Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

General question:

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

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

General question

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year, Mark Rutte...

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

Immediately afterwards, Wilders tweeted the following:


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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[jeron]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I am sometimes reading.

[bmw1503]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

[Oak Hills]

I've been reading this thread.

[tpfkaw]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

[jeron]

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

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

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

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

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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

[Zanas]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

Lol @ Zanas, thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zinneke]

del

[Zinneke]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[Zinneke]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

del

Wat seksistisch

[DavidB.]

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