Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Zanas]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

[freek]

The CDA is the only party with a plurality of 2012 voters being against sanctions. I have no idea why, because the party's stance on the issue hasn't been really remarkable. Perhaps some old Christians think Putin is cool?

Sanctions harm Dutch farmers?

[DavidB.]

The CDA is the only party with a plurality of 2012 voters being against sanctions. I have no idea why, because the party's stance on the issue hasn't been really remarkable. Perhaps some old Christians think Putin is cool?

Sanctions harm Dutch farmers?

Hadn't thought of that reason. Sounds plausible.

[DavidB.]

Only in the Netherlands...

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

[DavidB.]

New poll from Maurice de Hond/peil.nl:

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

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

To what extent did the current government contribute to the improvement of the economy?
In sterke mate = to a large extent
In redelijke mate = to some extent
Amper of niet = to a small extent or to no extent (source: www.peil.nl)

44% think that this government didn't contribute much to the growth of the Dutch economy. 43% of PvdA-2012 voters think this, which is of course problematic for them, playing directly into the hands of SP, GroenLinks, D66, and PvdD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

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

[DC Al Fine]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[Zinneke]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Deplorable frankly.

[DavidB.]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

[mvd10]

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sparkey]

Great summary, thanks. Multiparty politics is fascinating.

[DavidB.]

Great summary, thanks. Multiparty politics is fascinating.

Thanks for the positive feedback!

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

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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


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

[Zinneke]

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

[DavidB.]

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

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

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

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

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

[BundouYMB]

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

Peil

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

Ipsos

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

TNS

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