Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:33:31 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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33
Author Topic: Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented  (Read 269979 times)
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« on: July 19, 2015, 01:29:39 PM »
« edited: October 10, 2017, 11:09:58 AM by DavidB. »


The Dutch Houses of Parliament in The Hague


I haven't seen a thread on Dutch elections and politics yet, so I decided to start one. The next Dutch elections will be held in March 2017 - if the VVD-PvdA government, which doesn't have a Senatorial majority, survives, that is.

The government, which has been ruling since the end of 2012, has almost done everything that's in its coalition deal, which is pretty impressive, even if you don't agree with (parts of) it. The only thing they still need to do now is to reform the tax system. However, it remains to be seen if the two parties will be capable of 1) agreeing on a new system and 2) finding support among the so-called "constructive opposition parties", needed in order to secure a Senatorial majority.

At the moment, Greece is the number one political issue, but all mainstream parties will eventually agree on a bailout deal, even though the VVD is pretending to be critical of it.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2015, 03:09:22 PM »
« Edited: July 19, 2015, 05:40:40 PM by DavidB. »

The polls have been incredibly volatile in the Netherlands for some time, with every major party leading in at least a handful of polls. At the moment the trend seems to be random rise in GreenLInks, which I notice have a hot new leader (could explain things). If the Dutch dithering disease continues, I assume next government will be led by Party for the Animals in coalition with the Reformed Political Party or something.

Some questions:

What is the SP's perspective towards Syriza and the crisis?

Could PVV support Rutte as a minority? They can't be that far apart on the migrant issue at this point in time...

Why have the D66 lost their record high polls they had earlier in the parliament? Scandal or typical social liberal snobbery?
On the SP: they take a stance comparable to that of Die Linke in Germany. They will probably oppose the bailout deal because they think it's not fair to Greece. They think Syriza is being pushed into accepting a German dictate that doesn't represent the will of the Greek people. They think Rutte is too harsh on Greece.

Migration is not really that big of an issue at the moment. Even if the PVV would be ready to support the VVD, Rutte won't be willing to associate himself with Wilders anymore, who has really become toxic. And even if the VVD would be pragmatic enough to do so, then no other party will - the CDA has drifted rightward while in opposition, and it also drifted toward populism, but cooperation with the PVV is something that a majority of its members will most definitely not consider acceptable. Wilders truly closed any doors to government cooperation with his "Fewer Moroccans" speech in March 2014.

D66 is still high in the polls, but if there is going to be any "two-horse race" before the elections, then it is to be expected that many potential D66 voters will jump ship. It is entirely possible that the PvdA sack Samsom, choose Asscher as a new leader, and create a new "two-horse race" against the VVD. Regarding D66: I guess they lost a bit of their 2014 gains due to GroenLinks electing a new leader, Jesse Klaver, who is considered young and fresh, and to the perception (especially among D66 voters) that Prime Minister Rutte is handling the crisis with Greece in a responsible way. Actually, this government is more popular with D66 voters than with VVD/PvdA voters, which is entirely logical, since compromises between the government parties are often right down D66's alley. Still, D66 is popular with many younger, highly educated people, who think that the government has not done enough to structurally reform Dutch economic policies. In an interesting move, D66 presented itself to the right of the VVD when it came to the economy during the Provincial (and, indirectly, Senatorial) elections in March this year, advocating more budget cuts than proposed by the government.

Meanwhile, Rutte is having a problem within his own party and with his own voter base. Before the elections, he promised that no more money would be spent to save Greece. This week, Rutte admitted that he cannot keep this election promise. Fairly honest, but unpopular with the majority of the VVD voters, who would rather see Greece leaving the eurozone. Rutte already had an image problem with many VVD voters, who consider him weak when it comes to protecting Dutch sovereignity in Brussels, and this week's "incident" has caused the VVD to lose some virtual seats in the polls - which is good news for the PVV and for VNL.

On the right of the VVD, Halbe Zijlstra, former Secretary of State for Culture and Sports (who was responsible for lots of budget cuts in the cultural sector during the Rutte-I cabinet), will probably emerge as a threat to Rutte's position within a few years. He doesn't consider himself a liberal. At the moment, however, Rutte's position seems to be safe. Many people don't necessarily agree with everything he does, but they have the idea that he is handling things responsibly - and if not, Zijlstra is not nearly high-profile enough to be a real threat anyway. The VVD's "number two", Health Minister Edith Schippers, has always been loyal to Rutte, and will probably remain his biggest ally within the party.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2015, 03:59:58 PM »
« Edited: July 19, 2015, 05:01:29 PM by DavidB. »

I guess the PvdA would like the government to finish its term in order to postpone what looks like a horrible result for as long as possible. Whether that's politically possible in a situation where most of the political programme has been carried out, and where building senate majorities is difficult is another question.
The polls currently suggest a messy result where at least four parties would be needed to form a majority; perhaps a return of the Kunduz (VVD, CDA, D66, CU, GL) in some form. The PVV has isolated itself, the PvdA probably needs some time outside government, and I'm not sure enough parties will cooperate with SP, but I think the remaining parties can be combined in almost any thinkable way.
If it will be too difficult to make an agreement on the reform of the tax system, then it might be beneficial for the PvdA to bring down the government, find a new leader (most likely Asscher, who is widely considered capable and who was on the election posters for the Provincial/Senatorial elections in March 2015 already...), and take a leftist stance (although Asscher is on the "right-wing" of the PvdA). Surely, they will lose many seats, but it doesn't have to be nearly as bad as the polls suggest right now.

There is much talk about a coalition with VVD, CDA and D66, which is something all three parties seem to want, except for the fact that the VVD can't actually say this in public; that would cause many people on the party's right to vote for the PVV instead, since D66 (and especially its leader Alexander Pechtold) is seen as elitist, out-of-touch, and overly progressive by much of the VVD's voter base. However, these parties don't have a Senatorial majority and it is considered common wisdom that it has been a mistake to form a government without a Senatorial majority, so they won't make that mistake again, meaning that other government partners are needed. Everything depends on the next election results and a lot could change in the meantime, but at least it seems clear that the VVD and the PvdA won't be together in the next coalition. GroenLinks has taken a turn to the left, flirting with ideas like the basic income etc., and it seems improbable that they would be ready to make economic policies to the right of the current government's policies. CU and SGP could support a VVD-CDA-D66 government, but they would want to have their way on some immaterial issues, which will be hard for D66 to compromise on. And even these five parties are not sure at all to be having a parliamentary majority. However, a lot can happen in the meantime.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2015, 05:36:17 PM »
« Edited: July 19, 2015, 06:04:54 PM by DavidB. »

I think you provide excellent analysis Diouf, apart from the bit where you talk about a potential two-horse race forming up. Given how unpopular the coalition is (which has its roots in the 90s "purple" nightmare and the rise of Fortuyn) rather than the individual parties, Dutch voters won't be fooled again into a two-horse race and tactical voting, only to see the dichotomy enter coalition together. So SP and D66, who are the mirror parties of PvdA and VVD, might actually make the projected gains. They need to get their supporters to the poll booth.
Not sure if you're talking to Diouf or to me, but I'll reply anyway. The government is definitely unpopular, but I don't think a new two-horse race between VVD (with Rutte, who is very good in electoral campaigns - see the Provincials) and PvdA (with Asscher) is implausible, both parties being the largest on their side of the political spectrum - however, these two parties should then rule out any cooperation with each other. Anyway, it is of course also possible that the electoral landscape will actually become a total mess, much like the polls are predicting right now.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
As a Dutch citizen, I'm aware of this - but it is a good analysis Smiley

Regarding the PVV-CDA thing: the CDA's electorate tends to be to the right of the party. Even though cooperating with the PVV is not popular with the CDA's members anymore, many potential CDA voters still like Wilders' politics. Rural, right-wing voters (especially in the South, but also in other rural areas, e.g. the north of Noord-Holland), the CDA's former core voter base, have switched often in the last elections. Coming from the CDA, many of them voted for the PVV in 2010 and (often for the first time) for the VVD in 2012, in order to prevent Samsom from becoming Prime Minister. Now, some of them are prepared to return to the CDA, while others will vote for the PVV again or will consider voting for the VVD again. It looks like the VVD will remain the biggest party on the Dutch right, enabling them to attract undecided right-wingers - especially with Rutte as PM, being considered capable by many right-wing voters, at least more so than all of the alternatives.

That being said, there are also a lot of CDA voters who would never vote for the PVV, e.g. Protestant (PKN) voters in the North.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2015, 05:51:25 PM »
« Edited: July 19, 2015, 05:59:36 PM by DavidB. »

What influence has PvdA had over the government's agenda?
I think you get different answers if you ask different people. One example: The government allowing many asylum seekers' children to stay in the Netherlands has been a large win for the PvdA.

In general, left-wingers think the PvdA has sold out to the VVD entirely, while right-wingers think the VVD has sold out to the PvdA entirely. Instead of compromising on each policy areas, both parties have simply decided that both parties will get all they want on certain issues while not getting anything on other issues. However, along the way, compromises have been made on both sides. I (as someone who is clearly to the right of the VVD), for one, think that the government's programs are fairly balanced, maybe slightly edging toward the VVD. That being said, the PvdA has had much more trouble "selling" the deal to their voters, which is why they are in dire straits right now.

Often, the issues for the PvdA have been symbolical. Within the party, there has been a lot of opposition against the penalization of illegality (something that the VVD already wanted to implement during Rutte-I), which has been scrapped. Within the VVD, there was a lot of opposition against a PvdA plan that would make health costs dependent on one's income, basically making health care a lot more costly for the VVD's voting core. This has been scrapped as well.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2015, 06:08:53 PM »

Not necessarily, but this is probably the most likely scenario, yes. Their problem is that there are so many parties on the Dutch left that it is easy for PvdA voters to find their own kind of leftism somewhere else. However, the VVD is also bound to lose a significant chunk of its 2012 voters - they won't pull a Cameron, methinks.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #6 on: July 20, 2015, 11:58:04 AM »
« Edited: July 20, 2015, 11:59:59 AM by DavidB. »


DavidB is very positive and upbeat about VVD for obvious reasons, but that won't change is the fact that they will still have lost half their seats as things stand. In the old ways of doing Dutch politics you reward the "winners" and punish the "losers", according the net seats they have gained or lost. Losing 20 seats counts as a loss IMO. If they are the ''largest'' party as Rutte's fratboys will tell you, it will be because the left is totally fractured.

I think Rutte's biggest mistake was ruling out another coalition with the PVV. He only has one option now and that's VVD-CDA-D66. He'll be going into negotiations as a "loser", the other two on his left as big winners, and his core electorate are generally speaking the right-wing of his party.

So yeah, DavidB is pushing the two-horse race more in hope than expectation I imagine...
Huh? I'm not a big VVD fan at all. I didn't vote for them in 2012 and I will most certainly not vote for them in the next election, so by all means continue criticizing my perspective on the political situation, which might be perfectly legitimate, but please do so without assuming things about my position that simply aren't true. My perspective on the Dutch political situation has nothing to do with me wanting the VVD to "win" the elections or something like that.

And yeah, the VVD obviously has a big electoral problem as well. If there is not going to be a new "two-horse race", which is not something I would predict but also not something I would rule out, then the whole political system will be fractured indeed. Meanwhile, I'm not so sure that for the VVD, ruling out a coalition with the PVV was such a stupid thing to do strategically. The PVV has truly shifted too much toward the "right" in order to be an acceptable coalition partner in the future: not ruling out cooperation with the PVV might (have) scare(d) off a lot of undecided VVD-D66 voters (these people still seem to exist...).
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #7 on: July 20, 2015, 12:08:28 PM »

He was. It is funny how people's perception of Purple was actually positive during the Purple period and then turned 180 degrees when Fortuyn entered the stage. In addition, Kok has had a lot of criticism from the left for earning lots of money at some Chinese bank and having all kinds of lucrative jobs - I guess that is considered illegitimate for a social democrat. On the political level, he is criticized by the left for his "third way" politics, which caused the PvdA to "lose its ideological feathers", a phrase Kok himself introduced in the 90s as something positive. Of course, the whole Dutch political spectrum has shifted to the right ever since, so this criticism might sound a bit hollow.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2015, 06:12:29 AM »
« Edited: July 21, 2015, 01:55:14 PM by DavidB. »

I try to separate my political opinion from my analysis of the political situation as much as possible, and I feel that more people should make this distinction. So, to be clear: everything I'm writing in this post is purely based on my opinion. However, while analyzing the political situation - which is what I will do mostly in this thread - I take off my "opinion" glasses entirely.

I voted for a myriad of parties (all on the right), from Libertarian to SGP. It depends on the election and on the issues that are at stake. I don't feel particularly attached to one party. I'm too much of a right-winger (with regard to the economy) and a Eurosceptic for the VVD. I really hated Wilders' "fewer Moroccans" speech, which reminded me of our German neighbours' dark past. The PVV's extreme statements on the Islam add to the tensions in our society and alienate moderate Dutch Muslims while we should build bridges instead (and I don't like the PVV's quasi-leftist positions on the economy). Even though I would be a conservative in the American landscape, I am too libertarian for the SGP. And while I believe in the first part of their Bible, I don't like the second part - however, that part is the one that really influences their politics. Meanwhile, I wouldn't vote for the Libertarians anymore: too much on the fringe, too many conspiracy crazies, too ideological - your average libertarian party, I guess. So in the next elections, I'll probably vote for VNL, even though I have lots of doubts about their leader, Bram Moszkowicz, who would be a total joke in parliament (as opposed to their number two, Joram van Klaveren, whom I consider a truly capable and intelligent politician).
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2015, 09:15:35 PM »
« Edited: July 23, 2015, 09:19:14 PM by DavidB. »

On-topic now. On July 1, a new law regarding the referendum has been enacted. It comes down to this: if a "popular initiative" is supported by 300,000 people, an advisory referendum will be organized.

Well-known, right-wing Euroskeptic weblog GeenStijl is now trying to gather the needed signatures in order to hold a referendum about the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. GeenStijl argues that this Association Agreement will be the first step toward full EU membership (which is a really doubtful "analysis" in reality, I think). Given the general (lack of) popularity of EU integration as well as the crisis in Greece, it is likely that such a referendum would have a clear "no" as its outcome, which would be pretty embarrassing for the government. However, it is doubtful whether GeenStijl will find 300,000 people to sign the initiative, as doing so takes quite some time. I won't count on it.

I myself won't be signing the petition, as the underlying geopolitical implications (which most Dutch won't immediately recognize) don't fit my pro-NATO/pro-Western worldview.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2015, 09:23:11 AM »
« Edited: July 31, 2015, 10:19:32 AM by DavidB. »

First column: percentage of the votes in the 2012 elections
Second column: percentage of the votes according to this poll
Third column: maximum voter potential according to this poll (the sum obviously exceeds 100%)
Fourth column: losses/gains in voter intention compared with 2012 results
Fifth column: losses/gains in voter potential compared with 2012 results (which obviously shows net gains overall because the sum of "voter potential" can be higher than 100%)
(source: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond)



An interesting chart. While the VVD would be the biggest party (according to peil.nl's poll, which has been released on July 19), CDA and SP (!) have the greatest potential to grow. D66's big voter potential is not something special, as it's in the center of the political space. During elections, the party has great difficulty to capitalize on this big potential.

Also interesting is that the VVD's entire voter potential seems to be lower than the party's actual election result in 2012, indicating disappointment with the government among right-wing voters, who are now inclined to vote for CDA, PVV, or even VNL.

The problem for the PvdA is even bigger, the poll indicating 13% as the party's maximum voter potential - in 2012, 24,8% voted for the PvdA. As of now, 5% would vote for the PvdA (although peil.nl has a tendancy to underpoll the PvdA).
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2015, 11:33:25 AM »
« Edited: July 30, 2015, 11:38:31 AM by DavidB. »

First column: percentage of the votes in the 2012 elections
Second column: percentage of the votes according to this poll
Third column: maximum voter potential according to this poll (the sum obviously exceeds 100%)
Fourth column: losses/gains in voter intention compared with 2012 results
Fifth column: losses/gains in voter potential compared with 2012 results (which obviously shows net gains overall because the sum of "voter potential" can be higher than 100%)
(source: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond)

It would be interesting to see if similar charts exists from some time before the 2012 elections, and if parties exceeded their potential in the elections. My gut feeling is that the potential for PvdA might have been below 25% in such a poll in 2011 or early 2012.

And unrelated: what VNL is has been explained above, and PP is the Pirate Party.
I found this:

(source: peil.nl/Maurice de Hond)

My gut feeling was also that the potential of the PvdA would be arond 20% in 2011, maybe even lower, but it hasn't been below 21% - now, it's 13%...

A quick calculation of the changes in electoral potential, comparing 2011 to now:
VVD -9%
PvdA -11%
PVV -4%
SP +1%
CDA +10%
D66 0%
ChristenUnie +4%
GroenLinks 0% (wow)

All other parties weren't in the 2011 chart.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2015, 12:28:13 PM »
« Edited: August 02, 2015, 03:19:08 PM by 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? Tongue
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2015, 09:38:38 AM »

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? Tongue

Sanctions harm Dutch farmers?
Hadn't thought of that reason. Sounds plausible.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2015, 09:33:30 PM »

Only in the Netherlands...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3185723/Soldiers-forced-shout-bang-bang-training-ammunition-shortages-Dutch-army.html
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2015, 01:54:34 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2015, 03:52:08 PM by 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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2015, 02:38:41 PM »
« Edited: August 16, 2015, 03:17:10 PM by 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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2015, 03:27:13 PM »

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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2015, 02:12:24 PM »

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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2015, 09:02:47 AM »
« Edited: August 18, 2015, 10:24:15 AM by 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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2015, 11:35:37 AM »
« Edited: August 18, 2015, 01:00:14 PM by 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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2015, 05:34:47 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2015, 12:00:23 PM by 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...
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2015, 06:52:11 AM »
« Edited: August 19, 2015, 06:56:19 AM by 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.
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2015, 01:30:54 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2015, 02:21:01 PM by 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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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)Sad "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 Smiley
Logged
DavidB.
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,612
Israel


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: 4.26


« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2015, 02:03:03 PM »
« Edited: August 19, 2015, 02:08:51 PM by 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33  
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 0.078 seconds with 12 queries.