Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: Rutte III era

[DavidB.]

Hilarious: approximately 40 local PvdA branches will stand in the election under a different name not linked to the national PvdA, so that it will appear as if they are a local party. They do so because of the negative image of the PvdA. In the past, local branches were explicitly ordered to avoid doing so even when engaging in so-called progressive alliances, where the PvdA would run one list together with other left-wing parties. But now the party has changed its position. "To us, the point is that you have a progressive agenda and are truly rooted in society. The choice of the name of the list, that's up to the local people with their expertise." For example, the PvdA in Cranendonck is now named "Pro6", and the PvdA Nederweert is "Nederweert Different".

[DavidB.]

You are right, this is a process that had already been taking place on the left; it has just been accelerated now.

The Hague poll (I&O; compared to 2014 result):
VVD 7 (+3)
D66 6 (-2)
De Mos 6 (+3)
GL 5 (+3)
PVV 4 (-3)
PvdA 4 (-2)
CDA 3 (-)
PvdD 2 (+1)
City Party 2 (-3)
SP 2 (+1)
50Plus 2 (+2)
Islam Democrats 1 (-1)
CU-SGP 1 (-)
PvdE 0 (-1)
NIDA 0

Very good poll for the VVD and for De Mos.

[DavidB.]

Dutch voters do tend to vote prospectively rather than retrospectively, and I do think that the fact that the PvdA weren't able to (credibly) profile themselves as a party on the left and that other parties had a much clearer profile was the direct factor that led to their loss. In that sense I suppose the authors of the NKO position paper might be right.

However, the fact that the PvdA completely failed to do so has everything to do with the fact that they defended and carried out not-so left-wing policies in the government. So their participation in the government still matters a lot in an indirect way. The VVD "owned" the baggage of the government and won the election with it, but this baggage was less popular with PvdA voters and therefore the PvdA decided to run on a different message. The message was never clear: Asscher explicitly preferred to come up with a nuanced story nobody really understood. The bottom line, to me, remains: the PvdA hadn't lost as much as they did if they had not done in the government what they did.

I do think, however, that Samsom will now feel as if he has been proven right. He foresaw this and said he would unapologetically run on the government's achievements. I think he would have lost just as many seats, though.

[DavidB.]

The SP Rotterdam have received a lot of criticism for their decision to participate in the alliance with PvdA, GL and NIDA, particularly since NIDA have defended Turkey's operation in Afrin, something the national SP vehemently oppose. SP MP Sadet Karabulut, who is Kurdish, already tweeted that "this was a local decision...", implying that she isn't too happy with it. Meanwhile, NIDA (and surprisingly not DENK) have been endorsed by the Dutch branch of the AK Party: apparently, some AK person, a former CDA city council member, is on the NIDA list.

Meanwhile, voters are receiving their voting card(s): I have received both.

[DavidB.]

Referendum poll (EenVandaag/Ipsos): 48% support the intelligence law, 32% oppose it, 20% don't know.

[DavidB.]

New s p i c y remarks by Yernaz Ramautarsing, #2 FvD candidate in Amsterdam, which were leaked from a WhatsApp discussion group. Which only lowlifes do, but I love the gossip anyway. Now published in De Telegraaf.

Snippets:
- Society becomes less intelligent because of LGBT emancipation, as gay people have higher IQs on average and now do not procreate anymore.
- Taxes can be compared to rape.
- When people in the WhatsApp group confront Ramautarsing, who is black, with Baudet's quote that he would like to live in a "predominantly white country", Ramautarsing says he "has no problem understanding this due to the threats from non-white countries. It would be different if he wanted to keep out pro-Western pharmacists because of their skin color. White immigrants usually cause less trouble and cost the state less."
- About white people: "Seldom seen a race with so much self-hatred who feel such little need for self-preservation. White people crazy." But also: "I am the result of racial mixing. I am not opposed to diversity."
- On Trump: "Travel ban was a good one [in street lingo, D.] as well. 9/10 in geopolitics this year. Recognize the Armenian genocide and kidnap Bouterse and it would be 10/10."

I heard through the grapevine that there is more to follow.

Do you not have a seperate one for provincial and local anymore?

The next provincial elections will take place in March 2019, so the government can enjoy its majority in the Senate for (somewhat more than) one more year. This time it's only local elections and the referendum.

[DavidB.]

Told you so. De Volkskrant published a much larger article on the same WhatsApp group, in which about 50 people, members of various political youth organizations (including the FvD youth), discussed politics. Three eventually snitched because they noticed that they started to consider "extreme" remarks about refugees to be normal simply due to the exposure to them.

More Yernaz R. remarks:

- "Keeping the Netherlands dominantly white has nothing to do with ethnonationalism. It simply has to do with having enough children and watching out with migration."

- Supports the death penalty: "cheaper to execute a pedosexual than to incarcerate him for life" + "we could have popped Volkert van der Graaf [murderer of Pim Fortuyn, D.] and Mohammed B. [murderer of Theo van Gogh, D.] immediately."

- Supports a free market for organs. Opposes the new donor law: "The best reason not to become a donor is the fear that your organs will be used to save Antifa thugs and contribute to the destruction of the West."

- Ramautarsing shared articles about straight men having sex with each other: "1) this leads to clicks 2) it makes them seem pro-gay 3) they don't give a sh**t about the traditional family." These articles "destruct the nuclear family" and "men who have sex with men are not straight." He also opposes polyamorous relationships.

- During a lecture on the death penalty: "Hahahaha international law."

Some more (and more extreme) statements from members of the FvD youth were also published, perhaps to make it seem more "incriminating", but it does not seem as if Ramautarsing endorsed such remarks, otherwise this would surely have been published by VK. It is also mentioned that more left-wing people in the group made racist statements towards Ramautarsing ("house negro"; "slave of his master Thierry").

All in all a dumpster fire, but at the same time I think the traditional media and many of their readers do not understand the specific dynamics in WhatsApp groups like these. Those are all not necessarily completely serious statements.

Ramautarsing's statement: "I want to have nothing to do with racism. As a Dutchman with a Surinamese background who grew up in the Bijlmer, I know what discrimination means and in politics I wish to dedicate myself to fighting it. My words have been wrongly interpreted, which I regret."

[DavidB.]

Ramautarsing resigned: he will not take up his seat if (when) he is elected in Amsterdam. Says there was a big amount of trolling in the group and he defended positions he doesn't really support, and says he absolutely rejects the idea that LGBT rights have made society less smart.

The snitches were doxxed on GeenStijl: one of them, Mathijs Kramer, is a D66 candidate in Dordrecht. How low can you go?

[DavidB.]

That last statement about people with Down syndrome was not by Ramautarsing but by some other FvD member in that group:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No mention of Ramautarsing saying anything about this -- and it would definitely have been included had he voiced his support for this position.

While Ramautarsing's statement about gay rights making society less intelligent was ridiculous, I don't see why it's homophobic as he did not call for rolling back gay rights.

Apparently this group was meant as a closed group in which all sorts of sometimes crazy viewpoints were discussed (including far-left ones and pro-jihadi ones), without taboos. Ramautarsing obviously made a big mistake by continuing to participate in these discussions, because from day one it should have been obvious that someday this information would be leaked. But people who are triggered because they are confronted with un-PC and sometimes ridiculous viewpoints should just get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat.

[DavidB.]

It's called context. Wouldn't expect you to get it, but others who read this might. I am always the first one to post about FvD scandals in this thread, just like I post about other parties' scandals, but I also try to offer context; the type of context De Volkskrant might not offer.

Panic starting to set into the JFvD ranks I see.

You should ask a JFvD member. I have no idea.

[DavidB.]

I think it's a learning curve: a lot of young people are steeped in irony and memes, and believe that its all very clever and funny to argue from absurd directions and use taboo references to nasty regimes, or jokingly argue for diabolical causes. Unfortunately this often spectacularly backfires offline, as we've seen many times from both left and right wing activists.

Completely agreed. Of course it was a mistake for Ramautarsing to assume he would be fine with so many people in that group rejecting his worldview and him, but it is through the free exchange of ideas that people learn things and adapt their views. This should of course happen behind closed doors. The problem is that a WhatsApp group can seem "behind closed doors"  but suddenly literally make headlines in quality newspapers.

On the one hand, "what has been seen cannot be unseen" and for this reason Ramautarsing basically had to go. On the other hand, it is a sad state of affairs when every online statement by somebody in the past, ever, can be used to discredit this person. It makes us less free.

Do young people really believe they can write trash, then expect to seek power over people without standing by their words? Just because it's on the internet? Probably not - instead, anyone who has been active in youth politics will know this kind of personality, attention-seeking and ultimately self-destructive.

The biggest cancer in youth politics is not people who make absurd, provocative statements because they're young and they're experimenting and learning, but people who have no views whatsoever (or brains, for that matter) and lick themselves all the way up.

[DavidB.]

Erm, perhaps it's a harsh lesson but people absolutely must have the freedom to report about the opinions of others, particularly politicians who seek authority and power over us. It is in fact a foundational freedom (free expression / press).

Nobody says otherwise.

Stef Blok (VVD) will be the new Foreign Affairs Minister. No foreign policy experience, but he is the epitome of a safe pair of hands. I hoped for someone with more foreign policy experience, but Blok still is a great choice.

Once again it's not someone with any experience but a confidant of Mark Rutte. Still, I agree that Blok is probably a safe choice.

[DavidB.]

Kantar poll (compared to last poll, which was published on January 31):
VVD 30 (+2)
PVV 16 (-2)
SP 16 (+1)
GL 16 (+1)
CDA 15 (-1)
D66 15 (-2)
FvD 9 (-3)
PvdA 9 (-2)
CU 6 (-)
PvdD 6 (+2)
50Plus 6 (+1)
SGP 3 (-)
DENK 2 (-)

Interesting how the polling results for FvD vary: Peil.nl today has them still at 15. I guess the truth lies somewhere in between. Meanwhile, the SP are doing well under their new leader Lilian Marijnissen, and the electoral setback that was expected a few months ago will probably not take place anymore.

Only 56% of the voters know that a referendum will be taking place; this was 86% the same time before the Ukraine referendum. 33% say they will definitely vote. Usually this would indicate that the threshold would only barely be reached, but this time the referendum is organized together with the local elections. This creates a situation similar to that during the water board elections, which take place together with provincial elections: some voters might not vote for the water board because they really don't have a clue, but most will vote anyway. In the end turnout for the referendum should be between 40% and 50%. Turnout for the local elections will be slightly higher than last time: 55% or so.

35% intend to vote for the intelligence law, 24% oppose it, 25% don't know and 15% will not vote. "Yes" leads in all the polls. It now seems that unless there will be a dramatic change in public opinion (there is currently no campaign at all, except for a few posters by the PvdA youth) people will vote in favor of the law by about 60-40, but possibly even a wider margin. The best argument for abolishing the referendum that I've heard so far.

[DavidB.]

except for a few posters by the PvdA youth)

All members under sixty?

All three of them, yes.

The posters are quite good: located above urinals in bars, they say "You wouldn't want the government to watch this, right? You do have something to hide."

[DavidB.]

New peil.nl poll has PVV at lowest level since 2008.

Seats (compared to last week):
VVD 25 (-1)
SP 16 (-)
FvD 15 (-)
GL 14 (-)
D66 14 (+1)
CDA 14 (+1)
PVV 13 (-1)
PvdA 12 (-)
PvdD 7 (-)
CU 7 (-)
50Plus 7 (-)
SGP 3 (-)
DENK 3 (-)

More interesting: their referendum poll has "yes" only leading by three points: 45/42. 13% are undecided. Peil.nl expect turnout to be between 40% and 45%.

55% think this law will improve security in the Netherlands, 46% think it is an unacceptable violation of privacy (respondents could express agreement with both questions). Based on voting intention in the local election, only VVD, CDA and PvdA (lol) voters would support the law: 67/19, 69/18 and 53/34 respectively. D66 voters in the local election will oppose the intelligence law by 47/44, which probably means that their larger GE17 electorate is even more opposed to it.

Meanwhile, there is commotion about the cooperation agreement between the Left and the Islamic party NIDA in Rotterdam, with national SP leader Lilian Marijnissen today stating that "I would not have made the choice" to cooperate with NIDA. Marijnissen she thinks the SP are ideologically too far away from NIDA: "They want a more prominent place for religion in society, while the SP consider the separation between church and state of great importance." Internally, most of the party appear to oppose SP Rotterdam leader Leo de Kleijn's decision to strike this agreement; De Kleijn even stated that he didn't particularly care for which of the four parties people would vote. Things got worse when this old NIDA tweet went viral this evening (see the picture):
https://twitter.com/NidaRotterdam/status/499999364514070528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&...
... which was immediately disavowed by PvdA Rotterdam leader Barbara Kathmann. I don't think GL, SP and PvdA quite understood what they were doing when they signed their agreement with NIDA.

[DavidB.]

The Left-Islamic alliance was disbanded by PvdA and GL following NIDA's refusal to denounce their 2014 tweet after 2.5 hours of crisis negotiations. The national PvdA and GL party organizations apparently pressured their local branches into doing so, as GL Rotterdam leader Judith Bokhove had first been unwilling to end cooperation with NIDA when Klaver had already stated that NIDA had to retract their statement. It is unclear whether the alliance between PvdA, GL and SP will still continue to exist. This incident might also have ramifications for the coalition formation process.

[DavidB.]

Polls show a big generation gap on the referendum law. Support for the law by age group according to the latest I&O poll:
18-34: 44% opposed, 34% in favor, 22% undecided
35-49: 45% in favor, 29% opposed, 26% undecided
50-64: 55/28 in favor with 17% undecided
65+: 63/21 with 16% undecided.
In total: 51/30 in favor with 19% undecided.

The youth organizations of government parties VVD, D66 and CU oppose the law too (but the CDA youth support it).
---

Meanwhile, the PvdD are introducing a new initiative law to ban Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. The difference with the previous initiative will be that a five-year "transition period" is part of the plan. The previous initiative passed in pariament with support of all non-confessional parties, but was soundly defeated in the Senate, where VVD, PvdA and D66 decided to oppose the initiative in addition to the confessional parties. CDA, SGP, CU and DENK will definitely oppose the new PvdD initiative, PVV and PvdD will definitely support it.

[DavidB.]

Most recent Rotterdam poll. Leefbaar up from 9 to 11, PVV down from 3 to 1 -- completely deserved. The only remotely realistic coalition based on these numbers is GL-SP-VVD-D66-PvdA, maybe with the CDA as well. A complete monstrosity, and suicide for the VVD. Negotiations are going to be terrible.

[DavidB.]

A local government department in Amsterdam of which I had never heard, OIS, conducted a poll. Quite brutal for D66 and PvdA. Good poll for the right: it would mean that the (leftish) VVD Amsterdam attract quite some D66 voters to compensate for the loss of voters to FvD.

Former party leader Frits Bolkestein criticized Amsterdam VVD leader Eric van den Burg for being too left-wing this weekend, saying that he would vote for the #5 on the list, Hala Naoum Nehmé.

As for D66, GL Amsterdam leader Rutger Groot Wassink said it best: "It did not even take them four years to become the same arrogant lunatics as the PvdA were in the sixty years before."



Bonus content: this absolutely brutal "Spot the differences" ad by the SP Amsterdam, attacking GL for supposedly being exactly like D66, symbolized by the cargo bike, the ultimate symbol of bougie white highly educated "progressive" vegan gentrifying Amsterdam -- the people who will now turn from D66 to GL. "Make a real difference. Vote SP Amsterdam."

[DavidB.]

I agree that both would be options, but still negotiations would be difficult in both cases. In Amsterdam, GL have campaigned for a radically different way of doing things. They would lose credibility (also nationally!) if they enter a coalition with two parties, D66 and the VVD, that were not only part of the previous (current) coalition, but are also the epitome of the type of neoliberalism GL claim to oppose. Jesse Klaver probably won't be too pleased if they do this. But with one more seat, GL-PvdA-D66 is possible. That would definitely be an option all three parties could live with.

In Rotterdam, D66 have a markedly more left-wing profile this time (which is not only pre-election window dressing, but is also expressed in terms of candidates) and internally they are a mess. First they opposed renewed cooperation with LR as long as they do not renounce their alliance with FvD, which LR of course won't do, but now D66 leader Said Kasmi rules out cooperation altogether. Entering a coalition with LR, VVD and CDA will therefore be really difficult for D66, though I also think it could happen, especially if the (former) Left Alliance don't have a majority together with D66 and PvdD.

[DavidB.]

What is the tomato-looking thing on SP's logo?

If something looks like a tomato it usually is a tomato. The SP has been using the tomato as a symbol for years.

Sure, but why?

Both because tomatoes are red and because throwing tomatoes is a sign of protest. Back in the days, the SP were even more of a protest party than now, and they used the slogan "vote against, vote SP". At the same time, tomatoes are also healthy.

Peil.nl poll today, including voter movements. I'm a bit skeptical about that latter part but I am posting it anyway. "Van" means "from", "naar" means "to", "weet niet" means "don't know".

[DavidB.]

I don't think so, not here...

The election will take place tomorrow. Polls will open at 7:30 and close at 21:00. I will be counting votes, so no real-time results from me. I've never been this unexcited for an election. Only looking forward to seeing D66 lose and lose bigly in the big cities. Unfortunately many of these votes will end up with GL.

Referendum prediction:
For: 60%
Against: 40%
Turnout: 45%

[DavidB.]

On the local elections in the four biggest cities:

Amsterdam was historically notoriously red: the PvdA led the local government from the 1910s till 2014. As the white working class moved out in the 70s and 80s, however, the specific type of "red" changed, and PvdA voters were both "bougie" types and (descendants of) immigrants. In 2014 the PvdA lost spectacularly, both because of its unpopularity in the national government but definitely also because of locally-based PvdA fatigue in the capital and a number of disastrously expensive projects -- most importantly the new subway line which was supposed to open in 2007 or so but will now open this year and caused houses in the historical center to prolapse. For the past four years, the city government was led by a very big D66, who had become the big winner in 2014, together with junior partners VVD and SP, and there is quite some discontent with the way D66 have handled things. The biggest issues right now are connected, namely the lack of housing (prices in Amsterdam have increased to a level much higher than before the crisis) and the extreme increase of tourists, who often use Airbnb. Kajsa Ollongren, who was an alderman (alderwoman?) before she became Minister of the Interior in the Rutte-III government, especially receives a lot of criticism for essentially ignoring this issue for years while all stakeholders were telling her to do something. Another D66 alderman just did nothing. The SP's performance is generally seen as fine, to the extent that this is possible in a government with D66 and VVD; as for the VVD, there was not much criticism, but suddenly a sh**tstorm has targeted VVD leader and alderman Eric van der Burg, who, like most of the VVD Amsterdam, is clearly on the left of the party and once said "the more asylum seekers, the merrier." Last weekend, former national VVD party leader (in the 90s) and European Commissioner Frits Bolkestein stated that the VVD Amsterdam had been "way too left-wing for way too long" and said he would not vote for Van der Burg but for a more right-wing candidate at a lower spot on the list; yesterday, two days before the election, the VVD youth wing in Amsterdam came with a really critical press statement in which they said that they have no confidence in Van der Burg.

This election will be a two-horse race between GroenLinks and D66, with GroenLinks stating they reject the "neoliberal" D66-VVD housing policies. GL leader Rutger Groot Wassink is on the left of the party and recently had a conflict with national party leader Jesse Klaver on marching against "racism on the council" (implicitly referring to FvD) in a protest organized by Antifa-affiliated groups. Klaver wanted to ban him from doing so.  In the end he did march but did not sign the statement published by the groups. Coalition formation will be difficult, as the council will be very fragmented, with newcomers FvD (right-wing populists), DENK (basically the PVV but for Muslims) and BIJ1 (radical intersectionalists) sure to win seats and GL possibly in the drivers' seat. D66 Amsterdam is rather "bougie" and would rather cooperate with the VVD than with three left-wing parties or so. But GL-D66-PvdA should be close to a majority, so that might be feasible too -- but I wouldn't count on it.

Rotterdam is your classic blue-collar, historically super red port city: "the money is earned in Rotterdam, decided on in The Hague and spent in Amsterdam", Rotterdammers say. But Rotterdam is also the city of the Pim Fortuyn revolution in 2002: his brief political journey started by winning a staggering 35% of the vote in the 2002 local council election with his party Leefbaar ("Livable", it makes more sense in Dutch but only slightly so) Rotterdam. Fortuyn, of course, was killed a few months later, but Leefbaar lives on, got just under 30 percent of the vote and 14 seats in 2006, 2010 and 2014, and participated in the government from 2002 till 2006 and from 2014 onward. Due to the collapse of the PvdA in 2014, Leefbaar will by default be the largest party in 2018 as well; due to the fact that the PVV will now stand in Rotterdam it was expected that they would be losing seats to them and end up in the single digits, but the PVV have managed to screw up so thoroughly that they might only win one or two seats and Leefbaar should still get around 25% of the vote.

The coalition formation process is going to be hell. GL, SP, PvdA and Islamic party NIDA had started a "Left Alliance" to receive the initiative to form a government instead of "polarizing" Leefbaar, but this alliance disbanded after an old NIDA tweet in which Israel was compared to ISIS went viral and NIDA refused to distance themselves from it. The current coalition consists of Leefbaar, D66 and CDA, but renewed cooperation between Leefbaar and D66 will be difficult: Leefbaar had to move to the right in terms of rhetoric due to the fact that the PVV is standing and due to their participation in government (a Leefbaar alderman building asylum seeker facilities during the migrant crisis was painful), while D66 Rotterdam have moved to the left. The D66 and the VVD, led by a young entrepreneur who is supposed to be a hottie (judge for yourselves) with obvious national ambitions, will be kingmakers. The formation might take a long time and involve a lot of parties.

The Hague already is a fragmented mess with 15 parties on the council. In 2014, D66 became the largest party and formed a government together with PvdA, VVD, CDA and the local City Party, whose number one promise was that they would stop a new expensive cultural center from being built only to do a 180 right after the election. This time, D66, VVD or local Group De Mos will become the biggest party and receive the initiative to form a government. Group De Mos is led by former PVV MP Richard de Mos who came to dislike the PVV's extremism and now successfully runs a party with a working-class profile, slightly law-and-order oriented but much less so than Leefbaar in Rotterdam, focused on reducing bureaucracy for local entrepreneurs. Former D66 councilman Rachid Guernaoui is #2 on De Mos' list. Like the SP, they have the reputation to help people and entrepreneurs out if they have problems with the municipality. If De Mos becomes the largest, a coalition with D66, VVD and CDA could perhaps be formed. Groep De Mos aren't nearly as right-wing or polarizing as Leefbaar, so such cooperation should be possible.

Utrecht is slightly less interesting politically, basically being little Amsterdam (D66-GL-VVD government, GL will probably win this time) but with a smaller PvdA these days (younger population).

[DavidB.]

That's what they say, yes. Please don't comment if you know nothing.

[DavidB.]

It just seems like a rather extreme comment to make without expanding upon the reasoning behind it.

I tried to make the post concise. Besides, I and other posters have been making plenty of posts about the phenonenon of DENK on this forum. It is also fine for you to ask about about DENK, of course. But if you're going to lazily translate something from their own web page and use that as "evidence" against my point, then I am going to respond flippantly.

DENK formulate their points in an inclusive way on paper, but their tactics in parliament are disliked across the political spectrum, with Speaker of Parliament Khadija Arib (Labour) having condemned these tactics many times. DENK have a habit of making videos of minority MPs in other parties who dare vote against DENK proposals and posting these videos on Facebook, often without context, to "expose" these MPs. Recently, DENK leader Kuzu was on Turkish tv calling five MPs with a Turkish background traitors for voting to recognize the Armenian genocide as a genocide; these five MPs were subsequently swarmed with death threats. They have also used fake accounts on Facebook to "wolfpack" people in order to have them stop criticize DENK. Journalists are often not welcome at events where most others (except PVV, FvD) do welcome them. And only this week DENK spread WhatsApp messages among the "base" with a comparison of DENK to other parties on a range of issues that isn't mentioned as openly elsewhere: DENK would be the only party in favor of providing security to mosques, "halal mortgages", "banning flags of terrorist organizations (PKK)", headscarves in the police, etc. In itself it is completely legitimate for DENK to have these views, of course, but it is striking how their communication is much more direct and different to the base than in public. Other Muslim parties, such as NIDA Rotterdam, did not want to associate themselves with DENK, because DENK was considered to be too polarizing whereas NIDA aims not to engage in that sort of politics. And of course there was the issue with Sylvana Simons, a well-known Dutch black activist who was a candidate for DENK but resigned because she was told not to talk about women's and LGBT rights too much. And those are just a few points.