Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:20:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 96
Author Topic: Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented  (Read 269972 times)
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: October 14, 2015, 03:17:21 AM »
« edited: October 14, 2015, 03:36:16 AM by DavidB. »

The Electoral Council just announced that the referendum is going to happen: a sufficient amount of signatures has been declared valid (429k out of 471k; threshold 300k).
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: October 15, 2015, 12:48:29 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 01:22:53 PM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

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

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

Jeroen Dijsselbloem (Finance, PvdA) and Lodewijk Asscher (Social Affairs, PvdA) are the most popular ministers, Ard van der Steur (Security and Justice, VVD) is the least popular. Alexander Pechtold (D66) is rapidly becoming less popular, whereas Geert Wilders (PVV) is becoming more popular.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: October 15, 2015, 02:11:24 PM »

So obviously the PVV's numbers are being inflated due to the current situation, but if the result is anything close to that, the PVV would have to be let in government right? There is a somewhat workable right-wing majority in there: PVV, the VVD, CDA (would probably have to be let back in) and some kind of agreement with SGP and 50Plus (I'm not sure whether CU would want to prop up such a government). Could Wilders be PM or would he use outsized leverage on a minority gov?
.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: October 15, 2015, 02:43:35 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 03:28:39 PM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

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

As much as I'd like to see otherwise, we are a people of moderate heroes. We're just moderate heroes who happen to be unhappy with parties in government, so then we switch to other centrist moderate hero parties who happen to be in the opposition. VVD and PvdA can be as polarizing as they want during campaigns, but they will both cooperate with centrist parties and make compromises if it's really necessary. I'd prefer the Danish situation with "blocs", but that's just not going to happen: centrist parties (D66, CDA, ChristenUnie) would never want that, and if necessary, parties that are neither truly centrist nor extreme (PvdA, VVD, GroenLinks) will be willing to compromise and cooperate with parties that are very different. Not necessarily all of them together, but there will always be enough of them to do so in order to make a coalition possible. It might take some time, but it will always happen.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: October 15, 2015, 03:33:23 PM »

Didn't D66 use to hate, like absolutely loathe, the CDa?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: October 15, 2015, 03:53:02 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 04:09:07 PM by DavidB. »

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

CDA and D66 are quite different in terms of electorate, tone, and focus, but apart from the "social issues" that don't matter anymore anyway, they very much see eye to eye with each other: on the economy, on the EU, to some extent on immigration... Marijuana definitely won't be a dealbreaker. CDA and D66 might very well be the two parties that could most easily work together in a government right now: many overlap in policies yet not a lot of people who would be tempted to switch between these two parties.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: October 15, 2015, 04:41:20 PM »

Re: DavidB's hypothesized minority cabinet.

Wouldn't this sort of thing play right into PVV's hand? At some point a cordon sanitaire just looks like ignoring the legitimate will of the people. Would it not be more prudent to let PVV form a government and let the difficulties of power take them out?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: October 15, 2015, 04:54:00 PM »
« Edited: October 15, 2015, 05:05:10 PM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

But yeah, the PVV might grow as well, and it might be inevitable to include them at some point - or it might not be. But parties don't have a crystal ball and make decisions based on short term analysis anyway. Everything might change within five years.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: October 18, 2015, 12:16:15 AM »

A Wikipedia page with information on the referendum is now online.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,070
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: October 18, 2015, 04:46:59 AM »

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

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

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

Those clear divisions in the grassroots and the old grudges will make them working with each other harder than you make out. Particularly as the CDA is taking a socially rightward swing under their new leader.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: October 18, 2015, 10:43:15 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2015, 11:21:38 AM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

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

Something else: a new peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll.

PVV keeps growing. VVD and PvdD lose one.

An interesting breakdown of the demographics regarding PVV voter intention:

Geen religie = no religion, RK = Roman Catholic.
"Hoge opleiding" = high education, "hoog inkomen" = high-income earners, "midden" = medium, "laag" = low

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

In short, PVV voters are often Roman Catholics living in the South, often have a lower education but that doesn't necessarily translate into having a low income, and are often working. That's exactly what was already known, but still quite interesting figures.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,070
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: October 19, 2015, 02:23:55 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2015, 03:15:43 PM by JosepBroz »

Re: DavidB's hypothesized minority cabinet.

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

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


Regardless, one thing we are forgetting is that the King will nominate the first formateur and he will pick the party with a plurality, which will be the PVV. Wilders will have a fair crack of the whip. But DavidB is right, the most realistic coalition now is CDA-VVD-D66. It will be a government similar to ours in Belgium. The CDA and their social wing will suffer the most out of that, but not as much as when they allied with PVV. The other two are in dreamland. I still think VVD should be punished for losing half their electorate, but clearly Rutte won't go away. And I still think D66-CDA will be the main source of tension in that coalition, but DavidB is pretty spot on in his post above. I just don't think their characters will get along both in high and grassroots politics.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: October 20, 2015, 06:32:20 AM »

Regardless, one thing we are forgetting is that the King will nominate the first formateur and he will pick the party with a plurality, which will be the PVV. He will have a fair crack of the whip. But DavidB is right, the most realistic coalition now is CDA-VVD-D66. It will be a government similar to ours in Belgium. The CDA and their social wing will suffer the most out of that, but not as much as when they allied with PVV. The other two are in dreamland. I still think VVD should be punished for losing half their electorate, but clearly Rutte won't go away. And I still think D66-CDA will be the main source of tension in that coalition, but DavidB is pretty spot on in his post above. I just don't think their characters will get along both in high and grassroots politics.
The part about the King is actually not true anymore. Parliament has taken over this responsibility, starting after the 2012 election (though it is still possible to let the King do it if there is a majority for that).
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: October 20, 2015, 12:48:14 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VVD-CDA-D66 doesn't have a majority in the senate (even with the SGP who often helped the current coalition in the senate they don't have a majority) so I think they probably will add another party to that, especially after having been in a senate minority cabinet for a few years now. I doubt Labour wants to govern with 3 centre right parties, especially not after what they currently are experiencing in the polls but I think Christian Union or Greenleft are options. But D66 may have trouble governing with 2 Christian parties and Greenleft may not want to govern with 3 centre right parties (on the economy).  But the next elections are still pretty far away unless Labour decides to break up with the VVD in order to gain popularity with left wingers.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: October 20, 2015, 03:06:07 PM »

Well, I'll reiterate what I said earlier: if the political landscape will really become even nearly as fragmented as it is in the polls, new minority governments that cooperate with "gedoogpartijen" through supply and demand agreements will be inevitable. Some political scientists argue that the current government can already be considered a minority government, since it negotiates on big chunks of their plans with other parties in order to get a majority in the Senate. Currently, these deals leave the government with "oversized majorities" in the lower house. However, it wouldn't make that much of a difference if they would need the constructive opposition parties in the lower house as well. This might render new governments less stable, but it all seems inevitable.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: October 27, 2015, 12:47:15 PM »

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

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

That actually reminds me of the guy who killed Fortuyn, Volkert van der Graaf (Fortuyn's murderer) was a  leftist environmental activist who saw Fortuyn as a threat to the weakest members of the society (muslims, refugees, people living from welfare). The only real threat to society and democracy was van der Graaf himself though. Van der Graaf actually was released not too long ago and there already is a lot of controverse about him living on welfare and violating some rules. I really hope he goes back to jail again, like a talkshow host said: 'You either hate Volkert or you are him.'
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,070
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: October 27, 2015, 03:29:56 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2015, 03:31:42 PM by JosepBroz »

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

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

The difference is that the perceived extreme left do not create the same climate that the extreme right does (all over Europe), that encourages such violence. When Le Pen comes out saying the current situation is like Nazi-occupied France, or Wilders actually outright believes the Dutch people are at war after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they outright encouraging violence - to be perpetrated by unhinged people like VDG. As much as Fortuyn was supposedly demonised, and I have no reason to believe he was given the attention surrounding him, no prominent SP or GroenLinks member came out and said Fortuyn was Hitler's second coming. That was Van Der Graaf himself who came up with this idea through perfectly reasonable associations to Hitler/Mussolini that are made whenever a member of the hard/ extreme Right turns up.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: October 28, 2015, 10:09:11 PM »
« Edited: October 28, 2015, 11:10:48 PM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

In hindsight, it was a very smart move for Infrastructure & Environment Minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen (VVD) and for the VVD negotiators in general to "grant" Deputy Minister Mansveld the politically sensitive railroad/Fyra portfolio at the start of this governing period, because the dramatic Fyra project had been a political timebomb for years.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,070
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: October 29, 2015, 06:34:17 AM »
« Edited: October 29, 2015, 06:42:51 AM by JosepBroz »

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

Interesting logical fallacies here :

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

Nobody of the main leftist parties called Fortuyn Hitler and nobody suggested, ever, that he should or would be physically stopped. Some, admittedly, compared his method and his rise to power through ''fear mongering'' tactics. How is that the same as explicitly stating that you are under occupation or at war?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: November 01, 2015, 08:34:49 PM »

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

Interesting logical fallacies here :

- Articulating people's ideas automatically discourages you from engaging in the encouragement of political violence, either consciously or unconsciously. The People are Always Right (in every sense of the word). Go figure.
This is obviously not what I'm saying. Articulating people's ideas could very well lead to or constitute the encouragement of political violence. However, Fortuyn and Wilders and (afaik) Le Pen did not engage in this.

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

- Saying things like you are living under occupation or are at war, have apparently no implicit link to the subsequent justification of violence used by right-wing terrorists like Breivik and the German guy, or the proportionately higher amounts of violence towards Muslims in France than another minority such as Jews ( yet reactionaries such as Finklekraut and Zemmour maintain that France is a more anti-semitic society than it is anti-muslim, while FN rides on its new ''We will protect the Jews from Islam'' image, ten years after Le Pen snr made his oven jokes).
Citation needed re "more violence toward Muslims than toward Jews". What's more, I might be biased but I have a very hard time comparing these two groups. As far as I know, Jews do not engage in behavior that structurally undermines French society. Jews do not threaten Muslims. The violence is a one-way street. And as someone who is sympathetic to some new-right movements (e.g. DF) yet very critical of others (e.g. FPÖ, VB), I don't think even the ones I really don't like have engaged in justifying violence. (I'm of course talking about the Western European new-right now, not about the NPD-like extreme right, which is an entirely different category, full of scum.)

- Citing Anne Frank's diary in a speech has the same demonising value as saying you are living under occupation or at war.
When one refers to Fortuyn through the framework of Anne Frank's diary then I think this is, indeed, comparable.

Nobody of the main leftist parties called Fortuyn Hitler and nobody suggested, ever, that he should or would be physically stopped. Some, admittedly, compared his method and his rise to power through ''fear mongering'' tactics. How is that the same as explicitly stating that you are under occupation or at war?
Well, I could dig up many statements of people from PvdA, D66, GL who made this comparison - perhaps not as explicitly as you do, but certainly enough for people to understand what it was about. That might be comparable to contemporary new-right occupation comparisons. But then again, nobody on the Dutch left really said that Fortuyn should be stopped through violence, which is why I don't hold these politicians responsible for the fact that he was, eventually, killed. Similarly, Le Pen did not call for violence, which is why I don't hold her responsible for inciting violence.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: November 01, 2015, 08:37:20 PM »

Some other things:

- New peil.nl/De Hond poll: CDA -1, GL +1 are the only changes. PVV still at 37 seats, VVD second at 19.
- The exact date for the EU Association Agreement Referendum has been announced. It will take place on April 6, 2016.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: November 03, 2015, 06:23:23 PM »

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

Among other issues, the Christian parties have demanded that a new tax plan be more beneficial for single-income households. One would think such a change would be something progressive, but apparently, Christian parties want this because quite some (Protestant) Christians still have single-income households. Recently, the Central Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, a governmental organization, found out that single-income households pay on average 22% more taxes than multiple-income households. With an income of 47,000 euros, single-income households in Germany pay 32% fewer taxes, in France 33%, and in Spain 49%. Therefore, this has priority for the three Christian parties.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: November 07, 2015, 12:35:38 PM »
« Edited: November 07, 2015, 01:07:05 PM by DavidB. »

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

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

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

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

 
Ron Meyer

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


Sharon Gesthuizen

It is clear that the party board is not looking forward to seeing Sharon Gesthuizen become chairwoman, so it will be interesting to see how party members vote. The party congress will take place November 28.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: November 07, 2015, 01:38:56 PM »

Is the SP race an ideological/factional clash, or merely personality politics?
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: November 07, 2015, 01:53:12 PM »
« Edited: November 07, 2015, 01:56:17 PM by DavidB. »

No, it is a clash between the party elite and people who want to "democratize" the party, leaving more power into the hands of members and local branches instead of the board. It is not a factional issue and I don't think there are any real differences between Meyer and Gesthuizen in terms of policy.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 96  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 11 queries.