Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

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

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

Emile Roemer will lead the SP once again.

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

What has the unqualified defense of the Israeli governments or Palestinian actions got to do with Dutch Jews or Dutch Arabs that have never set foot on the Holy Land before?

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

Why do certain societies posing as ''Jewish'' defense societies in fact pursue a Zionist, sometimes Ultra-Zionist agenda in the Dutch political landscape, when their function is to integrate Jews into Dutch society? Is that not forcing a specific foreign policy, as well as a danger, on Dutch citizens who want nothing to with a conflict?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How tolerant.

[DavidB.]

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



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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

Some factual things:

DENK and VNL opposed the initiative too.

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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



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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

I largely agree with the rest of your post.

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

Now that I think about it, is there a heir apparent to succeed Wilders as Populist right leader?

This happened countless times already, and it seems clear that everyone who leaves loses. Wilders' personal "brand" is simply too strong for others to try and form a successful, more moderate populist right-wing party. Hero Brinkman left and tried it, Van Klaveren and Bontes left and formed VNL and tried it (and they could perhaps win 1-2 seats, but that's almost irrelevant)... It seems people don't want a watered down copy, people want the real thing. Funnily enough, former MP Wim Kortenoeven's departure from the PVV may have hurt the party the most.

Kortenoeven is close to the Jewish community and could not live with the fact that the party wanted a ban on unstunned ritual slaughter (now they want to ban it altogether, even if the animals are stunned, which is even weirder and reeks of bullying). What did it in was the fact that total loony MP Dion Graus made remarks that can be considered classic anti-Semitic, something like "Jews like to torture animals." So Kortenoeven voted against the proposal, left the party, went straight to America and told all the American Jewish PVV donors about what had happened. This all happened just before the 2012 election. Dutch regulation doesn't require parties to be transparent about their sources of financing but it's safe to say Dion Graus has cost the PVV a lot of money. Since he's stupid and crazy (and a wifebeater) and not someone you really want to have around, many people suspect Graus knows something about Wilders that should remain a secret -- for shutting up, Graus can be a moron, talk about animal rights and stay on as an MP. (Of course this is all totally irrelevant to what you asked, but it is a funny anecdote, I think.)

Many people left the party, but none have actually been able to set up anything successful. Toppling Wilders from within is impossible, mainly because of the party structure (MaxQue mentioned it already). Wilders is extremely afraid of others undermining his position to the extent that he is sometimes portrayed as a little dictator. Books have been written about the internal relations within the PVV, and the party sometimes truly comes across as a cult. That is not strange, because you leave everything behind when you start becoming active for the PVV: people lose friends over it, know they won't be able to find a job afterwards anymore, etc. PVV politicians receive a lot of threats too. It all requires a certain level of devotion (and awe for the party leader) that simply isn't necessary to work for (or be a politician in) other parties. By now, I think everyone who would really want to undermine Wilders' position has left already (especially after the "fewer Moroccans" speech, which was not discussed with anyone before and led to a lot of people leaving).

People within the PVV also seem to be convinced that they are absolutely doing the right thing. They are not fazed by the fact that the party is led in what can be considered a shockingly ineffective way (by which I mean that the party could have exerted a lot more influence over policy by moderating style and substance). Of course, there is a lot of group think at play here, especially given the circumstances I just referred to. I don't know what they have in mind -- do they think other parties will eventually come around, do they think they will end up winning so many seats other parties simply cannot make policy without them, or do they simply think they are "doing the right thing" by "telling it like it is" and that (indeed, completely in the fashion of a testimonial party) futilities like power and influence over policy don't matter? Perhaps the fact that PVV MPs earn a lot of money also plays a role (remember they will probably never be able to find a job elsewhere). Maybe they don't care anymore. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that Wilders can basically do whatever he wants. The Dutch left should really feel blessed over the fact that the PVV has become so radical and thereby rendered itself largely irrelevant. And as I said, this is unlikely to change as long as Wilders sticks around. And there is no heir apparent.

[DavidB.]

Apparently, former PVV MPs leaked internal PVV e-mails to the Algemeen Dagblad. I have translated some of the conclusions.

"Fleur Agema is deputy parliamentary group leader and, according to insiders, she has descended in the hierarchy. In e-mails seen by AD, Wilders depicts her as "stupider than stupid". Martin Bosma, for a long time his main confidant, appears to have made himself less popular with Wilders when Bosma - against Wilders' wishes - published his book on South Africa. "Watch out with Martin Bosma," Wilders e-mailed a fellow PVV MP at the time. Both Agema and Bosma were overtaken in the hierarchy by former civil servant Sietse Fritsma - currently deputy parliamentary group leader - and Barry Madlener. Reportedly, Madlener serves as "handyman" to make sure MPs vote along with Wilders: in the past, rebellion occurred on a regular basis - think of Hero Brinkman, Louis Bontes, or Marcial Hernandez. Wilders' esteem of his MPs, however, does not seem to have increased. He regularly describes them as "fools, all of them", the e-mails show. It is mainly the women in the PVV who suffer from this. Not only Agema, but also Reinette Klever and Lilian Helder. In an e-mail, Wilders describes Helder as "crazy enough" to leave the parliamentary group. One of Wilders' confidants scornfully talks about the women in the PVV, who would have "hormonal changes and mood swings." The complaint about Reinette Klever is that she would "cry too much and often says she wants to quit.""

[DavidB.]

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

[DavidB.]

The Dutch Left can also be blessed than such a party is taking so many seats off the traditional right-wing parties.

Interesting observation. I made some calculations on the basis of this idea.

VVD+CDA ("traditional right-wing parties"*):
1989: 66
1994: 65
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 67 (+/-, even if the LPF gained 26 seats -- i.e. CDA+LPF+VVD won 94 seats here)
2003: 72 (+5; LPF collapse to 8 seats)
2006: 63 (-9; LPF to 0 but PVV to 9, radical right to +1; VVD+PVV+CDA to 72)
2010: 52 (-11; PVV to 24; VVD+PVV+CDA from 72 to 76)
2012: 54 (+2; PVV to 15; VVD+PVV+CDA from 76 to 69)

It is interesting that the LPF surge in 2002 did not hurt CDA+VVD at all. CDA+VVD achieved their best result in 2003 and were hurt by the emergence of the PVV. However, it seems that the 2006 collapse of the traditional right cannot be explained entirely by the PVV: the LPF had won 8 seats in 2003 too, so the radical right was only at +1 and the traditional right at -9 in the 2006 election. The 2010 losses of the "traditional right" are the losses of the CDA, which largely went directly to the PVV, so this can definitely be attributed to the PVV. The PVV losses in 2012 hardly helped the traditional right, though: radical right at -9, traditional right only at +2.

So yes, we can conclude that the PVV has taken seats off the traditional right-wing parties. However, the score of the combined right has gone slightly up, since the radical right has also taken seats from the left.

CDA+VVD+PVV/LPF ("Traditional right + radical right"):
1989: 66
1994: 65 (but 3 seats for extreme right CD)
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 94 (LPF surge)
2003: 72 (LPF collapse)
2006: 72 (LPF gone, PVV in)
2010: 76
2012: 69

Without taking into account the exceptional year of 2002, we see that the combined right (excluding CU and its predecessors + SGP) has gone from a 65-67ish number of seats to something in 69-76ish territory. Once coalition formation with the radical right is impossible and the radical right takes seats from the traditional right, this, indeed, means that the "share of the cake" of non-right parties in a coalition becomes higher and that the way to a CDA-VVD only coalition (like in 1982-1989) is absolutely closed off. At the same time you have to wonder if it matters when D66 has turned sharply to the right on economic issues. Let's look at the development of actual left-wing parties.

PvdA+GL+SP ("Combined left"):
1989: 55
1994: 44 (D66 surge from 12 to 24 in this election, mainly at the expense of the left)
1998: 71 (D66 -10 cannot solely explain this; turnout dropped by 5 points and reached an all-time low in this election -- maybe it plays a role? Usually one would assume lower turnout benefits the right...)
2002: 42 (and D66 also -7; it is clear that the LPF won a surprising amount of otherwise left-wing voters, presumably mainly PvdA voters; turnout +7 also plays a role here, though)
2003: 59 (back to normalcy)
2006: 65 (and D66 -3, partly explaining the growth of the left; otherwise, the SP won a lot of former non-voters in this high-turnout election)
2010: 55 (and D66 +7; still, it is likely at least some left-wing voters went to the PVV, even if this does not amount to a large number of seats)
2012: 57 (and D66 +2)

On the basis of this calculation one can conclude that D66 should have been included While there is not much voter movement between SP and D66, a collapse of D66 generally benefits the left and vice versa. What is interesting to see is that the LPF hurt the combined left a lot more than the PVV. "Normalcy", for the combined left, seems to be the high-mid-50s. At the same time, a lot of swings occur.

We can conclude that JosepBroz was right in saying that the PVV is taking off many seats of the traditional right while not really changing the situation on the left -- though it remains to be seen if this will change in the next election: polls indicate that SP 2012 voters did move to the PVV this time around. Because a) a coalition between the traditional right and the radical right has become impossible for ideological-distance reasons and b) the traditional right cannot form a government solely consisting of CDA and VVD anymore (though, to be fair, this was impossible in the 90s too, see calculations), the position of non-right (which often means: "left") parties has become more important at least theoretically. We see it in the current government: VVD with 7 ministers, PvdA with 6; VVD with 3 deputy ministers, PvdA with 4. The left has a larger "share of the cake" in the current government than in parliament. One could also assume that this "stronger" position of the combined left would lead to more influence over policy at least when it comes to government decisions; on decisions taken by parliament, however, the balance has shifted to the right because of the fact that traditional right + radical right now are larger than the traditional right was before. It is also good to take into account that the radical right does not always vote along with the traditional right; the PVV often votes along with the left on issues like healthcare. If it were not for the PVV, right-wing economic policies would have passed parliament and the Senate more often.

This, however, ignores the fact that the radical right pulls political discourse and, indeed, all other parties to the right on its pet issues. It also ignores the fact that the PvdA has not really pursued many "left-wing" things in government. Perhaps we should simply conclude that for all the changes in parties' number of seats, very little has actually changed in terms of policy.


*traditionally, the CDA cannot really be seen as a right-wing party (the Netherlands doesn't do the "non-socialist = right-wing" thing) and while this is irrelevant to the point, I still wanted to mention this. It used to be a centrist party, but it has moved to the right under Lubbers and under Balkenende.

[DavidB.]

Sounds great! Who are the authors of that paper, and what is the title?

[DavidB.]

... this proves why we need a thread on Belgian politics. I didn't even know there were any people in the N-VA who are open about not giving a damn about Flemish independence. Very interesting. Not that it's a surprise to me, because they're working hard to simply become a center-right catch-all party without any principles (provided that they ever had them). I also didn't say everyone who attends the IJzerwake is a fascist (Baudet, for one, is certainly not), but the event itself has a certain "brown" feel to it, doesn't it?

[DavidB.]

In response to this summer's unrest among Turkish communities in the Netherlands, allegedly fueled by Turkish mosques, a parliamentary plurality seek to stop the financing of mosques by the Turkish state, in line with Austria's decision to do this. Most Turkish mosques in the Netherlands are run by Diyanet, a Turkish government organization that falls under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. CDA leader Buma wrote the motion, which was supported by VVD, PVV, ChristenUnie, SGP and VNL. The motion "condemns the long arm of Ankara" and calls on the government to limit the number of people with both a Turkish and Dutch nationality (good luck with that...). Prime Minister Rutte already said it will be difficult to limit Diyanet's influence because of the freedom of religion, so it is doubtful anything will actually happen. Next week, Deputy PM Asscher will present a letter in which he lays out the possibilities of tackling the "problematic" foreign financing of religious organizations in the Netherlands.

A plurality also want the government to make the EU end Turkey's EU accession benefits.

[DavidB.]

Yesterday DENK launched a plan to fight racism and discrimination. One important part of the plan is the forming of a racism-policeforce. They also want to change names of streets that refer to national heroes like Michiel de Ruyter of J.P. Coen. I think these crazy plans will make this party even less attractive for many voters. They might end up with 1 or 2 seats.

Obviously the tactic is to attract media attention in order to improve name recognition and popularity among voters with an immigrant background. The racism police is probably a more serious idea, but the street name thing is basically bait and the media love to take it. DENK are simply employing PVV tactics on the other side of the political spectrum; consider the street names the equivalent of the PVV's proposed Qur'an ban. People who are turned off by their shenanigans would never vote DENK in the first place and are not the party's target audience.

As for the VVD's election manifesto, it was surprisingly different from last time. In 2012 they simply went for the PVV light thing, but it makes sense for the VVD to try and distinguish themselves more from the PVV in an election where VVD and PVV find themselves in a head-to-head race; copy cats generally lose because people prefer the original brand. I found all the VVD's talk about the "optimistic majority" to be slightly cringeworthy, but it will probably work wonders with many voters together with Rutte's enthusiasm, particularly since Wilders does come across as overly negative and angry, and who doesn't like optimism instead? Then there is the norms and values talking point, which fits perfectly with the VVD's new brand and will help at keeping aboard generic right-wing voters who opted for the CDA in the 2000s and before. In terms of content there were not a lot of surprises in the manifesto, except for the fact that the false pretenses of the VVD masquerading as some sort of PVV light, for which many people fell in 2012, have been dropped to an extent I had not expected.

[DavidB.]

Deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher will soon declare his candidacy for the PvdA leadership, public broadcaster NOS just announced. He will face current party leader Diederik Samsom and contrarian PvdA MP Jacques Monasch.