, especially in the Rotterdam metro's (lower) middle-class suburbs. In Barendrecht, Echt voor Barendrecht (EVB) got almost 50% of the vote and won 14 out of 29 seats. Independent New Spijkenisse (ONS) in Nissewaard was already by far the largest party but won an additional seat and now has 14 out of 37 seats. The same goes for Leefbaar Capelle in Capelle aan den IJssel, where Leefbaar Capelle now has 13 out of 33 seats. Inhabitants' Interest Hellevoetsluis in Hellevoetsluis has 12 out of 25 seats. In more middle-class Lansingerland, Leefbaar 3B gained two seats and now has 9 out of 33 seats. Most of these parties (but not all of them) have a profile very similar to that of Leefbaar Rotterdam.

Demographic breakdown for the referendum (probably based on the exit poll, so might be slightly skewed in favor of "for") by gender, education and age.
()
Partisan breakdown (based on GE17).
()
Percentage "against".
()

The polls really f**ked this one up; the only poll that came close was Peil.nl's last poll.

This result is disastrous for D66, because of course it will be (almost completely) ignored. VVD, CDA and CU voters won't care, but a lot of D66 voters will, and they take particular interest in privacy issues as well.

For those interested: Here (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/03/21/verkiezingsuitslagen-a1596511) the results for the local election by municipality, here (https://nos.nl/artikel/2223743-tegen-stemmers-referendum-inlichtingenwet-op-winst.html) for the referendum.

How disastrous is disastrous? Will they lose 6-8 seats?

If we are in the business of comparing the referendum map with Britain, I would state that it is such a kind of map that would be needed in a referendum for a fairer electoral system in Britain :) The anti-establishment voters voting against the current system and the two old parties helped by young, well-educated urban voters, who will tend to be ideologically in favour of a fair electoral system.

Yes, given D66's record of losing half their seats after governing I'd absolutely take a bet of D66 losing that amount of seats in the next general election (quote this post after the GE to make me look stupid). But just like with the PvdA's loss in 2012, it will probably be not directly due to D66 ignoring and abolishing the referendum but more because of the fact that alternatives (GL, but also VVD) would have a more attractive profile and less negative baggage.

Another consequence of this referendum is that Kajsa Ollongren's popularity has gone completely down the drain; this was already the case before the referendum took place, but if she will be perceived as not sufficiently respecting the result, her reputation will be even more damaged. She was widely considered to be Pechtold's most likely successor (and rumors about Pechtold being done with "The Hague" are getting increasingly loud), but as an alderwoman in Amsterdam she left a mixed impression at best, and she is now among the least popular ministers. Whoever thought that it would be a good idea to put her in charge of Interior Affairs, have her abolish the referendum, and make her push through a law deeply unpopular with a lot of D66 voters was really not quite smart.

Yes, considering how sectarian Dutch politics has historically been and still is at the fringes, I can't help but think that this should perhaps be considered proof that that particular subgroup of Muslims is actually integrating into Dutch society after all.

Share of the vote, nationwide: (local elections) (https://nos.nl/artikel/2223747-lokale-partijen-en-groenlinks-winnen-cda-lijkt-grootste-landelijke-partij-te-blijven.html)

32.7% Local parties
13.5% CDA
13.2% VVD
  9.0% D66
  8.4% GL
  7.3% PvdA
  3.9% CU
12.0% Others

Didn't find the national share for PVV, SP, DENK or FvD.

Result Referendum

For 46.5%
Against 49.5%
Blanc 4%

In The Hague, De Mos ended up with one fewer seat (from 9 to 8 ), the City Party with one more (from 2 to 3). In Rotterdam, hilariously, one seat shifted from the PVV (from 2 to 1) to DENK (from 3 to 4). In Amsterdam, the final result is as follows:

GL 10 (+4)
D66 8 (-6)
VVD 6 (-)
PvdA 5 (-5)
SP 3 (-3)
PvdD 3 (+2)
DENK 3 (+3)
FvD 3 (+3)
CDA 1 (-)
Elderly Party 1 (-)
ChristenUnie 1 (+1)
BIJ1 1 (+1)

So Sylvana has her seat after all, but only if she moves to Amsterdam before next Thursday, otherwise the number 2 on the list will be eligible to take up the BIJ1 seat.

The Hague has its excellent website up again (https://uitslagen.denhaag.nl/gemeenteraadsverkiezing/council), with results at borough, neighborhood and precinct level for both the referendum and the municipal election. Map:
()

It still feels unreal how I voted with young people, lefties and Muslim voters against conservative, security-oriented right-wingers in the referendum; even weirder because I haven't been in doubt about this vote for a second :P I also never had the idea that the referendum would be remotely close (except for the hours before the result) and still don't quite grasp what happened and how the polls got it so wrong. I'm so glad I still took the effort to convince less politically oriented friends of mine to vote against, and to have a big poster on my window, despite never even believing in it. Maybe young people really did convince their older family members and friends in the last week. And maybe the editorials in the quality newspapers convinced highly educated older people in the cities. I know the result is going to be ignored again, but it will have a political price and there is now more awareness regarding privacy issues in society.

The government, again, has handled the referendum really clumsily, essentially making exactly the same mistakes as in 2016. One or two days before the election, Rutte managed to make an incredibly disdainful statement: a journalist challenged him for abolishing the referendum, saying that people think it's nice to be able to vote in referendums because it allows them to have a little influence, and Rutte answered that "tv quizzes are also nice, and lacemaking is also nice, but ultimately this [politics] is about serious business."

Lol Rutte. I also am a proud member of the 26% of VVD voters who oppose the intelligence services act :).

What was the intelligence services act about anyway?

I'd like to try and understand the polls and how they got it so wrong.

Also, DavidB, mvd, can you both explain why you voted against this Act?  Would it have been a violation of privacy or what?

I oppose the law for several reasons.

First, the law would allow the intelligence and security services to share un-analyzed bulk data with foreign intelligence services. I'm down with cooperating with foreign intelligence services if necessary, but we have to know what we share before we share it. There are strict laws for our own government in terms of how long they can save information on telecommunication and internet from individuals (i.e. three years), but our allies may not necessarily have those laws and I think other countries should not have that much information about "non-problematic" Dutch nationals. Moreover, as Americans now know, governments change and today's ally may tomorrow have a very different view of the Netherlands and Dutch nationals.

Second, I am not convinced that we will be any safer under this law. Most terror suspects are already well-known to intelligence services, but the services were too busy concentrating on other potential threats. It makes no sense to increase the amount of information that intelligence services have to analyze. Instead, the intelligence services should have more permissions (and perhaps more resources) to focus on people that are already known to be potential threats.

Third, the law allows the government to store people's DNA and make a DNA bank. I think that's outright creepy and a clear case of government overreach.

Fourth, the government has been lying about why they deem the law necessary, as they have continued to argue throughout the campaign that under the current intelligence law, secret services are not allowed to wiretap communication through the cable, whereas the current law does in fact allow the secret services to do so (which was even acknowledged by the government in a parliamentary debate), though I think they currently need a warrant to do so, which I think is good. It is true, however, that the new law open up a lot more possibilities to collect data in entire neighborhoods just because a few problematic individuals would reside there. I think that is disproportional. By all means wiretap these individuals if necessary (with a warrant from a judge), but not entire neighborhoods.

Fifth, I generally think the erosion of privacy is a big problem, both because of tech companies and because of the government, and this law would have been an additional step back for privacy in the Netherlands. This was a very concrete opportunity to say "no" to this development. I want a government that protects me against companies that want to know everything about me, not a government that treats me as a suspect too.

----
31% of "against" voters were late deciders. Reasons for them to oppose the law:
()
Biggest reason: privacy, as it should be. Secondary: Sybrand Buma (CDA leader with national conservative profile who might be the biggest supporter of the law), the Cambridge Analytica scandal ("Facebookrel"), "lacemaking" (reference to Rutte's gaffe), the television debate, satirist Arjen Lubach's tv show (Dutch John Oliver and the person who popularized the referendum petition), the arrogant attitude of the government, Mark Rutte, and mistrust of the government.

I think many late deciders who voted "against" were PVV/50Plus voters.

The Hague's notorious Schilderswijk was won by the unholy trinity:
()
Today, mayor Pauline Krikke revealed that she had been robbed there earlier this month while waiting for the tram in the evening. Her bag was stolen. Interesting that we were only allowed to know this after the election.

I don't like the alt-right's use of the work cuck, but I had to admit, it seems fitting in this case.

Referendums are very tricky to poll - the Swiss pollsters get to practice them all the time and never seem to do much better than educated guessing.

As far as I can tell, it mostly comes down to a combination of
a) the nature of a referendum is that you can't weight by how people voted last time"è
b) For these sorts of topics, which are ones where people tend not to have strong, pre-existing opinions, they are far more susceptible to be swayed by the campaign than in a normal election or an referendum on a more "hot button" topic

Very good points! I have to say that there was one poll that was very accurate: Peil.nl had it 45-42 with 13% undecided slightly less than a week before the election.

()
In Emmen, PvdA candidate #12 Ugbaad Kilincci, who has a Somali background, was campaigning on Sunday before the election when some young guys started insulting her, calling her a "black monkey" and "headrag mongol" and saying that she had to "go back to Africa". The incident made it to the national media and sparked much outrage. At the end of the day, however, the PvdA won one seat in Emmen (from 6 to 7) and Kilincci made it to the council with 1007 preference votes, most of which were presumably cast out of sympathy following the incident.

YIKES... I feel dirty about agreeing with him!
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/976953953823920129

https://www.noties.nl/v/get.php?r=pp181203&f=Uitslagen+van+GR2018+naar+achtergrondkenmerken.pdf

Peil.nl results by some demographics: gender, age, education, smoking behaviour, income, religion, church visits, newspaper readership, website readership, watched television programmes, website readership, social media and more.

I always have doubts with Peil.nl's demographic data, but the results seem to make sense. Then again, in 2017 Peil.nl's crosstabs in their exit polls were much different from Ipsos', and I'm inclined to believe Ipsos' numbers (but Ipsos only gave results by age and education on the NOS).

For GE17 we don't need to rely on Ipsos exits anymore, because we have the NKO. Back then, Ipsos had said that youth turnout was lower than in GE12 (despite total turnout obviously being much higher), De Hond from Peil immediately wrote a sharp rebuttal and turned out to be entirely right based on NKO data. Peil's figures seem credible.

Read the NKO17 and was planning on making a post on that later, highlighting the most interesting findings.

Is this an actual thing Dutch pollsters ask about in connection to politics?

Great news! This is a victory for civil liberties.

It's one of De Hond's pet peeves to ask questions about irrelevant things (just like he asks you about owning actual pets). You're likely to find some correlation, but it will always be explained by class, age, education, income or ethnicity, so it is completely useless information. Meanwhile they'll never ask you about class, because that concept isn't supposed to exist in the Netherlands...

How would it be measured? Like the British ABC1/C2DE system? There are polls by income (though de Hond never mentions what he defines as "high" or "middle+"), but income may not fully capture things like cultural capital, so results by class could be interesting (for example a moderately successful 50-year old shop owner in Druten vs a 25-year old latte liberal IT consultant in Amsterdam who may have similar incomes but live in 2 totally different worlds).

I suppose self-perception would be used (difficult to measure otherwise, unless you use proxies such as education or income). Part of the reason why this is not being measured is that many people in the Netherlands might not clearly identify as anything in terms of class. How many people in our generation would still identify as working-class, even if they are? Not many, I think. Which is also part of the reason that the left has difficulty attracting working-class voters under the age of, say, 45.

Good, here's my NKO post. The NKO is the National Voters' Study, a thorough study in which vote determinants as well as underlying attitudes of the electorate are measured. The study also provides us with valuable raw data on voting patterns among different demographics. The NKO for the General Election in 2017 was recently published; I read it and will here share some of the findings that I found to be the most interesting.

The average age of the parties' electorates. Confirms that the DENK and FvD electorates are relatively young and that the PvdA base is extremely old.
()

Turnout by age and education: on the left it shows turnout among lower educated people by age group, on the right turnout among higher educated people by age group. The authors suggest there are two main reasons for people to vote: habit and "political confidence". Older, highly educated voters have political confidence and vote because it's a habit. Older, lower educated voters might not have this political confidence, but still vote out of habit. Younger highly educated voters have a lot of political confidence, even though voting is not yet a habit to them. But younger, lower educated voters lack both the political confidence and the habit and therefore many of them did not show up: total turnout was 82%, turnout among lower educated youth only 59%. This, of course, should also be taken into account when analyzing the way young people voted: higher educated people simply make up a much bigger share of the vote among the young than they do among older demographics. Research shows that compared to other EU countries, Dutch youth have a relatively poor understanding of the way our democratic system works. Perhaps improving this understanding would help in increasing political confidence among lower educated young people, because this could become a risk to the "representativeness" of our democracy, especially in times when the traditional "people's parties", once representing "pillars" from the highest to the lowest social classes, are no more and have been replaced by parties representing that only represent smaller segments of society: who, then, will represent lower educated youth?
()

This figure shows the difference between voters' self-placement on the "cultural" dimension (1= change our culture, 7 = maintain our culture; accidentally mixed up in Dutch) and the way these voters place the party they voted for. Orange indicates the party's (perceived) position, black the voters' position. As other figures show as well, PVV voters consider themselves to be less "radical" than the party. VVD voters, on the other hand, consider themselves to be on the right of their party on the cultural axis, which is why it is a smart strategy for the VVD to comment on "culture war" issues the way they currently do. CU and D66 voters also place themselves markedly to the right of their parties on the cultural axis. It is interesting to note that except for the PVV, all electorates place themselves to the right of their party (though in some cases the difference might not be statistically significant).
()

The same thing, but then for the economy: 1 = increase income differences, 7 = decrease income differences. The biggest gap is easily between VVD voters and their party's perceived position, indicating that many VVD voters might have voted for them despite considering themselves to be to the left of the party economically. Interesting information for the party, who already campaigned much less on right-wing economic proposals in GE17 than before: perhaps that was a good choice. The very small gaps between the electorates and their parties might indicate that parties' socio-economic left-right position is still a main vote determinant in the Netherlands nowadays, even if this is analysis has nowadays gone somewhat out of fashion. Another interesting point is that all electorates, except for the VVD, place their parties on the "left" (more towards decreasing income inequality than towards increasing income inequality). I personally doubt that's an accurate analysis, especially for "neoliberal" parties like CDA and D66 (but probably also for the PVV and CU).
()

Same idea: European integration, more (1) or less (7)? Interestingly, D66 voters are much less enthusiastic about European federalism than their party, and the same goes for PvdA voters. Again, except for the PVV, all electorates are less pro-EU than their parties (though in some cases the difference will not be significant). Interesting to note that the VVD electorate is more pro-EU than the electorates of PvdA and CDA, who have been much less critical of European integration than the VVD. How anybody could think that the CDA is not pro-integration is another question... perhaps people believe Pieter Omtzigt.
()

How did the youth (18-24) vote? Important to take into account this turnout gap among lower educated youth and higher educated youth, meaning that the youth vote skews heavily highly educated, middle-class etc. The yellow thing is the percentage of the vote a party received among the youth, but because of the low N for young voters the margin of error is relatively high, reflected by the long bars. The black thingy is the percentage these parties received in total. Both PvdA and SP were much less popular with the youth (who actually turned out) than with the electorate as a whole; on the other hand, D66 and GL were more popular. No significant difference for the PvdD, dispelling the myth that young women all vote for the PvdD and nobody else does so.
()

When did people decide on their vote? Options (from left to right): on election day, during the last days, during the last weeks, during the last months, and earlier. Results presented by party. The options "last days" and "last weeks" best reflect the strength of the parties' campaigns. For the PVV, 53% of their voters had already decided to vote PVV months before the election, and relatively few people were convinced by their non-existent campaign, which surprises nobody and confirms that it was almost as if they wanted to lose the election. The option "last days" partly reflects the importance of the diplomatic crisis with Turkey: this seems to have been extremely important to mobilize DENK voters, essentially choosing Turkey's position over the Dutch position by doing so. Very insightful. Other parties with strong campaigns in the last weeks and days were VVD (Turkey) and FvD (thank you, Cambridge Analytica) and, interestingly, 50Plus: Henk Krol had some really strong debate performances. GL (Klaver effect), CDA (Buma's nationalism) and D66 (why?) also managed to attract quite some people in the later stages of the campaign. Also note just how small parties' real "base", i.e. people who will always only vote for one party, has become.
()

The NKO also confirmed that most people decide between a small number of ideologically similar parties: the idea of voters who are completely clueless and decide between random parties is baseless.

Wait the mass surveillance law that was supposed to win didn't win? That's amazing, good on the Dutch!

Yep, the youth actually voted! :P

Great post, David!

The figures are perhaps too low to be significant, but I thought the SGP voters were having lots of children, so their young voter share would be a bit higher, but that seems not to be the case.

I think I have an ok perception of most parties and their core voters, but I'm a bit doubtful on CU. How would you draw up a stereotype of a typical CU voter. Of course fairly religious, but what in terms of education, sector of work, (dis)satisfied with politics etc.? From the graph, it seems their average voter is slightly younger than average.

Thank you. I expected this too. However, the N is probably really low, so I'm not sure if I'm ready to draw any conclusions, but at least these findings do call into question this idea.

Have to be honest here: I have to rely on what we know in political science, because I know only a handful unrepresentative CU voters; most "bubbles" or spheres in Dutch society I understand, but this one is difficult for me to "get" as well.

I would think of an average CU voter as a fourty-something married woman in the East of the country who works in education or healthcare, has an average education background, is relatively religious (maybe slightly to the right of the mainline option within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands), cares about the environment, is worried about certain changes (growing intolerance on all sides of the political spectrum, climate change, EU integration, losing our Dutch norms and values, increasing number of lonely elderly people) but at the same time feels blessed living in a wealthy country, is not dissatisfied with politics and does not worry too much about making ends meet. People close to her may vote CU, but also CDA or VVD.

CU also does well within certain black evangelical communities ("Hallelujah churches") in Amsterdam Southeast; I imagine that the gender gap would be even bigger there than among white Dutch people. The CU councilman who was just elected in Amsterdam is black.

Clickable map (https://rotterdam.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=2678da0b1fa549909564e452d725a229) for all precincts in Rotterdam both for the local election and for the referendum. Compare here (https://maps.nrc.nl/tk2017dev/tk2017sb.php) for GE17. The Leefbaar vote held up really well in areas that were strongly VVD in the GE. For instance, in the northernmost polling station in newly built middle-class Nesselande, the VVD got 39% in the GE; D66 and PVV came second and third with 13%. In the local election, 31% voted Leefbaar here, 22% VVD and 12% D66 (and 2% PVV, what a joke). DENK also improved their score really well in "their" neighborhoods, especially when taking into account NIDA taking part as well (who also got impressive percentages in these areas).

Of course, turnout in Rotterdam was 46% in this election and 75% or so in the GE.

I always though SGP was the party of the former Gereformeerde Kerken while CU was the party of the former Hervormde Kerk, but apparently there isn't much of a difference (did some quick background research). Still, CU vote is geographically clustered (not as extreme as the SGP) so I imagine there isn't a lot of CU/other party crossover. Interestingly enough there are some places in the Northern parts of the country where CU does really well but SGP scores only 2% or so. Maybe it does have to do with (former) church denomination after all? I think a large chunk of CU voters were born in GPV/RPF voting families (just like SGP voters) instead of being swing voters (they did manage to win a couple of seats in 2006 though). CU/SGP voters (especially SGP voters) may be the last pillar remaining. Until DENK came along and won 75% of voters with a Turkish background in Amsterdam :P.

SGP voters are mainly a member of six denominations:

Three more or less exclusively SGP denominations descended from early 19th century splits of the Hervormde Kerk (just like the Gereformeerde Kerken):
- Gereformeerde Gemeenten
- Gefeformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (split from the Gereformeerde Gemeenten in 1953)
- Oud-Gereformeerde Gemeenten
- (and independent churches with similar history, that never joined one of these denominations)

Furthermore the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken, which has a similar history as the first three, but is a bit more moderate (CGK members also vote CDA or ChristenUnie).
The remaining group of SGP voters remained a member of the Hervormde Kerk, as a more or less separate group, the Gereformeerde Bond. After the merger of the Hervormde Kerk into the Protestantse Kerken, a large part of the Gereformeerde Bond left, and formed the Hersteld Hervormde Kerk.

ChristenUnie is a merger of GPV and RPF.

GPV was founded after the 1944 split of the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt from the Gereformeerde Kerken, a particularly messy split. Especially in the North, in Bunschoten-Spakenburg and in the parts of Overijssel and Gelderland, this church is strong.

The SGP didn't have much to do with the former Gereformeerde Kerken. The party of the Gereformeerde Kerken used to be the ARP, which merged into CDA. The ARP moved to the left in the 70s. Disgruntled ARP voters  then founded the RPF. Not that many from the Gereformeerde Kerken, which was quite main stream. RPF voters were typically from the more right wing Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken, the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (a split from the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt) and also evangelicals and other small denominations. Initially they wanted to join the GPV, but that was denied.

The Hervormde Kerk was a big tent church. Some more liberal members voted for non-christian parties, more conservative ones usually voted CHU (and the members of the Gereformeerde Bond voted SGP, ARP and later RPF).

From Wikipedia:

()

Weird question: what are the different parties' positions on prostitution laws? Especially with the increased interest in the Nordic model in some quarters?

CU and SGP obviously want to ban it. Especially the CU is outspoken on this, I guess banning prostitution (which in a lot of cases is forced) uniquely unites CU's social conservatism with their hipster SJW-ish tinge. They want to go to the Nordic system: the customer is punishable, the prostitute not.

SP is surprisingly conservative on issues like prostitution (and euthanasia). Maybe they see prostitution (and euthanasia) as things people are "forced" to do because of the neoliberal system. Or maybe they do it because they're very strong in parts of Brabant and Limburg where the KVP (Catholic party) used to reign supreme.

VVD and D66 seem to be the most libertarian parties on this issue. They only want the customer to be punishable if he (or she lol) could know for sure that the prostitute is forced to do this.

CDA wants more limits and they want to make it easier to punish customers who could have known that the prostitute was forced, but they don't want an outright ban as far as I know. Lately a prominent CDA MP called prostitution a "legalized #MeToo", so perhaps this stance changes in the future.

PvdA actually is quite conservative on this, I don't think they want an outright ban but they're atleast interested in the Nordic model. I imagine for the same reasons as the SP (prostitution as a "natural" negative consequence of capitalism, not as something you'd do out of your free will).

Other than some tweet about stopping loverboys I couldn't find a lot about the PVV's position on this. They support raising the age limit but I guess the Nordic model goes too far for them.

Groenlinks supported a law that would make it easier to criminalize customers who possibly could have known the prostitute was forced to do it, but I don't think they would go as far as the Nordic model. Then again, with the increased SJW presence I wouldn't be surprised.

There seem to be 2 main camps that oppose: Christians that oppose it because it doesn't rhyme with their morals and lefties who see it as a consequence of capitalism instead of a free choice (just like some people see euthanasia as the epitome of neoliberalism (https://medium.com/@flaviadzodan/euthanasia-as-a-dutch-neoliberal-success-story-23c0a1e13940)). In that case it makes sense that the VVD and D66 are most libertarian on this. They're secular, socially liberal parties (especially D66) and they're probably also not very likely to see prostitution as a consequence of capitalism instead of a free choice because they're generally the most libertarian parties on economic issues (especially VVD).

I wonder what people who want to ban prostitution think of male prostitutes for females (gigolos). It's a marginal sector but surely it's more than just an urban legend. It doesn't look like there is a lot of abuse/forced prostitution in this sector (probably a case of supply and demand, I don't think there is a lack of straight males who would like to bang Miss Sloane for some money :P) but if you're going to ban female or gay prostitution you obviously have to be consequent.

Often prostitution and how to handle red-light districts are local issues, and I believe local parties have some sort of autonomy on these issues.

Is there a lot of NIMBYism when it comes to red light districts and where brothels operate?

Yeah. The VVD support the "Dutch model" nationally but want to ban or heavily restrict prostitution almost everywhere locally for NIMBY reasons (the same goes for "coffee shops" where pot is sold). There are no prostitution areas in Rotterdam and Utrecht anymore. The prostitution area in The Hague turns the whole neighborhood to sh**t. At almost every time of the day, you will see "customers" as well as shady Bulgarians and Poles in huge cars with young hot women next to them. It leads to a decrease in housing prices and a concentration of poverty and social problems.

As mvd10 said, PvdA and SP are shifting towards the Swedish model on prostitution (though they are not there yet) for feminist reasons: prostitution is capitalist exploitation of vulnerable women, and very few people would choose to be a prostitute if a lack of money were not an issue. PvdD seem to take a similar position while maintaining "soft" support for the Dutch model.

GL are split on this issue, but they will never go for the Swedish model. SJWs tend to oppose that model because they get their ideas from America. This is a pretty big issue for BIJ1.

Deadlock in the coalition formation in Rotterdam, where D66 and PvdA block Leefbaar's attempts to engage in coalition talks with them. The VVD do want to govern with Leefbaar. In The Hague, talks are led by former VVD leader Hans Wiegel, who will attempt to form a coalition consisting of De Mos, VVD, D66 and GL first. In Amsterdam, GL aim at forming an oversized coalition consisting of GL, D66, PvdA and SP.

Edit: PvdA, GL and D66 will now try and form a coalition in Rotterdam. With NIDA, DENK and SP, they would have a majority, but the optics of cooperating with NIDA and especially DENK would... not be too great.

Are local PVV groups under the same cordon sanitaire as the national party?

National parties leave this to their local branches, so no, not really. However, at this point it seems unlikely that the PVV will govern anywhere, though I would not rule it out altogether in places like Spijkenisse, Venlo or Rucphen. In almost all places (Spijkenisse and Almere seem to be the exceptions) the PVV is no less extreme on the local level than it is on the national level, so the ideological distance between the PVV and other parties is simply too large. What's more, governing with the PVV will lead to a lot of national media attention and scrutiny, which isn't exactly something local parties want to have to deal with. And then there's the issue of scandals. You don't want to be in a coalition with "Rutte should be hanged" (Rucphen), "Germania heritage" (Zoetermeer), and "Burn the mosques" (Utrecht) types of people (the ones in Zoetermeer and Utrecht were elected), and it's likely more scandals with PVV councilmembers will be dug up over the course of the next four years. The PVV train has truly derailed (I've not seriously considered voting for them in the local election for a second) and it's both sad and entertaining to see what will happen next.

Based on the referendum result, the government has decided to amend the Law on Security and Intelligence Services by introducing a clause into the law stating that data cannot be intercepted randomly: interception has to be focused on specific targeted individuals. What's more, before bulk data can be shared with foreign intelligence services, the intelligence services will have to show that the services with which information is shared adhere to a similar understanding of democracy and the rule of law as in the Netherlands. More specifics will follow, but this does sound good.

In The Hague, the first round of negotiations between De Mos, VVD, D66 and GL has, somewhat surprisingly, been successful. Former Public Health Minister Edith Schippers (VVD) will now lead the next round of coalition talks. The five priorities of the four parties will be sustainability, drawing up an agenda for the inevitable growth of the city, "livability" (related to safety/security), "everyone participates", and mobility/traffic.

Did that fringe anti-revisionist Communist remnant hold its seats?

NCPN, the New Communist Party of the Netherlands:

They gained one and lost one:

De Fryske Marren: 2 seats (+1)
https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/de-fryske-marren/GR2018

Heiloo 1 seat (-1)
https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/heiloo/GR2018

In their former stronghold Oldambt, the NCPN doesn't participate anymore. However, the VCP (United Communist Party), that broke away from the NCPN does take part. That party won 3 seats (-1)

https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/oldambt/GR2018

The bellwether municipality of the general election last year was Apeldoorn, which nonetheless voted yes in the referendum. Perhaps this suggests that the referendum would have passed had there been a local election in every municipality.

On the other hand, the municipality of Heemskerk (which also has some fame as bellwether municipality) voted no.

Although Heemskerk has dueled with Apeldoorn for the title of best bellwether in the past few elections, it fell behind a bit in 2017. Better bellwethers for that year include Enkhuizen (against) and Brummen (for).

The formation process in Rotterdam is in deadlock, as the VVD currently refuse to engage in talks with PvdA, GL and D66 without Leefbaar. Now, FvD have brilliantly proposed to officially end their alliance when (and only when) Leefbaar start governing with D66 if this would be necessary to make a coalition between Leefbaar and D66 possible. Brilliant, because breaking up the alliance does not actually mean anything (it is obvious that neither the very small ideological distance nor the warm feelings between Leefbaar and FvD have changed), but FvD/Leefbaar get to look constructive and D66 lose their most important argument to decline cooperation with Leefbaar. I would absolutely love for D66 to be cucked into a coalition with Leefbaar and VVD.

The government has gotten into trouble over the already unpopular policy of scrapping the dividend tax, which will cost 1.4 billion euros annually. This policy was not in any party's manifesto, so people were surprised when it was suddenly part of the coalition agreement and the question was: who pushed for this policy to be implemented, and what are the benefits? We unofficially know that Rutte himself put forward this policy and we unofficially also know that Shell and Unilever requested for this policy to be adopted, but when asked whether there had been a memo by the Ministry of Economic Affairs with pros and cons, both Rutte and Eric Wiebes (VVD, Economic Affairs) had said no. This already seemed highly unlikely, as politicians just don't decide on a 1.4 billion policy without a memo by the Ministry of Economic Affairs or the Ministry of Finance, and now University of Amsterdam researchers found out through a request based on the Freedom of Information Act that hey, there was indeed a memo. Another big fat lie by Mark Rutte, but the government are trying to spin it as if the memo was not a memo but something else. The coalition parties have each other's back on this, but it does not look good and this is an amazing opportunity for the opposition, and particularly for GL and PvdA who have been going on about this all the time, to paint the government as only interested in the interests of multinationals (and it's hard to deny they have a point...); big business lobby organization VNO/NCW's proposal to double the property tax on ordinary households to make up for the costs does not make all of this look any better, to say the least...

Yeah, scrapping the dividend tax really doesn't make any sense with all the tax deals the Netherlands has with foreign governments. I believe 75% of the tax cut would go to foreign governments because of the tax deals we have with them. Shell and Unilever were among the few corporations that cared about this anyway because they're closely intertwined with the UK, and only the UK has a 0% dividend tax rate.

By my own quick unprofessional estimate the 1.4 billion dividend tax cut also could be used to further cut the corporate tax to 19% (and 14% for smaller businesses). That would also improve Dutch business climate and it'd actually help Dutch businesses instead of foreign governments and the 10 people who live in countries that don't have a tax deal with the Dutch government (investors from eSwatini?).

Raising the OZB probably makes sense from a technocratic point of view (taxes on immobile stuff are efficient, Dutch property taxes aren't terribly high), but it does show that VNO-NCW cares more about the multinationals than it's small business base, and all the talk about across the board tax cuts was just to satisfy the base. I mean, economically it's not a bad proposal to shift more to property taxes but pls don't ever talk about stealth taxes on small businesses anymore VNO-NCW.

I'm surprised Wiebes got off so easily. Apparently he wrote a party document where he named some companies that didn't relocate to the Netherlands because of the dividend tax, but he wasn't allowed to disclose that information because of the strict rules for the tax authorities (and he had access to that information as State Secretary of Finance). I thought he'd get more trouble, as he already wasn't very popular as State Secretary of Finance.

Unsurprisingly Rutte didn't get in much trouble. The whole opposition except the SGP supported a "motie van afkeuring", but a "motie van afkeuring" usually is meant to criticise the government's policy and it isn't as bad as a motion of no confidence (which targets a person). So the fears that this would be Rutte's hardest debate ever were exaggerated, but it still was a tough debate for him.

NRC Handelsblad pointed out that this is the third time in one year that Rutte got off well, but never managed to convince the opposition or the public that he told the truth: first came the Security and Justice affair (this feels much longer ago though...), then Halbe Zijlstra's hilarious and catastrophical Putin lie, and now this; in all three cases, Rutte's position was questionable. Insiders say Rutte is considering running for a fourth term after this one, and I guess he would win another election (and even be the best potential VVD candidate), but at some point stuff like this has to erode his position, you'd say...

Another interesting point was that D66 and CU leaders Pechtold and Segers came to Rutte's defense, but CDA leader Buma refused to do so, saying he was an MP and not responsible for the government's handling of this issue. A sound position from a constitutional perspective, but he handled it in a very clumsy way and ended up looking worse than anyone else.

Poll around the dividend tax:

()

I'm guessing CU is not included since they are too small. Only VVD voters are in favour, while the voters of the two other government parties are clearly against. Most opposition parties are naturally wholly against, but I am perhaps a bit surprised by the FvD figures. I would have thought they would have more "right-right" voters, who would share economics views with VVD or be even further right. 

Economically they're more right-wing (and more affluent) than PVV voters, but cultural issues trump economic issues for them. Wilders (and Baudet) painted it as a present for foreign investors and governments. They might be more fiscally conservative than the PVV, but for logical reasons they're not very enthusiastic about cutting taxes for foreign investors. And they're probably going to oppose everything the government will put forward because 'party cartel'.

I don't think there is much space for a "right-right" party that shares the economic platform of the VVD and the social/cultural platform of the PVV. VNL tried hard to be that party and it didn't work. A journalist of a prominent right-wing/far-right site got savaged by his readers after he wrote an article in support of VNL's proposal to cut the minimum welfare benefit by 10%. Meanwhile FvD largely shunned economic issues and tried to be a more respectable/intellectual/transparent version of the PVV and it worked out very well. FvD voters probably like lower taxes and they might be not as nostalgic for the 1970s welfare state as PVV voters, but they probably see larger businesses/investors and free marketeers as leftists who want to flood the Netherlands with hordes of cheap foreign labour. Most 'right-right' voters probably are content with the VVD, which remains a fundamentally centre-right/right-wing party even though the VVD Amsterdam makes a left-wing gaffe from time to time.

Completely in agreement with mvd10's analysis.

Today's Peil poll has quite some shifts compared to last week due to the debate on the abolition of the dividend tax, with the government parties all losing seats:

VVD 24 (-1)
GL 17 (+1)
FvD 16 (+1)
SP 15 (+1)
CDA 13 (-2)
PVV 13 (+1)
D66 12 (-1)
PvdA 12 (+1)
PvdD 8 (nc)
50Plus 7 (nc)
DENK 5 (nc)
SGP 3 (nc)

Only 18% now support the abolition of the dividend tax, compared to 26% last week. 40% of GE17 VVD voters, 17% of GE17 CDA voters and 19% of GE17 D66 voters support it. 76% think Rutte lied, 73% think Buma, Segers and Pechtold lied, and 61% would have voted for the motion of disapproval that was supported by all the opposition parties except for the SGP. 67% think Rutte "often has difficulty with the truth", and 71% think Rutte should not remain PM after this term. A rather damning picture.

It's pretty amazing to see the polls regularly show:

1. VVD (Liberals)
2. SP (Socialists)/GL (Greens)
3. FvD (Right-Wing Populists)

Well,
People seem to be voting FvD because this is trendy, a bit like voting EM in 2017 in France.

Dear god democracy

Coalition agreement of GL, D66, PvdA, SP soon to be presented in Amsterdam. I guess people deserve what they vote for.

I was about to call for Amsterdam-Zuid separatism, but even Amsterdam-Zuid is quite left-wing despite its affluence (VVD only got 25% there or so vs 21% nationwide). For heaven's sake, even the Zuidas (Dutch Wall Street + loads of lawyers) voted 'only' 40% VVD (32% D66). It all depends on how you see D66 I suppose. If parties have to be arbitrarily divided in a left-wing camp and a right-wing camp people tend to put D66 with the left, but I imagine D66 voters would be split 50/50 in a VVD vs generic centre-left party race.

So many affluent people and families still vote for D66 in Amsterdam, I would even say the average D66 voter in Amsterdam would be more right-wing economically than the average D66 voter nationally. D66 Amsterdam are bound to lose a lot of these voters to the VVD in the next election, especially since the VVD Amsterdam have quite a soft, social-liberal image anyway. Add to that the fact that D66's national reputation will be rather bad in 2022 (unless the government collapses in 2019 already) and that they will probably crash and burn in the next general election... But meanwhile, the left-wing coalition's policy will suck, of course.

Many people fail to make a distinction between progressive and left. Nationally, D66 is more centre right than centre left. D66 is progressive but economically it is certainly not left.
32% for D66 at the Zuidas is hardly a surprise, since D66 has always had a lot of support among lawyers, judges and other legal professionals.

Yes, but internally there are some parts of D66 that want to move to the left. And D66 hasn't always been fiscally conservative, back in the 70s D66 very clearly was part of the left. The Zuidas probably is more of a lawyer's paradise instead of a Dutch Wall Street (since most foreign banks probably run Dutch operations in London or Frankfurt) so you're right about D66 support in the Zuidas. I still expected the VVD to do somewhat better though.

Anyway, more big news: there will be new judges in Wilders 'fewer Moroccans' case. Wilders' request for substitution of the judges has been accepted. Wilders claimed the judges were biased and he complained that it's unfair that Pechtold didn't get investigated even though he said something negative about Russian citizens while Wilders is getting prosecuted for his statement. This will delay the trial, and it gives Wilders new ammunition to rail against the 'D66 judges'.

Coming man and probably future VVD leader Klaas Dijkhoff had a rather controversial speech yesterday. He proposed to reform welfare so that you get lower unemployment benefits unless you can prove you are actively searching for a job or doing something else that contributes to society (I support it, it isn't a very radical change anyway), he proposed to stop automatically granting citizenship to refugees who have been here for 5 years (support), on refugees he said: 'We temporarily take you in and we give you an education so you can go back and build up your own country' (great idea!), he said the Netherlands should support people who want to liberate themselves from the yoke of extremist Islam (another great idea!) and he said the VVD should stop generalizing all Dutch citizens with a migration background because 'the Moroccan girl who is studying isn't responsible for the behaviour of criminal 'capuchonklootzakjes' (so true!). Snowflake journalists and most of my friends are crying leftist tears. I love Klaas Dijkhoff even more. Please make this man PM already :).

The only thing I didn't like was that he said the VVD is there for 'good people'. That was a bit too much lol.

I guess Dijkhoff really is positioning himself to be the next VVD leader btw. Rutte started out as a very centrist leader, but he only really succeeded after he shifted to the right so I guess Dijkhoff doesn't want to repeat Rutte's mistake. It's just blatantly obvious that he will succeed Rutte, especially after other potential contenders dropped out one by one (Zijlstra, Hennis-Plasschaert, Schippers). Only Edith Schippers deciding she wants to return to politics could be an obstacle. But Rutte has a few more years in him, and who knows what happens next so maybe this is a bit premature.

Apologies if this has been asked before, but how do Jews vote in the Netherlands? Is there much variation in the community (i.e. nominal vs Haredi)

Orthodox Christian parties win a lot of votes from Jews (I imagine because of their strong support for Israel). I believe the VVD also is overrepresented. Most Jews live in Amsterdam or Amstelveen (Amsterdam suburb). Amstelveen votes VVD and the parts of Amsterdam where Jews tend to live also vote strongly VVD, but I'm not sure whether that means means much since Jews probably aren't a sizable group even in these places. There are about 50.000 Jews in the Netherlands, so it's hard to find representative polls and it's even harder to differentiate between groups in the community. I imagine David knows a lot about this though. As a Catholic who grew up in a relatively rural/exurban place and attends an university in a non-Randstad city I've never even met a Dutch Jew so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this :P (I have met a couple of Jews in NYC, but that's it).

I can't help to think to see parallels between how Jews were treated by the Calvinist rules in 1600s Noord-Holland (compared to Catholics) and how CU-SGP do with Jews (compared to Catholics). While Jews obviously still faced a lot of hate and discrimination they were allowed to build their synagogue, while the Calvinists didn't allow Catholics to build a Catholic church in Amsterdam (being a Catholic wasn't illegal, but it excluded you from political positions and you could only visit secret churches). Nowadays CU+SGP (strongly Protestant parties) do very well with Jews but they still struggle to make inroads with religous Catholics because of their anti-papal past. Maybe it's a #hot take, but it's still interesting to see. A lot of Dutch Jews were killed during the Holocaust because the Neterlands had a very advanced civilian register and the Dutch government didn't show any compassion at all when Jews returned after WW2. So I guess that's why there are relatively few Jews in the Netherlands even though the Netherlands has quite a history with Jewish immigrants. But seriously, the first thing Jews from Amsterdam received after returning from the camps was a fine for not paying their leasehold payments. I guess governments from Amsterdam being absolutely terrible isn't  just a recent phenomenon.

This (https://www.niw.nl/enquete-joods-nederland-kiest-555/) is a poll on how Jews intended to vote in 2017. It's important you compare the numbers to the polls at that moment because quite a lot happened the last week of the campaign. CU and SGP strongly overperform and the VVD is overrepresented. PvdA also does quite well even though they underperformed in 2012. 40% identifies as liberal Jews, 18% as culturally Jewish, 14% as Orthodox and 8% as atheist. The people in the poll were disproportionally well-educated (not sure whether Jews are disproportionally well-educated or whether it's just the poll, I imagine it's a combination of both) and they identify a little more as right-wing than as left-wing, but that's also true with the general populace from what I've seen.

The very left-wing coalition in Amsterdam (GL-D66-PvdA-SP) inevitably will clash with the current centre-right national coalition. Yesterday a bunch of illegal refugee squatters almost got in a fight with some people. One of those people apparently was the son of former VVD alderman Eric van der Burg. I wonder how D66 will handle it. They're both in the left-wing Amsterdam coalition and in the centre-right national coalition. I imagine it would have been much better for D66 if both Amsterdam and the national government had the broadly centrist VVD-CDA-D66-GL coalitions D66 desperately wanted. One of the most controversial plans of the new Amsterdam coalition is to create a shelter for refused refugees where they can stay for up to 1,5 year. Ironically the squatters aren't happy with it and want even more generous rules for refused refugees. Other than the coalition in Amsterdam proposes a bunch of tax hikes, more social housing and measures to limit the amount of tourists to keep Amsterdam 'livable' for Amsterdammers. I guess Amsterdam will be a free port for the #Resistance against anything remotely resembling the right :P.

Rotterdam might very well get an 'anything but Leefbaar' coalition. Leefbaar Rotterdam is a very successful local right-wing party (however unlike other RWP's they've been fairly successful in government). But the left-wing parties don't want to work with Leefbaar after they allied with Thierry Baudet and it looks like we're heading for VVD-D66-GL-PvdA-CDA-CU/SGP. Or if we use parochialboy's thread: a coalition between the money money money party, woke centrists, bicycles and quinoa party, social democrats and generalised panic, obsolete Christians, humanist Christians and the GOD party. Nothing could possibly go wrong :).

Well, the First Inter-Party Government in Eire lasted 3 years because of mutual fear+dislike of Fianna Fail. :P

In The Hague, a Groep De Mos-VVD-D66-GroenLinks coalition was formed; in Utrecht, it's going to be GroenLinks-D66-ChristenUnie. The coalition in Rotterdam is going to be an absolute abomination: seven parties in six groups with a majority of exactly one. The VVD youth wing in Rotterdam, known for being particularly right-wing and outspoken, already sharply criticized the VVD's choice to form this coalition.

In addition to the excellent response by mvd10 I would say the following:

- Good to keep in mind that almost all observant Jews live in the Amsterdam metro area, more specifically in Amsterdam South and in Amstelveen. The number of Haredim is extremely small, and the percentage of the Jewish population that is completely assimilated and "gone" from a community perspective is even higher than in most other Western European countries, which means there is hardly any "Jewish infrastructure" in terms of shops etc. outside Amsterdam -- and even in Amsterdam it is relatively poor.
- From the bad news to the good news: Jews in the Netherlands are slightly more likely to vote for the right than the general population
- The PvdA receive many more votes among Jews than among the general population: within the Jewish community, we have what could be considered the last "ideologically true" Social Democratic pillar organizations, including ideological commitment to Social Democracy and Labour Zionism. The PvdA being seen as a moderate, "don't rock the boat" party helps too, as does the fact that the PvdA has historically had many Jewish politicians (with two leaders of Jewish descent this decade, Cohen and Asscher), and that many Jews live in Amsterdam.
- This goes at the expense of support for GL and SP, however. D66 is also much less popular with Jews: too right-wing for the real lefties, too anti-Israel for the relatively big Jewish demographic that does hold views that are somewhere between D66 and the VVD.
- CU are also popular with some Jewish leftists, not only because of Israel but also because of the lack of "extreme secularism", respect for religion in a relatively non-bothersome way to people who aren't that religious themselves, and attention for climate/refugees etc.
- On the right, the CDA underperform. The PVV used to perform about the same as with the general population but slightly underperformed last time around because VNL and FVD were seen as better alternatives to higher educated Jews to whom the PVV were a bit too vulgar: both VNL and FVD overperformed by a lot with Jews, and FVD overperformed with Jews in the local elections too. The SGP overperform too, not only because of Israel but also because of their genuine concern for our community's well-being.
- The more observant (/traditional/orthodox etc.), the more likely Jews are to vote for the right. Few people who go to orthodox synagogues on a regular basis vote for parties to the left of the VVD. In my orthodox synagogue, more than half of the "regulars" voted PVV, VNL or FVD. Small sample size, admittedly (N=15 or so), and we might be an outlier (most of us are actually relatively young which isn't the case elsewhere) and usually VVD and SGP would get a big share of this electorate too, but there is a trend here.
- Younger Jews are more right-wing than older Jews and more likely to vote for FVD and PVV (and less likely to vote for SGP or PvdA). There are many highly educated Jewish young professionals in Amsterdam who are part of every typical D66 demographic except for their Judaism, which makes them have a very different perspective and causes them vote for PVV or FVD (I guess I sort of belong to this group too: I fit right in there). If they have an Israeli background, they are almost certain to vote for one of the latter two parties.

Rutte wants former Foreign Affairs minister Halbe Zijlstra to become the Dutch executive director at the World Bank. Zijlstra resigned a few months ago after it was revealed he lied about attending a meeting with Putin in 2006. Zijlstra claimed Putin said he basically wanted to restore the old Soviet Union, but Zijlstra wasn't there and Putin didn't even say what Zijlstra claimed. Apparently only Rutte wants this though, Finance minister Hoekstra (CDA) is strongly opposed because Zijlstra lacks obvious experience for this function (just like he allegedly lacked experience for the Foreign Affairs post). Pechtold also was surprised. Rutte loves to keep his loyalists close (and Zijlstra is really close to Rutte), so this could lead to allegations of nepotism/'party cartel'.

Bad politics or not, I would support this appointment. Halbe Zijlstra died for our sins. His lie was a pure act of self-sacrifice by a great man. So beautiful :'( :'( :'(.

As the coalition probably will lose its majority after the senate elections in 2019 centre-left parties already reached out to the coalition. Both the PvdA and GreenLeft have signalled they are willing to help the coalition to a majority, but they want some things in return (no benefit cuts, don't repeal the dividend tax, lower healthcare co-payments, etc).

Another episode in the dividend tax saga. Apparently Shell has been evading the dividend tax since 2005, for a total of 7 billion euros (500 million per year). The dividend tax itself only brings in about 1.5 billion euros a year, so it seems like Shell and Unilever are practically the only companies to be affected by it. Since the bulk of the tax cut indirectly flows to foreign governments (tax deals) there doesn't really seem to be any economic rationale for this anymore, except for keeping Shell and Unilever here. I imagine huge multinationals like Shell and Unilever being headquartered here gives Rutte some credentials in other countries or whatever, because I can't think of any other reason for this decision.

A majority of PvdA members wants far-reaching cooperation between PvdA, GL and SP. They want to present 1 left-wing list for the provincial (and senate) elections. The party leadership doesn't want it (and neither does Klaver or the SP leadership). I'm not really sure whether it would be a good idea either. GL voters disproportionally are university students or university-educated millennials, the last PvdA voters mostly are some ancestral PvdA voters from Groningen and older well-educated middle-class voters (civil servants, teachers, etc) and SP mainly consists out of very poor people or people living on benefits. The workerist wing of the SP and the more centrist wing of GL probably will clash. Then again, any winning left-wing coalition probably needs to unite lower middle-class 'economically anxious' voters, university students and left-leaning middle-class voters to win anyway.

Absurd from a strategic point of view that Asscher already started talking about lending a helping hand to Rutte-III, even though the party membership clearly do not accept this (yet, because it is probably going to happen anyway). Asscher just cannot help himself, which once again proves that the PvdA are so deeply middle-class/establishmentarian/"don't rock the boat" oriented and at the same time so spineless. They still don't understand why people left in droves. I suppose it is fine for the PvdA to help out Rutte-III under certain circumstances, but it is Rutte-III that should beg for it, with the PvdA demanding big concessions at that point. Looking forward to the PvdA winning only 4 or 5 Senate seats next year.

In the 2017 GE campaign, DENK were on the verge of running fake PVV ads with the text "After 15 March, we will cleanse the Netherlands", Radio 1 and NRC discovered. In order to check whether the ads would be allowed on YouTube, 11,000 Germans (lol) watching the German version of Fireman Sam (lol) were exposed to a pilot version of the ad. A more extreme version ("After 15 March, we will cleanse the Netherlands from Moroccans") was designed but rejected earlier on. The intention was to show voters that Wilders continues to go one step further everytime (and presumably to scare Turkish and Moroccan voters into voting DENK too). Only later it would be revealed that DENK were behind the ad. The online ads would link to the official PVV website. Ultimately, however, DENK decided not to use the ads because they would be beyond the pale. In classic DENK fashion, they will now sue the Radio 1 journalists who found out about this story.

()

Aha wow, just wow.

A van has crashed into the Telegraaf office in Amsterdam (De Telegraaf is a quite right-wing newspaper but politics probably didn't play a role in the attack). It's presumed that organized crime is behind the attack, as the office of crime magazine Panorama also was attacked. It's probably one of the motor clubs that recently was declared illegal. Luckily no people have been harmed at either attack.

More problems for Rutte. Rutte said he didn't know about a tax deal the Dutch government had with some undisclosed multinational, but apparently he did know (in 2014 civil servants gave him a memo). Lately there has been a lot of controversy about Rutte not being entirely honest all the time (especially when it's about the dividend tax repeal or tax breaks for multinationals), so this is terrible optics. FvD has run an ad which included blasting Rutte for bowing to the EU and to multinationals. It's not just the left attacking Rutte for this.

It still isn't certain who the next mayor of Amsterdam will be. The two most prominent candidates seem to be former GroenLinks leader Femke Halsema and former PvdA Amsterdam alderwoman Carolien Gehrels (I have to be honest, I had to look her up lol). Neither has heavy experience (big city mayor, minister, etc), but SJW municipality Amsterdam really can't afford to choose a white straight male :P. Right-wing parties seem to support the PvdA candidate, more progressive parties want Halsema. These are all just rumours since the members of the commission which will select candidates for the council to vote on legally aren't allowed to tell us anything. Halsema's total lack of experience (she's only been a MP) might be a problem, Gehrels atleast has some executive experience as an alderwoman.

An official state commission on democratic and electoral reform, led by former minister of Interior Affairs Johan Remkes (VVD), has presented a sneak preview of suggestions that will be put forward in their final report in December, some of which are quite controversial: a binding corrective referendum, an elected Prime Minister, moving towards a district-based electoral system (presumably still under PR), and an elected "coalition formateur" (e.g. a leftist voter could vote for PvdD for parliament but would prefer GL leader Jesse Klaver to receive the initiative to form a government). None are likely to be implemented under this conservative government (and many would require a constitutional revision in the first place), but these ideas will probably continue to be on the shelves: I expect D66, FVD, PVV, and some of the left-wing parties to take the advise seriously. No high hopes for real change though: the Dutch constitution is relatively "set in stone" and remarkably few substantial changes have taken place since 1848. There have been several commissions like this one over the last couple of decades, and almost none of their advises have ever been implemented.

The commission finds the increasing gap in opinions between higher and lower educated voters combined with lower educated voters' increasing lack of the sense that they are being represented the most worrying development in Dutch democracy.

The PVV has really gone down the tubes. Henk Bres is a PVV "stand-in local councilman" in The Hague, elected with preferential votes despite being too low on the list. He is well-known locally for being a not particularly smart loudmouth idiot (him being on the PVV list was absurd in the first place) and also known for "charming" remarks such as "f**king cancer Muslims", and he now retweeted this infantile cartoon depicting Mark Rutte being bought and paid for by The Jews:
https://twitter.com/RMBras1973/status/1011303179131195392

Dijkhoff organized a 'stand-up politics' night. It was a combination between politics and comedy (comedian Rob Scheepers also was there). There was some controversy because the tweet which announced the night seemed to imply they were going to make fun of refugees, but Dijkhoff stated this absolutely wasn't the case and he said he hoped people who wanted him to do that would stay home. Still, there were a bunch of very high-energy protestors. Dijkhoff invited them in but they didn't want to be part of the 'racist VVD propaganda show'.

()

()

(feel the high energy)

Seriously, Dijkhoff has been actively angering the activist left for the past few weeks. That's part of his job as VVD fraction leader and probably future leader. I don't even think it's a bad thing, Dijkhoff was broadly popular with everyone before these incidents but if he becomes VVD leader he was going to piss these people (who will never vote VVD lol) off anyway.

Love woke Dutch Twitter insisting Baudet, Wilders, Rutte and Buma are all fascists.

An interesting indicator of just how quickly the debate on immigration and asylum has shifted: only three years ago, VVD immigration spokesman Malik Azmani almost stood alone in proposing migration deals with Northern African countries and an end to the right to come to Europe and ask for asylum. Now, 85% of parliament support this. Not only D66 and CU have pulled a 180 since the election campaign, but so did PvdA (Asscher's visit to Denmark's SDs might have played a role here too) and SP (Roemer was more of an "internationalist" than Marijnissen/Meyer), which means GL almost stand alone in their opposition, with only the small PvdD and DENK on their side.

Woke UvA DENK-PvdD-Bij1 coalition inevitable!

But I believe a few weeks ago some American sociologist actually wanted to convince the Dutch public that a PvdD-BIJ1-DENK coalition would somehow be a good idea (he also claimed that climate change would cause the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie, Scarlet would love it). Thank God notoriously left-wing occasional Buitenhof presenter Mar(x)cia Luyten will finally leave next year.

Another incident I remember now. A boy had a very high grade for history at high school (exams were a month ago or so). The boy also was an active FvD member. His teacher rewarded him by calling him out publicly and giving him a book on the dangers of fascism (lol).

This is for David B.

Why have the Dutch people taken such a hardline on immigration, specifically refugee policy (including the Christian Left CU and the socialistic SP)? Does this mean the Wilder's movement will end up obsolete like UKIP over the long run? Has the current situation somewhat disrupted social cohesion and order to an extent (I understand immigration can be messy)? Are smaller countries like Holland and Belgium, more vulnerable to this due to a smaller, more compact though not necessarily crowded geography?

If you don't mind me asking, how is the policy situation in Holland. For example, how is the economy and jobs situation doing, how are public finances, the education and health systems? Is Holland also have demographic issues from a low birth rate or it isn't really a major issue than other places like Japan?

Also, if I may ask, what is your opinion on the CDA (and the CU, is that their version of a CSU like in the CDU/CSU coaltion)? I understand you may or may not be a fan, but how is that party doing, is there anything they can do like more outreach or canvassing or are they doomed to decline due to the long-run trends of depillarization and secularization? I hope I'm not bothering you with all my questioning.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, what is your favorite part of living in Holland? What is her culture and people like? Would you describe your country as very asethically pleasing and beautiful place?

I think mvd10 is just as qualified as I to answer these questions, which are rather broad, but here goes...

- In terms of immigration policy I don't actually think the Netherlands is among the most "hardline" countries in Western Europe: Denmark and Austria clearly seem to be ahead of us.
- Wilders' PVV might well end up being obsolete, but mostly due to his own strategic mistakes, such as not campaigning in the 2017 General Election. As a result, FVD appears to be a good replacement to the PVV to many. However, it is also true that CDA and VVD have moved to the right due to the PVV's strong electoral position, the fact that the PVV have essentially steered the immigration debate in their direction, and the fact that there are many VVD/PVV and CDA/PVV swing voters.
- The 2015 migration crisis has mostly affected rural communities with asylum seeker centers, where the inflow of immigrants has had a very disruptive effect. Outside these areas, the impact has been relatively minimal. I live in a big city and am not sure I have ever seen any migrants taken in in 2015. But of course I do live in a minority-majority neighborhood and in a minority-majority city and it all adds up. Many Dutch people, like me, live in areas where they do not only feel as if they are a minority, they actually are a minority. Taking in almost 400k refugees in four years does not exactly improve the situation, especially in the long run, given birth rates.
- Difficult to say whether smaller countries in terms of size are more vulnerable to the socially disruptive effects of mass immigration than bigger countries. Population might matter more here than the geographical size of the country.
- I think the economy is doing very well, unemployment is low, the public finances situation is good, the education and healthcare systems generally work well even though an increasing number of people (1 million in 2017) have trouble affording their healthcare deductibles. However, we do have low native birthrates (though not as bad as Germany) and an aging population.
- The CDA have an existential problem as declining partisanship, secularization and an aging base mean that their electoral potential has decreased by a lot. They have to find a new strategy to appeal to center-right voters, but are strongly divided internally and their future looks bleak, though the Dutch electorate is volatile and the CDA could absolutely still win a general election with a good leader who has a strong message.
- CU are not like CSU: they are an independent party (not in any alliance with the CDA) with a clearly more left-wing profile than CDA (as opposed to CSU, who are more right-wing than the CDU, of course).
- I love living in the Netherlands, even more so after having lived and worked abroad. Most things (education, economy, healthcare, bureaucracy) are organized very well, I find most of the Dutch cities to be beautiful, the high population density means that there are a lot of facilites and an excellent public transit network running day and night, it is located quite centrally within Europe, and I find many of the rural areas to be beautiful too. Things that I like less are the weather and the fact that excelling is slightly looked down upon ("acting normal is crazy enough already" is one of our most common expressions).

I'm not DavidB but I think I can answer some questions :P.

CDA/CU definitely isn't like CDU/CSU. First of all CDA and CU don't even have any official understanding, they're completely separate and different parties. CDA is a big tent Christian party, CU basically is a Protestant party. Dutch society was divided in pillars up until the 1960s and Catholics, Protestants, Socialists and Liberals (the fourth, 'neutral' pillar) didn't really have a lot of contact. In the 1970s when everyone saw pillarization was basically over and secularization started to hurt Christian Democratic parties the KVP (Catholic party) and two Protestant parties decided to merge. The more conservative Protestant parties of SGP, GPV and RPF (latter 2 became CU) always were much more anti-Catholic than the ARP and CHU (which merged into the CDA) so they obviously didn't join. CU accepts Catholic members now but I believe there still isn't a single prominent Catholic CU politician. And CDA is much more right-wing on identity issues than the CU, CU actually is quite progressive on issues like climate change, immigration, refugees, etc. In the past you could actually call them Christian left. They're not as left-wing as in the past, but on issues like immigration they're much closer to the left than to CDA. If the CDA were to have anything close to the CSU it probably would be the more conservative/right-wing Catholics CDA politicians in Limburg deciding to split off because they've lost enough to the PVV. There was talk of that 6/7 years ago but it's never going to happen (it's completely unrealistic). Depillarization practically has been completed anyway, so that won't affect the CDA anymore :P. Their electorate is aging, the Netherlands is becoming less Christian (and the very religious ones vote CU/SGP anyway) so their future doesn't look good. But I think they can survive if they become a big tent culturally conservative party. They probably won't ever win the elections again, but they still can be relevant in that role.

Economically things are going fine, even though there are a lot of people who don't really 'feel' it. That's a problem and the government basically is trying to solve it by cutting taxes and 'making people feel things are going better'. The public finances are excellent, the Netherlands is projected to have large surpluses in the coming few years (was to be expected after Rutte 1 and Rutte 2 pursued very ambitious austerity programs). There still is a debate on what to do with the surpluses (the government will spend a lot of money). Some economists want the government to be more austere and to stabilize the economy (Dutch economy is rather volatile, will come back to that later), other economists (and the IMF) advise the Netherlands to spend/invest more in things like infrastructure and education because interest rates are extremely low. There even are some economists who argue that Northern countries with huge trade and budget surpluses should start stimulating the economy and demand while Southern countries with huge deficits (Italy, Spain) should pursue more structural reforms (reducing employment protection, etc). They argue this will lead to a more balanced Eurozone (Northern European countries would reduce their criminally big trade surpluses because of the deficit spending, Southern European countries would reduce their trade deficits because of structural reforms and new Northern demand for cheap Southern poducts).

Another problem might be the labour market. We have a lot of people on flexible contracts with no job security. The right argues that this is because of strict employment protection laws for people on permanent contracts, the left argues that this is the case because of lax regulation for flexible contracts.

We also have a booming housing market with rising prices and very expensive rents (good luck finding a house in Amsterdam lol). The right (and a bunch of economists) argue that this is the case because of strict rent controls, the left wants to build more houses. I believe the IMF recommended reducing rent control laws. Another reason for the weird housing market here is the mortgage deduction. Because Dutch tax rates are higher and we don't have anything like the standard deduction the mortgage deduction is much more important in the Netherlands. We have a huge pile of mortgage debt and because of it the Dutch economy is rather volatile. If things are going well they are going great (2017, 2018), if things aren't going well we're f**ed (2012-2014). IMF recommends limiting the mortgage interest deduction (centre-right/right-wing parties oppose it during campaigns, but it happens anyway) and stricter regulation (allowing people to lend max 90% of the house price).

I don't really know a lot about the healthcare system and the educational system. But our healthcare system basically is Obamacare on steroids. Insurance is mandated and private insurers are forced to offer basic coverage to everyone (and it's free for children). I believe it works pretty well even though there are some concerns about the costs.

As for the educational system, all schools are publicly funded but they have quite a lot of freedom. There even are some religious schools which are publicly funded but can refuse students if they're not religious (legacy of 1917). Not really a problem since quality education is accessible almost everywhere. Only in some big cities there are a lot of worries about white parents not willing to send their children to (worse) 'black schools' which might lead to segegration and inequalities. Children get separated in 3 different categories when they're 12 (based on the teacher's opinion of their cognitive abilities). VMBO prepares you for vocational training, HAVO prepares you for HBO (university of applied sciences, more practical and less theoretical version of universities), VWO prepares you for actual universities. Obviously it's possible to move up if it becomes clear you can handle a higher level (I know a lot of people who moved from HAVO to VWO, I even know someone who started out at VMBO and ended up at VWO). There is some concern about the bad image of the VMBO, apparently only 45% of VMBO pupils feels safe at school while more than 80% of VWO pupils feels safe. This has led to parents 'pushing' children to HAVO/VWO which has led to a shortage of skilled workers. You can't blame the parents for this though, generally HBO/university offer better job prospects than vocational training/MBO. And I'm pretty sure HAVO/VWO probably is a safer environment for your children than VMBO. University education isn't really expensive. You can get government loans under very good terms and lower-income students still get free government grants. Still, because of the loans there is a lot of pressure (especially for low-income students) to graduate within 4 (or 5 depending on the study) years which might led them to pursue less extracurricular activities which might hurt their position on the job market. And a lot of people are studying in less employable fields while there will be a shortage of STEM degrees (also a problem for MBO and HBO).

I'm going to let David answer the other questions :P

(lol David ninja'd me)

I obviously love living in the Netherlands btw

Anyway, the PVV probably always will have a niche role as I imagine many PVV voters think Baudet is too much of a snob (though they'll probably vote for FvD if they actually stand a chance to win the elections). Education probably doesn't really play a role for your left/right orientation, but it seems like higher educated voters vote for completely different parties. D66 (centrist), GL (left-wing) and to a lesser extent VVD (right-wing) are disproportionally supported by higher-educated voters while doing pretty badly with voters with a high school education. SP (left-wing) and PVV (far-right) do much better with voters with just a high school education. With FvD (right-wing/far-right) and PvdD (animals rights party) it looks like we even have anti-establishment parties for OSM ('ons soort mensen', basically a nickname for snobs). I think there is a hard core of PVV voters who just won't vote for someone like Baudet (he loves to portray himself as an intellectual).

People who have voted VVD for 40 years, say they now support <insert right-wing populist party here> and won't ever vote VVD again and then still vote VVD at the last possible moment (or in the next election) because they don't want the left to win or because of a last-minute 'October surprise' (Turkish ministers campaigning in the Netherlands) has been a recurring meme since the early 2000s or so. As a very optimistic VVD member I fully expect that to happen again in 2021 (or earlier) :P. Which is a reason why polls show there aren't many VVD-PVV swing voters even though there probably are some.

Loved both of your responds. I'm really sorry to overlook you Mvd, I liked your response especially in better understanding the CDA and CU. Thank you for your responds about the Netherlands. If I may ask you Mvd, why are you a supporter of VVD, if I may ask.

I hope you don't mind me having a take on your issues later. :) Hope you don't mind Americans opinion on Holland politics.

Thanks for your kind response!

To the surprise of absolutely nobody, former GL leader Femke Halsema will be the new mayor of Amsterdam and also the first non-PvdA mayor in Amsterdam since WW2.

This is for mvd10 (sorry again for overlooking you! I loved your response!)

Would the CDA get broad-based appeal amongthe broader electorate including young adults and
non-religious voters (heck even muslim voters, once they settle and integrate over time) if they build themselves up as the "good government" and "pro-community" party without necessarily sacrificing their principles (what's the point of voting for similar shades, if everyone's the same)? Do you have any info behind the splits?

I really like this, yes austerity is painful but over the long-run it provides an opportunity to invest in future endeavors as budget policy is rebalanced. I know this is going into the fantastical but I wish governments had more structural surpluses which would mean it would be much easier to invest in one project or the other. Is there anything you'd like to see the surpluses spend on?

In respect to labor policy, is the issue as bad as it is in France (I understand France and to an extent Italy are countries where labor reform is being debated and considered)? How is the Dutch labor market, it is abound with good jobs with benefits that allow a measure of self-sufficiency for Dutch workers and families and allows them to save for the future?

On the housing issue, is Holland doomed to deal with pricey homes due to the fact that the country is only so large, how would you address it? With health care, deductibles are a downer but without them, the health care system could become overloaded and overwhelmed, at least with cost-sharing, you can incentivize folks to stay in tip-top shape as much as they can (and provide a safety net and a floor which serves as a baseline and floor for those in need).

In respect to the Dutch education system, is the three tier pathway basically akin to Germany's system, this does sound like a rather well-organized system with enough freedom for students with the drive to move up if they were sorted in the wrong track for whatever reason (bad year, bad teacher, etc). Why don't they just improve conditions in the VMBO schools (yes I understand it's easier said than done), I know this sounds stereotypical but it seems like the vocational track is more likely to have disadvantaged students (perhaps those with disabilities, or refugee students trying to fit in Dutch society), could developing a more holistic approach improving the VMBO schools and put those students on the wrong track (while almost promoting societal inclusion and social mobility?)?

Again, I hope some American opining on Dutch politics and policy isn't turning you off. The Dutch model seems to work well in some aspects even if I don't agree with everything the Netherlands does or trends.

Looks like the CU is a better ideological fit for me than I thought.

Apparently CDA won 9% of young voters in 2017 (this surprised me, I actually thought they'd get less than 5%). I don't think Muslim voters will vote CDA in the forseeable future, they're far too culturally conservative for that. Right now Muslims vote pretty much exclusively for de-facto Muslim party DENK (I believe 50% of Muslims voted for them). I imagine there will always be place for a vaguely Christian 'pro-community' conservative party since neither the VVD (probably a bit too 'libertarian' for lack of a better word) nor the left will take that role (even though the VVD has become more culturally conservative). Famous electoral geographer Josse de Voogd (our king is alive!) made this map:

()

Green areas are areas that vote for the left, even if it's arrogant (think Hillary Clinton & 'deplorables'). They're mainly big cities and university towns. Blue areas are areas that vote right-wing anyway (a combination of wealthy VVD suburbs, CU/SGP Bible Belt areas and religious CDA-voting Catholic areas in eastern Noord-Brabant and eastern Overijssel). Yellow areas aren't monolithic by any means but generally they are the kind of areas that feel left behind by globalisation. De Voogd claims they'd vote for the left if they were less 'arrogant' (or more culturally conservative/populist). I hate to make the comparison but I guess you could see them as the Dutch version of the Midwest. It isn't really a good comparison because a lot of these yellow places didn't even vote for the left in the first place. I don't think the yellow parts of Noord-Holland voted for any left-wing party the past 30 years and parts of Limburg and Friesland are yellow even though they mostly voted for the CDA in the past. Almost all of the yellow places outside the northern 3 places voted VVD over PvdA/Labour in 2012 anyway. It seems like most of those places last voted for the left in the 1990s. But anyway, you get the idea. I imagine a more culturally conservative 'pro-community' CDA would win a lot of these places (even though some yellow places really aren't going to vote CDA while others vote CDA anyway). But seriously, I think that some of the yellow parts of Noord-Holland probably would never vote for the left, I don't know where de Voogd got that idea from. Other than that the map seems okay.

I'm a staunch VVD supporter because that's the party any libertarian-leaning person with some conservative leanings on immigration and law and order ends up :P. I don't like Buma (CDA leader) at all, I'm not particularly religious (so no CU/SGP), I'm rather libertarian on economic issues (no left-wing parties), I don't really like EU federalism but I'm also not an Eurosceptic either (no PVV, FvD) and I think D66 is a bit too left-wing overall. So that only leaves the VVD :P.

The Dutch labour market has rather strict employment protections. This probably doesn't really affect unemployment, but in theory it does increase the duration of unemployment (so there will be few people who will be unemployed for years instead of a situation where people will be layed off more easily but also can find a job relatively fast) and it creates a huge gap between people on permanent contracts and people on sh**tty temporary contracts. The main result is a dual labour market with a group of winners and a group of losers. The reason for low German unemployment wasn't the labour market reforms, it was a period of wage moderation agreed to by both labour unions and employer unions (they tend to work together rather harmoniously in Rhineland countries). The reason why France has high unemployment rates are hilariously high labour costs in France. And literally everything is a dysfunctional hellhole in Italy, so no surprises there. I still think employment protection laws generally are bad and inefficient, but not necessarily because they can affect unemployment.

For now the labour market is quite good, there is a shortage of workers in most sectors which will cause wages to rise (and hopefully it will cause employers to offer more permanent contracts).

I really think the problems in the housing markets are caused by things like the mortgage deduction (which sadly is overwhelmingly supported by the right) and way too much government regulation (rent controls) distorting the markets but that's the opinion of a borderline libertarian :P.

I still think the Dutch education system generally is great though. We don't have an elite who attended extremely expensive private prep schools, there are enough opportunities to move up if you want, the differences between the quality of different schools aren't as big as in other countries and there also are positive effects of separating the children when they're 12. It allows for more customization and because only people with a VWO degree (or HBO) can attend universities all of our universities are excellent and students should be well-prepared to enter university (which is affordable for everyone). There are some problems, but overall we have a great education system in my opinion. As for now the main problem is social inequality (children of minorities and poorer people disproportionally go to VMBO, children of wealthier people disproportionally go to VWO). But I don't think whether the problem is any bigger than in other European countries (and the problem certainly is bigger in Anglosaxon countries).

I'm not sure whether the austerity was a really good idea. I broadly supported it but at times I thought they went too far. Sure, the Dutch economy is a very open economy so stimulus doesn't always work and austerity might not be as bad as some leftists claim but I think I'd have preferred a more gradual austerity programme and more structural reforms. Mass austerity (we're talking about huge tax hikes and big spending cuts, much more than in other European countries) during a recession doesn't really sound like a brilliant idea. But then again, politicians wouldn't have had the discipline to continue a more gradual programme during better economic times so maybe it was better this way. If they had taken more time to implement the reforms they surely would have cancelled them by now because the economy is growing. And then we'd have been f**ed again during the next recession. Which is why the Dutch central bank isn't happy with the government splurging the money now (but the IMF is happy with it). 10 economists, 11 opinions :P.

Two hypothetical coalition questions:

1. If GL were to win the most seats for a left-wing party, what would be some likely coalitions?

2. In the (very) hypothetical scenario that parties were willing to work with PVV to form a coalition, which parties would be most likely to do so? I assume FvD is one of them.

EDIT: One more question:

The VVD leadership election in which Rutte won was seen as the right-liberals vs. more right-wing conservatives (iirc). After Rutte leaves, what are the chances of the conservative faction taking control of the party?

1. Klaver wanted a CDA-D66-GL-SP-PvdA government during the 2017 election. You could add PvdD and CU as well in the combination. Such an option is very unlikely as CDA more or less ruled it out during the 2017 campaign and the VVD-CDA-D66-GL negotiations failed because of differences between CDA/VVD and GL. Purple Plus VVD-PvdA-D66-GL could be an option, but also unlikely as  GL moved left since 2010.

2. It is very unlikely that the PVV is ever in a government since 2012. The only parties that could work with PVV are probably FVD and SGP and maybe 50+. It very much depends if VVD and CDA ever change their stance of never governing with PVV.

3. The next likely successor of Rutte is Dijkhoff currently factionleader of in parliament. He is probably more conservative than Rutte. He recently has highlighted right wing proposals as cutting welfare of people who are unwilling to work and sending refugees back after more than 5 years. MVD or David probably know more about Dijkhoff than me

I fully agree with SunSt0rm. GL would need atleast 1 right-wing party to govern with (we're likely not seeing a leftist majority anytime soon, and that is if you count D66 as centre-left) and neither VVD or CDA wants to be the only right-wing party in a broadly centre-lefy coalition. We'd probably see a vague centrist coalition (Purple Plus + CDA, the anyone but Thierry/Geert coalition?).

Like SunSt0rm said, it's extremely unlikely that the PVV will be in government ever again. I'm curious about FvD though. They're probably very cautious to work with an right-wing populist party again and Baudet also has said some things he'd probably need to retract if he wants to be in government, but they haven't had a breach of trust with Baudet like they had with Wilders, so maybe it's possible if the overton window shifts further to the right and FvD wins the election with a huge margin. I strongly doubt it though, I don't think we'll see FvD in government either.

Internal debate in the VVD has weakened the past few years. Ideological debate almost tore the party apart after the disastrous Rutte-Verdonk leadership election so they're really not keen on that anymore. Both flanks of the VVD weakened. The old D66-light moderates don't really have a lot of influence anymore, but the VVD also doesn't have vocal right-wing rebels who aren't happy with the current course either. The right-wing membership wasn't really happy with the possibility of a coalition with GL, but they also kept relatively quiet during the formation. So I don't think there will be anything like a revolution after Rutte leaves.

In a sense the right-wing faction did take control of the party. At heart Rutte might remain a centrist liberal but the VVD did shift to the right under him and I struggle to name any prominent moderate VVD politicians. Maybe Hennis-Plasschaert or Wiebes? But they won't ever be leader and they definitely don't dissent with the current course of the VVD. The old moderate wing of the VVD is only relevant in Amsterdam and some big cities, and even there the only real differences are that they're slightly less right-wing on immigration and more woke on climate change. Meanwhile people like Rutte or Dijkhoff are saying things that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

In 2008/2009 Mark Rutte had a few talks with a former Tory/GOP political consultant (the VVD was at a low point in the polls) and the consultant advised Rutte to go back to the basics and shift to the right if he wanted to win (and guess what happened lol). Dijkhoff probably will more or less continue on the same line as Rutte, we really shouldn't forget that post-2009 Rutte has been pretty right-wing during campaigns. Dijkhoff (or Schippers, who also remains a possibility if she decides she wants to return to politics) might only be marginally more right-wing than Rutte.

Completely agreed with mvd10 and SunSt0rm. There don't really seem to be any factional differences within the VVD anymore, because Rutte's historical run of electoral successes has turned the party into the Rutte machine. It is difficult to pin down Klaas Dijkhoff ideologically; I suspect his "natural leaning" might be slightly more to the right than Rutte's, but I doubt this will actually matter given that both are, err, quite "flexible"... It's easier to pin down Schippers: she is to Rutte's left when it comes to progressive vs. conservative issues ("social issues", as the Americans call them), but more right-wing on immigration and the like, and she has been quite open about this. But Dijkhoff is going to be Rutte's successor anyway.

The VVD's latest tactic is to chime in to every "identity politics" or "culture war" debate and pick the right-wing, "traditionalist" side -- this used to be Zijlstra's job, but it is Dijkhoff's job now. The left call this VVD tactic "PVV statute labour", performed in order to appeal to VVD-PVV swing voters (which is true, but it also contains the element that the VVD aren't sincere in expressing these positions, which I am less sure about -- at this point, many VVD MPs are not very distinguishable from PVV MPs in terms of actual policy positions). This usually does not have any direct consequences in terms of policy, which makes it particularly smart strategy in appealing to people because the political costs are zero. Notable exception where this did affect policymaking: a D66 deputy minister and a CDA minister were preparing a ban on consumer fireworks for New Year's Eve, but the VVD vetoed this idea, as this is regarded as a culture war issue.

Thank you all :)

I thought PvdD, as a testimonial party, wasn't interested in being involved with government coalitions. Has their position on that changed?

No, they generally aren't interested in participating in coalitions, but they could theoretically support a sufficiently left-wing coalition (i.e. one that will never have a majority in NL...) from the outside.

Speaking of PvdD, and I swear I saw someone mention at some point that they got quite a lot of a protest in the kinds of places you wouldn't necessarily expect. So, beyond the obvious kind of person who would vote for a party like them, who is voting PvdD as a protest option?

I suppose animal rights as a single issue does not necessarily bear any of the green movement's connotations of being part of the historical Left tradition.

There was a good podcast in Dutch on the subject by NRC : https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/04/21/nrc-haagse-zaken-30-waarom-de-partij-voor-de-dieren-geen-lachertje-meer-is-a1600280

Just from the opening segments of THieme and other senior figures speaking : PvdD make a big deal out of the fact that they are dark green to GL's light green. But like you say, they also make a point of being outside the conservative-progressive, left-right scale, despite sitting in GUE and voting often with the Left.

Of course you get often interviews of caricatures of white working class Dutchmen in the media who say that they are hesitating between PVV and PvdD, or results in PVV-strong communes where PvdD overperform their national average, all of which are vastly overinterpreted. But they make an effort not to limit themselves to the certain type of voter you expect.

Sorry, one more follow-up to the coalition question:

If there were enough seats, would a GL-D66-SP-PvdA-50+ coalition with PvdD and DENK support be possible? Would parties work with DENK, and would D66 leave the government for this type of deal?

I'm not sure but I believe that 50+ voters are quite rightwing so the idea of a coalition with Denk etc seems implausible to say the least.

DENK, I think, is far too toxic for any party to support, even more so than the PVV. There are other big problems as well: they and SP hate hate hate each other because of the PKK issue and the PvdA resent them for stealing part of their base.

People who are less likely to be interested in politics and may feel either apathetic to or disgruntled with "The Hague", but to whom animal welfare is specific and important enough to take interest in, and who view the PvdD as "outsiders" by focusing on this specific issue. There are quite a lot of these people.

I don't think we're ever going to have a coalition without either VVD or CDA participating in it. The numbers just aren't there.

In any case, the above option would be too difficult even if it were numerically possible. I suspect GL could perhaps be open to working together with DENK in some way in the future, but this is going to take time, and it will probably have to occur on a local level first. DENK-SP (the SP hate DENK, DENK hate Sadet Karabulut) and DENK-PvdA (they both hate each other) cooperation would be even more difficult. D66-SP is also a difficult combination nationally, and D66 would definitely prefer the current government over a hotchpotch coalition like this. 50Plus' voters are quite similar to PVV voters in terms of attitudes on immigration and "culture wars", and the leadership knows it.

Fully enjoying the ride with VVD Foreign Ministers handpicked by Mark Rutte because they are loyalists. Zembla journalists found out that during a recent closed-off meeting, Minister of Foreign Affairs Stef Blok claimed that he does not know any multicultural society that is peaceful. "Give me an example of a multi-ethnic or multicultural society still inhabited by the native population (...) with a peaceful state of coexistence. I don't know one." People would be genetically predisposed "not to be able to bond with strangers", which is the reason why societies "reach their boundaries quickly" when it comes to taking in immigrants. He therefore calls himself "pragmatic when it comes to xenophobia."

Blok claims to understand native Dutch people in minority-majority neighborhoods in Amsterdam and The Hague and says that it is much easier to appreciate multiculturalism if you live in Benoordenhout, a highly affluent, 95%> white neighborhood in The Hague. He also called Suriname a "failed state" and blames it on multiculturalism, and he voiced his skepticism of EU refugee quota, as Eastern Europeans would never accept taking in immigrants: "Even if we twist their arms to their back and they say "yes", it will not happen. Take a walk on the streets of Warsaw or Prague, there are no colored people there. These people would leave within a week. They would probably literally be beaten up. They wouldn't have a life there."

As a consequence, a sh**tstorm has unleashed on Blok, with the parliamentary foreign policy spokesmen of government parties D66 and Blok's own VVD rushing to condemn his statements, together with pro-refugee organizations and the like.

Time for Hans van Baalen

()

()

()

A true visionary. Courageous souls like Hans van Baalen will always come to save the nation in her darkest hours.

Sadly van Baalen isn't a Rutte loyalist. Heck, he probably got a kick upstairs to the European Parliament because he was too critical of Rutte (also the reason why this national treasure didn't get the cabinet job he deserves). It's still not too late Mark. Whenever the next VVD minister resigns you can bring Hans in. Picking a MEP with very close ties to Monsanto, the Ukrainian government and the car industry would piss off all the right people. Time to reap those leftist and right-wing populist tears :).

Blok should have watched his tongue and he shouldn't have mentioned ethnicity or genetic stuff (or the Suriname being a failed state part, which is very undiplomatic) but I think there are a quite lot of people who agree with him. I wasn't really outraged about it when I read it, he probably has a point with most multicultural experiments failing. But he's Foreign Minister so he really can't say those things. Ironically Rutte picked Blok because Blok has the reputation of a cautious man who doesn't make stupid gaffes. Lol. What Blok said about migrants in Eastern Europe is especially awkward because spreading refugees more equally over all of Europe (instead of the Northern countries where they want to go) is cabinet policy.

Apart from the bits you pointed out, he's not wrong. (Well, can't speak to the condition of Suriname's society, but that part didn't do him any favors.

I'd imagine that his sentiments are widely held among the public, even if some are afraid to admit it--in which case I imagine this might push a few people closer to FvD

I looked it up and ironically Benoordenhout (the affluent place in The Hague Blok mentioned) overwhelmingly voted VVD. The one precinct in the area voted 48% VVD (21% is the national average). The Hague is more right-wing than Amsterdam or Utrecht though, VVD and D66 were tied in the wealthier areas there.


Blok is a VVD politician. Or do you mean this will spark another national debate which would benefit FvD? I do agree that similar sentiments are probably held by a sizable amount of the public, including a lot of voters the VVD needs to win because you can't win by just racking up the margin in Aerdenhout and other wealthy Randstad commuter towns lol (and even those voters are surprisingly right-wing on identity issues). Twitter reactions are overwhelmingly negative, but Dutch Twitter is a notoriously left-wing echo chamber (with a few far-right trolls too) where anything remotely associated with the VVD is loathed. But I hope they'll poll it. Maurice de Hond, we need you more than ever!

But the main problem with what Blok said is that's it's completely undiplomatic, rather brash (probably not something you want in your Foreign Affairs Minister) and seems to contradict coalition policy.

In 2004 Stef Blok actually chaired a parliamentary commission that concluded Dutch immigration/integration policy over the past 30 was largely successful. Lol.

Blok was mostly right imo (except for the Suriname comments, as calling it a failed state seems overly harsh), and most VVD voters probably don't mind. From an electoral perspective this isn't going to harm the VVD, but the remarks on Suriname are damaging to the Dutch-Surinamese relationship, which is already quite rocky: we currently do not have an ambassador in Suriname, as the Dutch government's pick was rejected.

Blok assuming that such comments behind closed doors remain private seems awfully naive. On the upside, to me it is encouraging that VVD politicians who actually hold power make such comments behind close doors: this was not "PVV statute labour" but a politician speaking his mind. It seems as if many VVD politicians have slowly come around and now basically don't disagree all that much with a party like FVD on immigration anymore: it is the EU, direct democracy, the "conspiratorial" vibe, and geopolitical issues (Russia) where they find FVD to be most objectionable.

()

()

Dear god,
This is ridiculous

Well, Baudet did write a book about a gigolo once.

Obvious tactical mistake by Baudet though. In the eyes of the Baudetjugend only women can be seen as sexual lust objects. Baudet's downfall is now imminent :P.

In Poland even for the left-wing politician it would be seen as not appropriate.

This is the Netherlands though. I doubt many people outside of the Bible Belt will care. And even if they care it probably won't change their likelihood to vote FvD anyway. Thierry Baudet was open about inhaling lavender and being so infatuated with a woman that he stopped masturbating (true story) and nobody cared.

what

Well, #NoFap is pretty popular on the right...

Yes, the saviour of the Dutch nation state and Western Judeo-Christian culture.

David has been conspicuously absent. I suppose he's having the time of his life somewhere right now.

()

The photo we deserve, not the one we need

I beg to differ...

Hahaha, the time of my life writing a long-ass paper while my room is as hot as Ayelet Shaked, sure. Baudet is not my type :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ORJiFt6LC0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu6sxy_dgWM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJNooZwsxj0

More goldmines

Anyway, majorities of voters disapprove of Blok's comments on Suriname (60%) and multicultural societies (55%). Even most VVD voters seem to disapprove of Blok. Still, the VVD doesn't lose any votes because of it. The VVD is a teflon party, the last time the VVD lost a serious amounts of votes was when VVD voters had to pay more health insurance contributions :) (they wanted to means-test premiums, the plan was quickly scrapped).

Jozias van Aartsen (ex-VVD leader, former interim Amsterdam mayor) is rather worried about the VVD. He says the VVD is too populist and too negative about religious Muslims (he's talking about Salafi Muslims). Sure Jozias, being #woke worked so well for us in the early and mid 2000s :). During his term as mayor van Aartsen also was heavily criticized for being too soft on illegal refugees who were squatting several buildings in Amsterdam. I think the national VVD is very happy that he's gone now tbh. Van Aartsen is a known moderate/social liberal, but ironically he also tried to keep Wilders in the VVD when Wilders was a rebellious VVD MP. It's clear that people like van Aartsen have lost any remaining influence they had in the VVD, Rutte 'converted' and the people who are waiting to take over also are quite right-wing.

What a douchebag.

Van Aartsen was also the mayor of The Hague who said that "no lines were crossed" when protesters in The Hague chanted "death to the Jews" and waved their ISIS/Hezbollah flags in the summer of 2014. So tolerant.

So 45% of the Dutch agree that there isn't a single successful multicultural country (pretty extreme statement) and 40% think Suriname is a failed state (which seems a ludicrous comment even to me). Don't understand the general media spin as if this is supposedly something positive for the left.

I was thinking what would be reaction of Polish people on the same picture but made by Korwin and then someone in the Internet remind me about that photo where Korwin is sleeping on table while visiting Russia:

()
()

It's komkommertijd ('cucumber time') in the Netherlands, so nothing really is happening. Some parties are preparing for the European elections though. Rumour has it that Malik Azmani will become the VVD lead candidate for the European Parliament. Azmani is known as a hard-liner on immigration/integration, I like him. D66 will organize a leadership election. Prominent MEP and D66 delegation leader Sophie in 't Veld will run again, but she will be challenged my MEP Marietje Schaake and Pechtold's speechwriter Felix Klos.

I don't know anything about the internal workings of D66, but Sophie in 't Veld is a prominent MEP and the current delegation leader, so I guess she should be the favourite to win because of her status in the European Parliament. She tried to recruit M5S for ALDE (wtf) but luckily enough she failed. I believe she's quite critical of the influence American tech giants have in Europe. She's also very pro-EU(duh, D66) and has tried the 'Goldman Sachs and Google don't need the EU, but we normal citizens do'-shtick.

Felix Klos is Pechtold's speechwriter, he also campaigned for both Hillary and Bernie in the US. He predicted Trump would lose in a landslide tho. Klos will be running on a very pro-European platform. I'm not sure whether he stands a chance though (not even sure whether he will get enough signatures to run). I think he does have a bright future in D66 though.

I don't know much about Marietje Schaake other than that she's been a MEP for 10 years.

MEP Esther de Lange probably will be the CDA lead candidate again. The CDA's EU position is rather weird, they used to be extremely pro-EU but under Buma they became more sceptical (or 'nativist') as evidenced by them voting against the EU-Ukraine association agreement because the majority of voters rejected it. But the senate fraction largely voted for the association agreement (remnants of the old 1970s/80s/90s CDA). Out of the mainstream establishment parties CDA has the biggest share of voters who don't feel represented by the elites (not strange since CDA voters are older and mainly rural). It remains to be seen whether CDA's more Eurosceptical course will remain or whether it was a ploy by Buma to win disaffected right-wing VVD voters. Or maybe the CDA will go for the Rutte way in the future: Eurosceptical at home, pro-EU in Brussels :).

MEP Paul Tang (who was mentioned as a possible left-wing candidate for the PvdA leadership 2 years ago) probably will be PvdA lead candidate again.

The CDA in the EP seem to be more inclined to do what the EPP want than to do what the national CDA want. I have to give the VVD some credit here: they don't just go along with anything ALDE want, as they sometimes rebel and are pretty consistent in what they advocate in The Hague and in Brussels (the "Euroskeptical at home, pro-EU in Brussels" thing is more of a Rutte issue than a VVD MEPs issue imo). By contrast, the CDA's MEPs will blatantly go against the party line in the Netherlands. Their MEPs voted for recognizing Palestinian statehood, for example, despite the HQ opposing it. The reason is that the "old guard" (leftier than the national leadership) is overrepresented among MEPs. I also think the MEP delegation of the CDA has been disproportionately Southern/Catholic for a long time.

Anyhow, I don't expect any changes in the CDA MEPs' pro-EPP, pro-Eurofederalist voting patterns.

You're probably right about the CDA. The EU-Ukraine association agreement passed the senate because the senate is filled with the old guard. I did not know that CDA MEP's voted for Palestinian statehood though. I'm sure Buma wasn't thrilled about that. Internally there is some opposition to Buma's course but it's probably just the dying old guard. I'm sure the prominent CDA members who were staunchly opposed to working with the PVV in 2010 aren't exactly happy with Buma. Still, Buma's course probably is the right way for the CDA since they have to find a new niche position, and their voters clearly feel more disaffected by the current 'elites' than VVD/PvdA voters.

VVD and ALDE has always been a dubious marriage, the VVD is to the right of ALDE on basically everything. Still, there is no other serious option and there are some other right-wing liberal parties in ALDE too so they'll stay there. But I'm sure that the VVD will continue deviating from ALDE from time to time.

Had never heard of that Felix Klos guy, by the way. Hot damn, does he look like a pretentious a**hole. Though I see the irony of an FVD member saying this :) 100 euros that he wrote his own Wikipedia article. He looks like the kind of guy who could absolutely be on the D66 list (and a potential EP leadership bid could parachute him up on the list), but I think there's no doubt that In 't Veld will lead the next D66 delegation.

Peak 21st century politics: PVV The Hague municipal council member Willie Dille claims to have been raped and abused by a group of Muslims 1 year ago. She claims fellow municipal council member Arnoud van Doorn (Muslim convert, leader of some local Muslim party) sent them to do it. Big if true. Arnoud van Doorn is a very nasty and radical man (converts are the worst lol), and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised at all. Then again, PVV members also are known for having a ''big fantasy'' :P. Like I said: very big if true.

The VVD is in trouble again. Rumour has it that Wybren van Haga (VVD MP who got in trouble because he broke some rental rules as landlord) isn't allowed to speak with the media and only gets sh**t committees. Van Haga seems to be pissed off because of it. And now a story has broken out that van Haga didn't completely sewer ties with his businesses, apparently there is some classic construction which allows him to be de facto in charge. Personally I think the whole situation surrounding van Haga is a witch hunt. Since van Haga was known as a independent-minded right-wing municipal council member in Haarlem they might be in trouble if he decides he's tired of it and leaves the party since that would cause them to lose their majority. Now, they're going to lose their majority in the senate in a few months anyway and they probably would have SGP support, but losing the majority still would be a bad sign. So van Haga has some room to f**k around I suppose.

Ok, this escalated quickly. Willie Dille, the woman who claimed she was raped by Muslims who were sent after her by fellow council member Arnoud van Doorn, has committed suicide. Apparently Dille has spoken with both the police and mayor Pauline Krikke (The Hague, VVD) and they advised her to file a police report, but she didn't do it.

An incredibly sad story. I have to say that I was skeptical at first, but now it has been revealed that the mayor of The Hague, Pauline Krikke, knew about Dille's story, as did the police. Dille's video with subtitles can be viewed here (https://www.facebook.com/sturle.costaknudsen/videos/1246882578785138/). If this really happened, this country is sick.

Honestly I'm surprised similar scandals (eg Rotherham) haven't caused mass riots. The police not doing their jobs because they're worried that arresting rapists might create anti-immigrant sentiment is a big effort into deal. It's outrageous.

The aspect of absurdity is important here, I think. These sorts of things are so incomprehensible that many people might literally be unable to allow the idea that they happen to enter their "system". People might not call into question the facts, but it's not the same.

These things mean that the state has completely failed its task to protect its citizens, which is the most fundamental task of the state. But for individuals, life goes on just like before, and cognitive dissonance is easy to sustain. People protesting the state of affairs will then be viewed as lunatics with too much time on their hands.

There is even less support for eliminating the dividend tax. Apparently it will cost 2 billion euros now. Support has dropped to 15%. I'm pretty sure the dividend tax won't be eliminated in the end. By March 2019 the coalition probably will have lost its majority in the senate (even if you count SGP), so they'll have to work with some opposition parties and their first demand will be to reinstate the dividend tax. Personally I'm conflicted on it. I support the idea on paper, but in practice most of the tax cut will go to foreign governments (many international tax deals) instead of investors in Dutch corporations which makes it a rather inefficient tax cut.

D66 wants judges to be more ethnically diverse to make people feel better represented. Ironically judges are known for being rather big D66 supporters, which is why so many right-wing voters rail against the judges (their D66-image combined with low sentences in some high profile cases). D66 doesn't want a quota though.

Peil.nl also polled to which extent people agree with the controversial remarks by Foreign Affairs Minister Stef Blok (VVD). It appears as if most right-wing voters agree with most of what he said. 47% agree with his statement that there is no successful, peaceful multicultural society in which the indigenous population is still there (91% of FVD voters in GE17, 89% of PVV voters, 63% of VVD voters, 53% of CDA voters). 75% agree that it will never be possible to come to an arrangement in which Eastern European countries take in refugees (this goes against the coalition agreement but wasn't the most controversial part - the controversial part was where he said that refugees would literally - sic - be beaten up on the streets in these countries within two weeks). 46% agree with Blok's statement that humans are genetically programmed not to be able to bond with alien people to us (74% FVD, 68% PVV, 63% VVD, 54% CDA). And 59% agree that multiculturalism is very troublesome if you live in a multicultural neighborhood and that it is easy to appreciate multiculturalism if you live in a white neighborhood (91% PVV, 90% FVD, 75% VVD, 72% CDA). I think the percentage of PvdA voters who agree with this statement shows insight in why the PvdA cannot go the Danish Social Democratic way: only 22% agree, compared to 23% of GL voters and 35% of D66 voters - the PvdA is a deeply middle-class party.

Only 34% agreed with Blok's comment that Suriname is a failed state due to ethnic divisions (72% PVV, 53% FVD, 45% VVD, 40% CDA).

49% think he was right to apologize, 45% say it was not necessary (VVD voters: 34/60). 29% say he should resign over these comments (D66 voters: 38/50), 64% say this would be unnecessary.

Current PvdA voters are deeply middle-class, but I wonder what the results would have looked like with potential PvdA voters. But I agree that they'll never be able to go as far as the Danish social democrats. According to peil.nl's table 66% of PvdA 2012 voters voted for D66, GL, PvdA, DENK or PvdD. And I don't know how reliable peil.nl's demographic breakdowns are, but apparently PvdA slightly overperformed with educated voters even in 2012. According to peil.nl (https://www.noties.nl/v/get.php?a=peil.nl&s=weekpoll&f=4+verhalen+bij+TK+verkiezingen+van+2017+b.pdf) PvdA won 26% of high-educated voters and 21% of (self-described?) high income voters in 2012 while they won 19% and 15% of those groups in 1994. So I guess the PvdA has been deeply middle-class (moreso than the other European social democrats?) for a while.

Current PvdA voters might indeed be a tad more middle-class than their potential voter base, and I even think the Danish way could be a fruitful electoral strategy for the PvdA - but it will not happen, because the party membership and its core base is too middle-class and ideologically "internationalist" to accept this ever happening.

And as you already alluded to, the PvdA's voter base has been more middle-class than the voter base of the SPD, Danish Social Democrats, UK Labour, Swedish Social Democrats etc. for a long time.

The reason is that the PvdA has been just as popular with the middle-class demographics (public servants, teachers, etc.) and the "bobo" type of voter that these parties attract as its international counterparts, but that a bigger part of the Dutch working-class historically doesn't vote for the PvdA: a big chunk of the Catholic working class historically voted KVP and then went to the CDA. They might now vote PVV, SP, CDA or even VVD (or stay home), and even if they may consider the PvdA a potential option in their "set of choices", few of them vote for the PvdA on a consistent basis (the 2012 GE, in which voting was rather class-based by Dutch standards, is actually a good example of the exception to this rule).

Two results from this: 1) a Social Democratic party (and the left as a whole!) that is structurally weaker than in Germany, the UK, Sweden and Denmark; 2) a Social Democratic party that is structurally more reliant on middle-class voters (and a middle-class base) than its counterparts - which obviously affects its potential ideological course.

Peil.nl today:
()

Why is the CDA doing so badly?

"The little party always gets crushed!" - A. Merkel

Except that it's not always true. For example Socialist Party of Serbia hugely improved their result in 2012 after entering government in 2008 (after being in opposition since 2000) as a junior partner of centre-left Democratic Party, a coalition that was controversial because despite both parties claiming to be "social-democratic", Socialist Party of Serbia is the party of Milošević regime, while Democratic Party was one of the regime's greatest opponents.
Sorry for OT.

It's something that always happens in a center-right coalition, the main center right party gains votes from the minor ones.

Additionnally, VVD fits the Netherlands much more than CDA. The Netherlands is the country of drugs after all, not of zealous christians.

Traditionally it's normally the D66 that has wild negative swings when they're in government. My understanding was that the CDA base are old and gradually dying off, but still loyal.

On the other hand, I can see why the CDA's vote base might more vulnerable to attack from the "respectable" far-right like the FvD (especially when compared to the PVV) than the other government parties.

Maybe it's a hot take, but I think the CDA has a much larger share of anti-establishment/disappointed voters than the other establishment parties (and CU's voter base is quite loyal for obvious reasons). Buma repeatedly criticized Rutte over the past 5 years and he didn't make any deals with Rutte 2, VVD and PvdA relied on D66, CU and SGP for that. Buma definitely tried to win ''left-wing conservatives'' (people estimate that 40% of voters is in the left-conservative quadrant on a PM-esque test). Both the VVD and the CDA ran a right-wing campaign when it came to cultural issues/immigration, but the VVD campaign still was rather optimistic while Buma ran a fairly pessimistic campaign, and he repeatedly blasted Rutte for ''only seeing the value of money and failing to adress the falling sense of community''. So I guess there are some voters who strongly disapprove of Rutte 2 but didn't quite want to vote FvD/PVV (and eventually ended up voting CDA).

VVD has become a broader party over the years, but the VVD still has a very strong base with wealthy voters in Randstad commuter towns, D66 strongly overperforms with well-educated voters and CU base is loyal (where else would they go lol?). But CDA performs relatively well across all educational and income groups, so a large amount of their voters might be relatively hostile to Rutte 3 compared to the generally more affluent and educated VVD and D66 voters.

Then again, D66 also is losing with left-leaning voters who don't like the corporate tax cuts or the repeal of the dividend tax. There seems to be a decent gap between D66 voters and the D66 leadership when it comes to economic issues. The ''marriage'' between wealthy centrist professionals and more left-leaning D66 voters worked when Pechtold was a charismatic leader who repositioned dying D66 as a staunchly anti-PVV party or when everyone acknowledged that the budget deficit had to be reduced, but I guess a lot of left-leaning D66 voters are disappointed that the current government is following the VVD line on corporate taxes. Though I might want to add that calculations showed that the policies in the coalition agreement wouldn't increase inequality :P.


CDA isn't really a party for zealous christians though, for that we have SGP and CU. Maybe the most conservative Catholics vote CDA, but that's it. CDA is rather silent on things like abortion (iirc they want to ban it at 22 weeks instead of 24 weeks lol), and the only hot button social issue is ''voltooid leven'' (an even more liberal euthanasia law), which also is opposed by the SP iirc. Buma's rather nationalist and communitarian campaign should have worked rather well on paper actually. But the VVD also ran a good campaign, things were going relatively well (so maybe Buma was too pessimistic) and Rutte got a late boost with the Turkey row.

Electoral geographer Josse de Voogd aptly worded the appeal of the VVD btw. The VVD generally gets the mood of the electorate when it comes to social issues and values: secular and socially liberal, but also conservative on cultural issues (but not in a PVV-way). The VVD might be a bit too ''neoliberal'' for the average voter, but they message it in a very appealing way (''roll up your sleeves and let's fix things'').

Anyway, we only ever post peil.nl polls here since peil is the only pollster with weekly polls. Ipsos still had the CDA on 16 seats in their last poll a month ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Dutch_general_election

VVD MP Han ten Broeke just resigned. Apparently he had a relationship with a political assistant in 2013. The woman claimed that the relationship was ''unequal'' since she was in her 20s while ten Broeke was a 44-year old MP. Last week ten Broeke also ran into trouble when HP de Tijd wrote an article about him not reporting some of his business activities.

In 2013 the case was resolved by ten Broeke and VVD fraction leader Halbe Zijlstra who apparently talked with the woman and they convinced her to refrain from reporting it to the police, but HP de Tijd found out anyway and he decided to resign before the sh**t hits the van.

Anyway, the rumour that ''something'' happened which meant ten Broeke would never become minister has been going for a while by now and I believe David even posted something about ten Broeke being caught with a fraction assistant, so for all of your scoops please continue visiting this thread :).

It is mostly classic story of a junior coalition partner whose profile in the government is unclear. The dividend tax repeal is also much more resented by CDA voters than VVD voters. And then there is the fact that Rutte mainly ran on continuation and Buma on change - and this is mainly a government of continuation (as almost all governments in the Netherlands really are, given that we have never had a government without at least one party that was in the previous government - think about that!) I think Peil is overestimating FVD's gains and CDA/VVD's losses by a bit, but it boils down to this, I think.

Peil.nl poll the same as last week.

32% want the coalition to win a majority in the Senate next year following the Provincial elections, 54% want the government to lose its one-seat majority. These numbers are 44/37 for CDA voters in GE17 and 43/42 for D66 voters - very damning. Only VVD voters overwhelmingly want the government to win a majority: 75/15.

As for Wilders' "draw Mohammed" cartoon contest which sparked outrage in the Muslim world and was subsequently cancelled: 65% think Wilders should not want to organize such a contest, 22% are disappointed he cancelled it, 76% think this was a good decision and 61% think organizing such a contest should be possible in the Netherlands.

Peil.nl also polled the popularity of all ministers. The most notable observation is that PM Rutte's popularity has declined by a lot: from 4th out of 16 ministers in October 2017 to 15th out of 16 at the moment. His personal involvement in the abolishment of the dividend tax is undoubtedly the reason for this.

Much ado about asylum policy as of late, since two Armenian children aged 13 and 12 who had been here for ten years were set to be deported to Yerevan. Their mother had already been deported. Their asylum bid had been rejected countless times, since Armenia is a safe country, but Dutch asylum legislation allows applicants to appeal countless times, with the consequence that children are sometimes deported after having lived in the Netherlands for most of their lives. There were many protests for the two children, but first it appeared as if this would not change anything. When the mother (who has pulled many tricks in the background) then made her children disappear on the night before their deportation (they went "into hiding") and the police asked for citizens to help find them (bad idea), Deputy Minister of Immigration Mark Harbers (VVD) decided to use his discretionary powers and make an exception for the two children. This also means their mother will be allowed to return, even though her asylum application was rejected something like eight times. Presumably CU and D66 exerted a lot of pressure on the VVD in order to have Harbers use his discretionary powers, as many members of these two pro-immigration parties cancelled their memberships over this incident. It painfully points at the fact that D66 and CU lost the immigration issue at the negotiating table.

The government parties don't trust each other at all, as D66, CDA and CU keep struggling with the expected abolishment of the dividend tax: for the former two parties, as many as 40% of their voters in 2017 say they doubt they can vote for them again if the dividend tax is actually abolished. As energy prices, healthcare expenses and the VAT will increase sharply next year, the scrapping of the dividend tax for Unilever and Shell seems an even more obscene measure - the optics are really bad.

Embarrassingly, because of this intra-government disagreement, the government agreed on the 2019 budget too late and missed the deadline to have everything calcultated by the Council of State. The Deputy Head of the Council, former minister Piet-Hein Donner (CDA), took the highly unusual step to summon the Deputy Minister of Finance Menno Snel (D66) to his office and have him explain why this happened. In order to maintain its independence and avoid being viewed as partisan, the Council of State can only be in contact with government officials through a special procedure ("Article 24"). This procedure is usually only invoked for about 1% of the budgetary clauses, but was invoked for much more of the budget this time.

I would not be surprised if the government collapsed over the dividend tax, either this year or next year.

Another scandal that has hurt D66 is the fact that Alexander Pechtold's former mistress, who just resigned as a D66 local councillor in Kampen, told the press that Pechtold had essentially forced her to undergo an abortion, treated her badly altogether and blackmailed her over things, threatening to destroy her reputation and her political career. Pechtold has had his fair number of scandals (the "penthouse" he received from a Canadian diplomat keeps sticking too) and D66 fear that this most recent scandal is going to hurt them in the Provincial elections in March. There is speculation about Pechtold resigning at the October party congress. The question is: who would replace him? Minister of the Interior Kajsa Ollongren was always seen as the most likely successor, but her reputation is very tainted after abolishing the referendum, which many D66 members do not like.

Then finally a poll not by Peil: EenVandaag have ditched their cooperation with GfK/De Stemming, which was the worst poll in the 2017 general election, and now have their polls conducted by Ipsos, the best pollster in 2017.

Ipsos/EenVandaag (September 4, numbers compared to GE):
VVD 32 (-1)
PVV 18 (-2)
CDA 17 (-2)
GroenLinks 16 (+2)
SP 14 (nc)
D66 13 (-6)
Forum voor Democratie 9 (+7)
PvdA 8 (-1)
PvdD 7 (+2)
ChristenUnie 6 (+1)
50Plus 5 (+1)
SGP 3 (nc)
DENK 2 (-1)

A very different picture than with Peil, which has CDA and VVD much lower and FVD (and DENK) much higher. Peil wasn't all that inaccurate in 2017 either, so I guess the truth is somewhere in between.

How are dividends taxed in the Netherlands currently and what is the proposed tax cut?

It is now 15% and the government plans to abolish it altogether (Rutte's personal project), even though this was in none of the parties' manifesto. The parties have severely underestimated the backlash this would cause: as it became clear Shell and Unilever were behind this and Rutte used the "we need to attract them after Brexit" argument, the companies themselves are mainly worried about the PR damage and have now said they will move to the Netherlands regardless of whether the dividend tax is abolished. There goes that line of defense for Rutte... It is still wholly unclear how this would benefit the Netherlands - one gets the impression that it doesn't. Meanwhile, it will cost 2 billion euros a year.

So these are dividends that are paid by the companies directly? or by the investors receiving the dividend? As in, I would imagine most of Unilever's shareholders live outside the Netherlands - so how would this impact the taxes paid by, say, a shareholder in Canada?

In any case, it would probably be a fantastic boom for the kitchen industry of paying-yourself-through-your-own-personal-company, so pretty good for the tax "planning" crowd anyway

This is mvd10's area of interest, so he should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood it as follows: shareholders who receive dividend from a company based in the Netherlands officially pay 15% over this dividend, regardless of whether these shareholders are based here. Those shareholders who live in the Netherlands, however, already paid 0% in practice, as they were allowed to make some calculation with the income tax (the same goes for shareholders from a number of countries with which the Netherlands has tax treaties). Shareholders who live outside the Netherlands and outside a country with which the Netherlands has such an agreement did have to pay 15%, which will not be the case anymore from next year onwards if the government actually abolishes the dividend tax.

Who could have expected D66 to get destroyed by joining a center-right to rightwing government? Truly it must be junk!

The real comparison to make is the hypothetical score they would be on now had they joined Klaver's initial proposal during the first debate.

Since when is 13 D66 seats "destroyed"?

Peil.nl today (compared to last week):

VVD 26 (-1)
GroenLinks 18 (+1)
Forum voor Democratie 16 (nc)
PVV 15 (-1)
SP 13 (+1)
PvdA 12 (nc)
CDA 11 (nc)
D66 10 (-1)
PvdD 8 (nc)
DENK 7 (+1)
ChristenUnie 6 (nc)
50Plus 5 (nc)
SGP 3 (nc)

Ipsos looks more believable to me...

Only 34% want the government to finish its term compared to 50% when they assumed office. 78% of VVD voters want the government to stay in power until 2021, but among all other government parties a majority of 2017 GE voters think the government should collapse beforehand: only 47% of CDA voters, 45% of D66 voters and 38% of CU voters want the government to complete its term.

47% think Deputy Minister of Immigration Harbers (VVD) made the right decision to allow the two Armenian children to stay, 46% think he made the wrong decision. Big majorities of VVD (26/66), CDA (38/55), FVD (18/73) and PVV (18/77) think Harbers made the wrong decision, but majorities of voters of other parties agree with his decision.

39% want to soften immigration legislation so that more children of asylum seekers will be allowed to stay in the Netherlands, 53% do not support such changes. Clear differences within the government here: 67% of D66 voters want to soften immigration legislation, but only 19% of VVD voters and 23% of CDA voters would support this.

I'm too lazy to explain the full workings of the dividend tax and I actually don't know that much about international tax rules (anything >>>>>> tax accounting even though I had a 9 for accounting, sorry :P), but basically because of tax deals only shareholders in countries who don't have a tax deal with us would profit.

If I'm an German investor (30% dividend tax rate iirc) and I invest in shares of a Dutch company the company would withold the 15% Dutch dividend tax and I'd also pay the German 30% dividend tax rate. But I'd be able to get a rebate on any dividend taxes in excess of the 30% from the German tax authorities, so I'd only pay 30% (15% to the Dutch government, 15% to the German government). If the Netherlands abolishes the dividend tax I'd pay the 30% German tax rate but I wouldn't get a rebate so basically the tax cut goes to the German government. But in countries without a dividend tax there usually is no rebate, so it would benefit British investors (or investors from the Cayman Islands...). I believe they estimated that about 25% of the money would go to actual foreign investors, 75% would go to foreign governments (which doesn't help us at all obviously).

The reason Shell and Unilever want this is because they have very close connections to both the UK and the Netherlands, so they have a sizable contingent of British shareholders and it's rather attractive for them to move to the UK because of the dividend tax rules. You also have a lot of large funds which aren't actually British but have British subsidiaries because of tax rules (UBS asset management, BlackRock, etc). I guess having more acess to their funds would be nice, but I doubt this justifies a 2 billion tax cut and I really doubt whether Rutte should choose to die on this hill. Just cut the corporate tax or so.

Anyway, I'm also not sure whether D66 would have been much better off in a centre-left government without the VVD (what would it even look like? CDA-D66-GL-SP-PvdA-CU lmao?). They probably would be slightly better off electorally, but let's not forget that in most hypothetical horserace Rutte vs Klaver/Asscher/Samsom polls like 40-50% of D66 voters would vote for Rutte so there is a sizable percentage of D66 voters that probably would feel awkward in a left-wing government. VVD-CDA-D66-GL definitely would have been best for D66 electorally.

Pechtold also has a bit of a scandal. He had a short-lived relationship with a former D66 municipal council member and now the woman claims she was pregnant and Pechtold threatened to defame her if she didn't get an abortion. It's probably a bullsh**t story, but it's rather bad for Pechtold I suppose. Rumour has it that he might even resign in October, but I'm not sure about that.

I think the asylum thing might have negative effects on the VVD on the long term. One might think that the current 18-20% of the voters that claims to support the VVD despite the little scandals, Rutte fatigue and the dividend tax is the hardcore VVD base but that's not necessarily true. At several points during Rutte 2 the VVD was polling at 13-15%. The VVD base might not rebel over scandals or the dividend tax, but they do rebel when either their own financial interests are under attack (means-tested healthcare premiums) or when the VVD is seen as too soft on crime/immigration. If more of these cases pop up I wouldn't be surprised if the VVD drops to late 2015 levels.

Interesting, thanks MVD (and I find tax accounting fairly interesting unfortunately, you should try "audit and assurance" if you want dry :P)

Figures the UK would be the source of tax shenanigans, but you would have thought the whole Brexit thingy would have made any threats on the part of Unilever/Shell a little bit emptier

... and suddenly we get a lot of polls: here is I&O, one of the worst pollsters in 2017.

September 15 (compared to GE17)

VVD 26 (-7)
GroenLinks 19 (+5)
PVV 15 (-5)
CDA 15 (-4)
SP 14 (nc)
D66 13 (-6)
Forum voor Democratie 12 (+10)
PvdA 11 (+2)
ChristenUnie 7 (+2)
PvdD 6 (+1)
50Plus 5 (+1)
SGP 4 (+1)
DENK 3 (nc)

Poll looks quite believable, somewhere between Ipsos (which overpolls the "bourgeois right", underpolls left + "populists") and Peil (overpolls FVD and some small parties, underpolls "bourgeois right"); though I&O tend to overpoll the combined left. Anyway, what a mess this is.

40% would approve of Rutte-III, 56% disapprove. 64% oppose the abolishment of the dividend tax. Carola Schouten (CU, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture) is the most popular minister. Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD) and Gert-Jan Segers (CU) are the most popular parliamentary group leaders. The four least popular ministers are all in the VVD. In descending order of popularity: Mark Rutte (PM), Eric Wiebes (Economic Affairs), Sander Dekker (Legal Protection) and Stef Blok (Foreign Affairs).

Looks like unless I am reading it wrong (I don't speak Dutch), the changes in income tax will be phased in towards 2021 not all this year.  Otherwise I believe the top tax rate only falls from 51.95% to 51.75% and then to 50.5% in 2020 and finally to 49.5% in 2021.  Is this correct.  The dividend tax seems like it would benefit the wealthy so while economically a decent idea, we live in a populist age so I am not surprised greater backlash than say there would have been a decade ago.  Corporate tax cuts also look to be scaled back a bit although to be fair when compared to G7 countries, only UK is lower than the Netherlands.  Even with Trump's tax cuts, US rate if you include state rates is higher in the majority of states with only a handful being lower.  On the top marginal rate, all states are lower even California which is the highest, never mind top rates in the US kick in at around $470,000 as opposed to 68,000 Euros so affect far fewer than in the Netherlands.

So, how was that police protest last weekend? How it influenced everyday life?

Seems like VVD, or at least Klaas Dijkhoff, is quite inspired by the newest set of Danish immigration laws.

As I can tell his proposals include both harder punishments for crimes committed in some areas, mandatory pre-school for children in ghetto areas and lessons in Dutch democracy and traditions.

Unfortunately, the coalition partners are against.

https://www.ad.nl/politiek/vvd-criminaliteit-in-probleemwijken-dubbel-zo-hard-bestraffen~a8839594

The third Tuesday of September is always the day on which the budget is presented. The King makes a tour through the center of The Hague and makes a speech; in the days afterwards, the budget is discussed in parliament in the annual General Political Reflections, which is the high point of the parliamentary year.

The generally unpopular government has a fragile position, but the opposition is divided, with the untouchable PVV as the only opposition party with more than 10% of the seats. The approach most opposition parties took was therefore to inflict as much damage on Rutte and the government as possible. The weak spot of the government is the proposed abolishment of the dividend tax, which was alluded to countless times in opposition politicians' speeches. At the same time, the government parties need to be more clear about their profile, which is presumably part of the reason why VVD parliamentary group leader Klaas Dijkhoff introduced the idea of importing Denmark's integration laws to the Netherlands. Jesse Klaver (GL) also interpreted this as a trick to avoid talking about the scrapping of the dividend tax, which might also be true. The level of parliamentary debate reached a new low, with predictable Wilders/Kuzu and Wilders/Pechtold clashes receiving much attention, but in terms of content not many new things were discussed. To me, a high point of the debate was the poem with which Thierry Baudet started his speech, but given that he was the 13th speaker, most MPs had presumably tuned out on the debate already. On the left it was notable that GL, SP and PvdA once again managed to overcome their differences and present a common budget as a "counterproposal" to the government's budget.

The debates will continue tomorrow, when PM Rutte has returned from Brussels, and will presumably continue to receive loads of criticism for the dividend tax proposal - especially now that the Council of State has issued a highly negative advise on this proposal, claiming not enough attention was drawn to the many critiques of economists who found that the measure will not have any positive effect on the Dutch economy. To be continued.

Peil.nl poll following the General Political Reflections:

VVD 26 (nc)
GroenLinks 18 (nc)
PVV 17 (+2)
Forum voor Democratie 14 (-2)
PvdA 13 (+1)
SP 12 (-1)
CDA 11 (nc)
D66 10 (nc)
PvdD 8 (nc)
DENK 7 (nc)
ChristenUnie 6 (nc)
50Plus 5 (nc)
SGP 3 (nc)

PVV win 2 seats directly from FVD. In all his vulgarity, Wilders was at his best, while Baudet's performance was generally seen as unconvincing. He particularly received much criticism for the part where he said participating in these debates is "below his dignity", as he thinks parliamentary debates are not meaningful because everything has been set in stone in the coalition agreement, nobody is open to being convinced with arguments, and the debates only serve to achieve popularity through one-liners at the 8 o'clock news. He has expressed similar sentiments before and I get where he comes from, but the public don't seem to like it.

Peil.nl found that Wilders (19%) and Asscher (19%) were seen as the best opposition leaders in the debates, followed by Klaver (16%) and Baudet (8%). 29% said "nobody in particular" stood out. For the coalition parties, 25% said VVD leader Dijkhoff was the best parliamentary group leader (44%: "nobody in particular").

81% support Dijkhoff's proposal to force children aged 2 to 2.5 into special language schools if they don't speak Dutch; 65% think children in problematic neighborhoods should receive special education on Dutch democratic values and traditions; yet only 21% support punishing crimes perpetrated in problematic neighborhoods with a sentence twice as high as in other neighborhoods.

39% support Wilders' measures to ban all public displays of Islam, 50% oppose it. Still a high number in support, considering that the question even included a ban on the Qur'an, something I would assume is supported by fewer people. But perhaps many people were still inclined to say yes to the entire package.

The alternative budget presented by the left (GL, SP, PvdA) is generally viewed positively: 57% say their proposal is better than the government's proposal, 75% like the general idea of opposition parties introducing an alternative budget, and only 35% think this budget would stymie economic growth. However, 54% think these parties would not have introduced this budget if they were actually in the government, and - painfully yet inevitably - 62% agree with the statement "when I see this alternative budget, I wonder why the PvdA continued governing with the VVD." 89% of SP voters, 86% of PvdD voters, 72% of GL voters and even 45% of PvdA-2017 voters agree with this statement.

The government intends to introduce a proposal that requires people who want a firearm permit to disclose information on their race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, and political views, Minister of Justice and Security Ferdinand Grapperhaus (CDA) declared. The initiative was immediately criticized heavily by the Council of State, privacy-oriented NGOs, and MPs of coalition parties CDA and D66.

Collecting this type of information remains a highly sensitive subject in the Netherlands, where the highest percentage of Jews in all of Western Europe was deported in the Holocaust, largely due to the excellent administration with detailed information on citizens' background. I think it would be the first time after WW2 that the government would collect this sort of information (attempts at organizing a census failed) and it seems obvious that this is not actually going to happen.

Still, its creepy af that people are even considering this.

'Murica's approach to government does have some virtues.

A few days ago 7 people in Arnhem and Weert have been arrested, they are suspected of planning to commit a terrorist attack during a major event (unknown which event). Police found AK-47s and other weapons in their houses. 1 of the suspected terrorists already was sentenced for trying to travel to IS territory, but apparently he was released on probation. The police has been monitoring these people since April because of an AIVD tip. Arnhem (city in Gelderland with 150,000 inhabitants) has an unusually large amount of radicalized Muslims, I believe there is no place outside the Randstad where more people travelled to IS territory than Arnhem.

Some trouble in the coalition. Last year the coalition enthusiastically announced they wanted to be the greenest cabinet ever, but it looks like VVD and CDA didn't really realize how much money the energy transition was going to cost taxpayers. VVD and CDA on the one side and D66 and CU on the other side haven't reached an agreement on how to reduce carbon emissions yet.

Another hit for Rutte: Unilever very likely will not relocate to the Netherlands. British shareholders blocked the move because relocating to the Netherlands would mean Unilever wouldn't be in the FTSE anymore. Shareholders fear that this would mean that British shareholders would sell their Unilever stocks (people love tracking index funds) which would cause Unilever to drop. The government already is reconsidering repealing the dividend tax because of this. I guess this was the reason they needed to finally drop it lol.

The whole HQ debate was stupid in my opinion anyway. This never was about the HQ, nobody should have cared about the symbolical Unilever HQ and the 30 jobs that came with it. The only possible justification of this tax cut could be the effect it has on the cost of capital. Even though most economists seemed to oppose it, there were 2 economists who openly supported it. They built a model based on the theory that the marginal investor (the last investor to buy a certain stock, the ones with the lowest returns) eventually decides the stock price. Since the dividend tax heavily/only falls on those ''marginal investors'' (basically the unfortunate few who do have to pay the dividend tax) it's rather inefficient and raises the cost of capital, unlike general income or corporate taxes which fall on everyone and therefore are less distortionary. But their model is rather abstract and I don't know whether it's enough to justify the tax cut, there also seems to be a lot of empirical evidence against repealing the dividend tax (ugh, I should stop since at this rate I'll be rambling about the Lucas Critique and deep parameters soon lmao). In the end dropping the tax repeal probably was the best thing. Politically it definitely was the best thing lol.

A weird thing happened. The MIVD (military intelligence service) caught 4 Russian spies who tried to spy on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague. The Russian spies made a lot of blunders. They arrived on false passports with almost identical serial numbers, they always were together, they had taxi vouchers with the address of the Russian secret service, etc.

The Unilever decision is extremely embarrassing to the government and may provide D66 and CU with the argument necessary to cancel the move altogether. Since D66 and CU received some climate stuff to accept the abolishment of the dividend tax, we can only hope this part will now be cancelled too, which would be fair for VVD and CDA :)

Today the D66 party conference takes place and there is a lot of turmoil within the party, with suggestions that Alexander Pechtold would resign.

Aaaand he's gone. This doesn't bode well for the coalition either.

Who are most likely successors? I guess some of the ministers? Ollongren, Kaag, van Veldhoven? They also have some fairly notable MEPs (in ‘t Veld and Schaake), where I believe the former just won a tough battle for being first on the EU list. Was Pechtold on the right wing economically or focused more on that aspect than others?

Names often mentioned are MPs Jan Paternotte and Rob Jetten (but the latter is probably too young and inexperienced) and ministers Sigrid Kaag and Kajsa Ollongren. MEP Sophie In 't Veld could probably have had a decent shot but was just re-elected as number one candidate on the EU list.

Sigrid Kaag is the one to watch: she is not a party machine politician, but very popular within the party and viewed as "stateswomanlike". The media love her and she just made a widely lauded speech in which she called on citizens to remain vigilant when it comes to "populism." The only question is whether she wants it. Ollongren has made herself very unpopular both within and outside her party by being responsible for abolishing the referendum. Her record in Amsterdam wasn't too stellar either, and she is uncharismatic. She was viewed as the "crown princess" of the party in early 2017 but I don't think this is going to happen anymore. I would place my bets on Kaag or Paternotte.

Pechtold was probably more economically right-wing than a lot of D66 voters, but I would not say any of the abovementioned candidates would have markedly different policy preferences than he had, though obviously someone like Sigrid Kaag has a very different, international profile. Though Paternotte would perhaps be more inclined to care about direct democracy and 'democratic renewal', and may also be more of a 'realo' on integration and multiculturalism.

I (as always) agree with David's analysis. I don't know whether Kaag is really suitable to be a party leader, she's new in politics and she might prefer being minister over getting really political (though her speech seems to suggest something else). If Kaag wants it it probably is hers though, I imagine they definitely want a woman if possible lol (and the circlejerk over Kaag's speech was astounding). Ollongren is hated by too many people, Jetten and Paternotte are too inexperienced. If Kaag (or another minister) becomes party leader they'll also need a new fraction leader. Maybe that's something for Jetten. Jetten definitely was seen as the crown prince, even more so than Paternotte imo. Maybe Pia Dijkstra for fraction leader? But she's probably too old and I don't think she's interested. She could be a placeholder for Jetten or Paternotte I suppose.

Fully agreed with your comments on Kaag. I initially thought she didn't have any leadership ambitions but it is actually logical for her to have them and the speech, in which she broke the unofficial code for ministers (that are not party leaders) not to talk about subjects they are not responsible for, made me think she wants it, though I still would not be surprised if she does not do it.

But I don't think Paternotte is too inexperienced. He became a member of the Amsterdam council in 2006 already, led D66 Amsterdam to their big election victory in 2014, was successful in striking a coalition agreement, and subsequently led the D66 group. He has been in parliament for 1.5 years now, which should be enough to learn the rules of The Hague. Admittedly he is my preferred candidate. Jetten led D66 Nijmegen from 2010 until the 2017 election, but Nijmegen is of course not the same as Amsterdam.

It's starting to look very possible that D66 will just appoint a placeholder. Kaag and Ollongren are in cabinet so they can't be fraction leader and D66 might not want to appoint possible future leaders Jetten or Paternotte during a period of turmoil. My best guess is that a relatively experienced MP (Paul van Meenen?) becomes fraction leader as placeholder, either Sigrid Kaag or Kajsa Ollongren will become their lead candidate for the next general elections and after the inevitable loss Rob Jetten or Jan Paternotte (or foreign affairs spokesperson Sjoerd Sjoerdsma?) takes over. Since there are so many candidates you also have the danger of internal turmoil and leadership battles, which can harm both D66 and the coalition (if candidates try to pander to D66 voters who don't like this coalition).

There are two elections coming up, though. I guess D66 could pull a GL, as Van Ojik led the party as placeholder from 2012 until 2015 including the municipal, European and provincial elections. However, the difference with GL is that D66 are bound to lose a lot in the provincial and European elections unless something changes. They should probably just call a leadership election to be held in early February and be done with it.

I bet VVD and CDA would be happy with a placeholder though. D66 is clearly the unstable factor in the government: if anyone is going to pull the plug, it's D66. And they won't do so without a permanent leader.

The D66 MPs elected Rob Jetten as their new parliamentary group leader. A leadership election will follow later, but it seems obvious that Jetten would be a candidate.

()

What are positions of new leader on ecological issues and migration politics? Some major differences compared to Pechtold in different policies?

Jetten has always carefully toed the party line so I don't know how, if in any way, he would differ from Pechtold.

Well, I atleast got something right :P. I imagine Jetten will be end up being the lijsttrekker/leader too, there is little point in choosing a relatively inexperienced but very promising person like Jetten as party leader if you don't atleast intend him to be lijsttrekker and face of the party in the future. If they wanted Kaag or Ollongren as lead candidate they probably would have picked someone who looks more like a placeholder (more experienced MP with less leadership ambitions).

They could theoretically also wait for a while and see whether he becomes as popular as desired. If not, they can elect a different leader (but it would probably have to be Kaag or Ollongren, no MP is going to challenge Jetten anymore) and claim Jetten was always just going to be the parliamentary leader. But I agree that it's much more likely that he will indeed become party leader now. Good grief. Dude seems like an empty suit to me.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-tax-chevron/unions-accuse-chevron-of-massive-tax-avoidance-via-the-netherlands-idUSKCN1MJ1C3
Damn the union workers must’ve been really ticked off.

The dividend tax will not be abolished. Instead, a number of measures aimed at lowering other taxes for both multinational corporations and SMEs are taken. The total package will cost 1.9 billion euros a year, equivalent to the costs of the proposed abolishment of the dividend tax.

Embarrassing for the VVD, but definitely the best decision and voters will forget about it.

The new D66 leader doesn't seem to be popular and has made some embarassing media appearances. The decline of D66 will continue. Pechtold has left a sinking ship.

It does appear as if "Robot" Jetten isn't ready for this yet. His promotion came at the worst time. Meanwhile I'm still picking up certain signs suggesting that Kaag may interested.

A seat loss for D66 in the next election is inevitable, but they definitely won't fall back as much as in 2006 (admittedly a low bar), and if they actually pull the plug on the coalition by themselves they may be able to minimize their losses. Though this could easily backfire too, especially with their stability-oriented, highly educated electorate. The old D66 adagium "Regeren is halveren" (=governing means decreasing by half) still seems the best bet to me.

RIP to former Prime Minister Wim Kok (PvdA), who just passed away at age 80. Kok led the two purple governments (PvdA-VVD-D66, 1994-2002), was PvdA leader for sixteen years, Finance Minister in the Lubbers-III government for five years (1989-1994), and trade union leader for twelve years. He will be remembered as the union man who ultimately sang the praises of the PvdA "losing its ideological feathers" and embracing the Third Way. Kok led the last coalition before the Fortuyn revolt. At the time, Purple was popular, but everyone who thinks of Purple now thinks of Fortuyn and his electoral success. Afterwards, Kok made a lot of money at ING Bank, Shell, and KLM: he undoubtedly embodies the PvdA's embrace of capitalism.

Not a fan of those Purple cabinets for obvious reasons. RIP.

Peil.nl conducted a poll for the Provincial Elections in March.

These elections are very important, because the Provincial States (PS) elect the Senate, which used to be depoliticized in less politically polarized and fragmented times, but has now taken up an increasingly important political role. This means lacking a majority in the Senate is a real problem for any government.

Rutte's governments have lacked a majority in the Senate from May 2011 until the formation of the current coalition, so it's not the end not to have a majority, but it requires striking deals with additional parties. Since "constructive" opposition parties are running out of seats, this may prove more difficult now than it was at the time. But I'm sure SGP and PvdA will ultimately be willing to lend a helping hand to Rutte. GL will want to avoid to do so.

Voting behavior for PS19 by GE17 vote, compared to PS15:

()

The government has a one-seat majority in the Senate and needs a miracle to keep this majority, because D66 and CDA are destined to lose large numbers of seats in the PS and (therefore) in the Senate. The VVD are made of teflon and seem stable, CU will also be stable. Big winners in the PS elections will be GL and FVD. The PvdA may lose even more compared to their catastrophic result in PS15, which may damage Asscher's position (if they're lucky - he probably needs to go for them to be able to rebuild).

The picture is one of small gains for the left, big gains for the far-right (FVD +8%, PVV stable), losses for the center-right, and more losses for the "establishment 4" of VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA.

So, are privatised hospitals going bankrupt and kicking out patients a testament to the success of the Dutch healthcare system? :)

There are several hospitals relatively close to the bankrupt hospitals and all patients found places in nearby hospitals while personnel of the closed hospitals very likely will find work at nearby hospitals. It's a sad situation, but it isn't like there are thousands of people without any access to good healthcare. Before being privatized these hospitals were racking up huge losses (but then the government subsidized it). Those hospitals went bankrupt because patients went to other hospitals with better reputations and a higher quality of care. It looks like there just was a surplus of hospitals in Flevoland and the Amsterdam region. That being said, it's still a very sad situation of course. Even though the bankruptcy of these hospitals might not be that bad if you put it into perspective it's fully understandable why people living close to these hospitals (or the people working there) are angry.

It's getting increasingly challenging with the level of fragmentation we're currently experiencing, and there seems to be no quick fix or potential solution with the system that we have (which is unlikely to change). We'll have to deal with it. I guess we'll have a two-horse race election once in a while, which makes coalition formation easier, but elections like in 2010 and 2017 with that level of fragmentation will likely only become more prevalent in the future. It is what it is.

FVD are a new populist right-wing party focusing on direct democracy, opposition to mass immigration, opposition to the EU, maintaining Dutch traditions and values, and lowering taxes for small and mid-sized businesses. They mainly attract voters from PVV, CDA and VVD.

Can anyone tell me why the animal rights party hasn’t merged with the greens? Like do they attract different demographics or what?

The PvdD are both much more "radical" in terms of worldview (degrowth, localization, hence euroskepticism) and much less willing to compromise than GL. In terms of voter demographics there is considerable overlap (but also differences: PvdD attract voters who do not necessarily identify as left-wing), but those who built the PvdD project generally have a different background than the GL leadership: they usually weren't part of the "left-wing bubble". So a different crowd, a different worldview, and a different strategy.

Moreover, parties generally only merge when all potential partners are in decline and face an existential crisis. The PvdD have only been growing. No need for them to merge with anybody.

It would even make more sense if they merge with SP but there is no need for them, and even if they polled below 3% they wouldn't still merge, cause they're trying to establish animal parties worldwide.

Is the lasting effects of pillarisation that prominent in the Dutch system? How has the country not broken apart yet from the ongoing addition of parties in the parliament? There aren’t enough flags or colors on a rainbow to accommodate all the parties.

The fragmentation is more of a consequence of pillarization not lasting... depillarization caused voters to actually choose between parties. The country has not fallen apart because most parties essentially almost want the same things - or, to put it differently, there are different long-term visions and different short-term visions, but the medium-term goal of almost all parties is the same: a prosperous and safe Netherlands with a decent welfare state embedded in a prosperous Europe.

The number of parties is not the problem. The effective number of parties is: the lack of big parties and abundance of mid-sized parties is.

I'd caution with predicting doom by the way. The last couple of elections the end results have differed significantly from polling a few months before. In 2017 the PVV was polling in first while VVD was polling at 25 seats, but in the end VVD-CDA-D66-CU got a majority despite not having polled a majority in a single poll after the refugee crisis in August 2015. There was a last minute swing towards the VVD because of the Turkey row, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the swing would have happened anyway because in the end voters wanted a party that could get some things done (as opposed to the PVV whose only purpose is to push the overton window to the right during elections). A few weeks before the 2012 election SP and VVD were tied at 23% with PvdA at 12% or so, in the end the result was 27% VVD, 25% PvdA and 10% for the SP. In 2010 there also were rather wild swings. At first CDA was in first with PVV in second, then PvdA surged after announcing popular Amsterdam mayor Cohen would be their candidate and in the end VVD (who were polling at historic lows in 2008 and 2009) surged and took it because of their relatively strong campaign which focused on the issues (voters appreciated it). In 2006 you had a similar government (CDA-VVD-D66 instead of VVD-CDA-D66-CU) which also pushed for unpopular policies and was seen as a government that didn't care about the poor. At one point a poll had the PvdA at 60 seats (!), but in the end they won 33 seats (SP won a whopping 25 seats though) and the CDA had a relatively easy election victory. Heck, even the VVD polled at 30-35 seats at one stage of the campaign because of the media attention the Rutte vs Verdonk leadership battle got, they ended up winning 22 and after the 2006 election they had a few terrible years (yet they won in 2010). The Dutch electorate is very volatile, so don't be surprised if the next general elections produce a completely different result.

Then again, the 2015 provincial elections already gave a rather splintered result (with VVD as the largest party with 16% of the vote) and I don't really see how any party will get a dominating result in the provincial elections (yeah, at this stage winning 20% of the vote is dominating lol). The coalition will almost certainly lose its majority in the senate and a new coalition would need a senate majority anyway, so I guess that even if in the 2021 (or 2019/2020) elections voters swing behind 1 party and produce a relatively stable result there still would be a ideologically incoherent coalition (VVD-CDA-D66-GL-CU or so) or a coalition without a senate majority.

And the country isn't falling apart because of the large amount of parties lol. If we had FPTP we'd probably end up with only a few parties just like the UK or the US. We might for example see a centre-right movement with parts of CDA and D66 coalesce around the VVD, but that party also would be prone to infighting (just look at the current Tory infighting or the Labour infighting in 2016) while now VVD, CDA and D66 work together relatively harmoniously. FPTP or whatever would just swap tough coalition negotiations for party infighting.

I don't remember if this has been answered recently, but are there any debate on removing the senate, or at least the powers it has? A fully proportional electoral system is a holy virtue that should be protected at every cost, but there is little reason to complicate things with an additional chamber with a "mid-term election".

There are some people who want to do it, but it isn't going to happen because changing the Dutch constitution is extremely hard and in the end most parties oppose it. But there are a lot of people who think the Senate has become too political (originally it was meant to check whether laws are enforceable and in line with the constitution).

Buma harshly attacked VVD healthcare minister Bruins over the closing hospitals. He said ''liberaal rendementsdenken'' (liberal efficiency thinking, keep in mind that over here liberals are ''neoliberals'') caused the closing of these hospitals and that hospitals are more than a bunch of buildings. He did caution against left-wing healthcare plans though, he says society rather than the state should work things out. This isn't the first time Buma attacked the VVD over economic issues, he also said similar things about the VVD's labour market policies 2 years ago. The CDA's drop in the polls is underreported imo. It makes sense considering the CDA has a way higher share of ''boze burgers'' (''angry citizens'') than VVD, D66 or even CU, and this government probably hasn't done a lot to win the confidence of these voters. Unlike Pechtold or Segers (CU leader) Buma always railed against Rutte 2, and I bet there are a lot of culturally conservative voters who liked Buma's opposition to Rutte 2 but now are disappointed in the CDA.

Interestingly there used to be more debate about this issue before 2011 - i.e. before governments with minorities in the Senate became the norm and before the Senate became this politicized. It was the typical kind of statement that you had to write essays for or against in secondary school. D66 and PVV still support abolishing the Senate, but there is barely any discussion about this issue anymore.

Apart from the fact that actually abolishing it would be politically impossible because our constitution is set in stone and can barely be changed (as mvd10 already alluded to), I think the international climate in which "anti-establishment" forces tend to take power (as well as the PVV experiment here) is partly the reason why even D66 don't talk about this anymore - the Senate is valued as a check on "anti-establishment" forces taking (too much) power, even if this is already highly unlikely because of the electoral system for parliament. Moreover, during the Rutte-II government, some Senate decisions were widely appreciated as unpopular legislation that had reached a bare majority in parliament due to shady coalition compromises was rolled back.

--

FVD presented their treasurer Henk Otten as leading candidate for the Senate election. I had expected their main intellectual, Professor in Philosophy of Law Paul Cliteur, to be nominated for this. Otten is a safe choice and basically the number two within the party. He differs from Baudet in that he doesn't want much to do with the entire cultural Christian and reactionary ideas of Baudet (as well as his controversial detours) and would instead focus on the basics: lower taxes and less immigration. So more of a guy who is too right-wing for the VVD in all aspects but doesn't really appear to agree with the bigger ideological worldview of Baudet. A source of stability within the party.

I now wonder how a Dutch election would look like if they switched to FPTP cold turkey and without any party consolidation or coalitions.

Looking at the 2017 map I imagine an overall VVD majority (with less than 22% of the vote!) with CDA in second and a handful of PVV people in the south and GL in Amsterdam. Eventually a VVD-CDA 2 party system?

Or maybe there would be last-minute tactical voting.

No it would be similar to 2012 where this happened...


which is exactly why they will not allow it.

Regarding the whole debate about a fractured country, I am no fan of Baudet but he is on to something when he talks about a party cartel...I think as much as we'd like to picture a bunch of squabbling party and sectioned off electorates, at the high level of politics a lot of the people in the "Kunduz club" of parties get along more than well, and even people like Wilders are hardly disliked/exiled amongst the political community. There's a culture of constructive opposition in the Netherlands and it doesn't have such a heavy hard foreign policy to need stable governments (although the 2000s showed foreign policy is still difficult in this kind of system). 

Amongst the population I am not on the ground there anymore so I don't know what its like, but I would say that from living there don't think its comparable to the US or even here in Belgium (a much more comparable example). Class and geographic faultlines are much stronger here than in the NL I feel. Even problematic immigrants seem far more integrated there than here. 

There definitely would be tactical voting. 2012 might be more interesting for a FPTP map as there was some tactical voting, but even there FPTP would have caused even more tactical voting and some changes in seats.

Even while keeping the exact same result I imagine 2012 would have produced only VVD and PvdA MP's. PvdA in the big cities (with maybe some VVD seats in the richer parts of the big cities. Now I think of it there definitely would be atleast 1 VVD seat in The Hague), poorer cities in the east and all the seats in the northern 3 provinces while the VVD wins everything else (from wealthy suburbs to religious areas to your ''average'' Dutch town). 2017 would have been a VVD slaughterfest. I think someone wrote an article on it, VVD would have won 70% of the seats with this result. Only some regional strongholds wouldn't go for the VVD. Oost-Groningen (very poor) for the SP, West-Friesland and Oost-Overijssel (religious but not in the SGP Bible Belt and loads of farmers) for the CDA, Limburg (poor and Wilders is from there) for the PVV, big university cities would be split between GL and D66 and maybe DENK would win 1 or 2 seats in heavily minority areas.

If you assume tactical voting in 2012 results would look broadly the same, but I guess West-Friesland might go VVD because even though the PvdA was biggest there the CDA is rather strong there and VVD+CDA probably outweighs the combined left (shamelessly assuming CDA voters would go VVD in a borderline two-party system). The Amsterdam-Zuid seat (assuming there would be one lol, idk how the gerrymandering would work) definitely would go for the left. There the VVD might have been the biggest party, but the rest of the right usually has pathetic showings in these areas, so the combined left is stronger than the combined right. It's worth noting that even in the wealthiest neighborhoods in Amsterdam you have pockets of deprivation, this is why the VVD didn't even crack 25% in Amsterdam-Zuid or 30% in the Grachtengordel. Those areas might be wealthy, but they're also highly unequal. I think I once saw a CBS document where they outlined the average income and some stats about income deciles from all neighborhoods in the Netherlands. Some wealthy Amsterdam neighborhoods had the highest per capita incomes of the entire country, but they also actually had more people in the bottom 40% of the income distribution than people in the top 20%, I guess that's where their leftist lean comes from. The wealthy urban progressive bobo vote exists, but those types mostly went for D66 instead of the actual left. Or maybe even VVD considering the VVD Amsterdam is/was the most left-wing local VVD chapter in the entire country :P (maybe they'll become more right-wing in opposition).

I really don't know how 2017 would have looked like with tactical voting. Maybe a combined left that does much better in the cities and wealthy areas than in 2012 while doing even worse in the rest of the country? Something like the recent trends in the UK and US (ugh comparative politics :P)? It's extremely hard to say. I guess D66 would be screwed since their voters would be split 50/50 between the VVD and the new PvdA/GL/SP party. But it's really impossible to say (and it's a bit of a pointless debate since we will never have FPTP again).

When we had FPTP back in the 1800s we had a two-round system by the way. That would complicate things even further lol.

Former (Belgian) LDD MEP and well-known Dutch conservative Derk Jan Eppink will lead FVD in the European election. He used to be a VVD member but was basically always much more right-wing than them once Bolkestein had faded out of the picture. A member of Bolkestein's cabinet when the latter was a European Commissioner, Eppink is one of the few Dutch public figures who would identify as conservative while not being (overly) Christian or Christian democratic. Again a safe choice. This means FVD will probably attempt to enter ECR rather than a more strongly euroskeptic parliamentary group. In a Telegraaf interview, Eppink explicitly criticizes ENF and says constructive coalitions need to be built against more Eurofederalism. He claims to be "inspired by the generation of Baudet and Kurz" and says he wants to do his part.