Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: Rutte III era

[mvd10]

smoking behaviour

Is this an actual thing Dutch pollsters ask about in connection to politics?

It's one of De Hond's pet peeves to ask questions about irrelevant things (just like he asks you about owning actual pets). You're likely to find some correlation, but it will always be explained by class, age, education, income or ethnicity, so it is completely useless information. Meanwhile they'll never ask you about class, because that concept isn't supposed to exist in the Netherlands...

How would it be measured? Like the British ABC1/C2DE system? There are polls by income (though de Hond never mentions what he defines as "high" or "middle+"), but income may not fully capture things like cultural capital, so results by class could be interesting (for example a moderately successful 50-year old shop owner in Druten vs a 25-year old latte liberal IT consultant in Amsterdam who may have similar incomes but live in 2 totally different worlds).

[DavidB.]

smoking behaviour

Is this an actual thing Dutch pollsters ask about in connection to politics?

It's one of De Hond's pet peeves to ask questions about irrelevant things (just like he asks you about owning actual pets). You're likely to find some correlation, but it will always be explained by class, age, education, income or ethnicity, so it is completely useless information. Meanwhile they'll never ask you about class, because that concept isn't supposed to exist in the Netherlands...

How would it be measured? Like the British ABC1/C2DE system? There are polls by income (though de Hond never mentions what he defines as "high" or "middle+"), but income may not fully capture things like cultural capital, so results by class could be interesting (for example a moderately successful 50-year old shop owner in Druten vs a 25-year old latte liberal IT consultant in Amsterdam who may have similar incomes but live in 2 totally different worlds).

I suppose self-perception would be used (difficult to measure otherwise, unless you use proxies such as education or income). Part of the reason why this is not being measured is that many people in the Netherlands might not clearly identify as anything in terms of class. How many people in our generation would still identify as working-class, even if they are? Not many, I think. Which is also part of the reason that the left has difficulty attracting working-class voters under the age of, say, 45.

[DavidB.]

Good, here's my NKO post. The NKO is the National Voters' Study, a thorough study in which vote determinants as well as underlying attitudes of the electorate are measured. The study also provides us with valuable raw data on voting patterns among different demographics. The NKO for the General Election in 2017 was recently published; I read it and will here share some of the findings that I found to be the most interesting.

The average age of the parties' electorates. Confirms that the DENK and FvD electorates are relatively young and that the PvdA base is extremely old.


Turnout by age and education: on the left it shows turnout among lower educated people by age group, on the right turnout among higher educated people by age group. The authors suggest there are two main reasons for people to vote: habit and "political confidence". Older, highly educated voters have political confidence and vote because it's a habit. Older, lower educated voters might not have this political confidence, but still vote out of habit. Younger highly educated voters have a lot of political confidence, even though voting is not yet a habit to them. But younger, lower educated voters lack both the political confidence and the habit and therefore many of them did not show up: total turnout was 82%, turnout among lower educated youth only 59%. This, of course, should also be taken into account when analyzing the way young people voted: higher educated people simply make up a much bigger share of the vote among the young than they do among older demographics. Research shows that compared to other EU countries, Dutch youth have a relatively poor understanding of the way our democratic system works. Perhaps improving this understanding would help in increasing political confidence among lower educated young people, because this could become a risk to the "representativeness" of our democracy, especially in times when the traditional "people's parties", once representing "pillars" from the highest to the lowest social classes, are no more and have been replaced by parties representing that only represent smaller segments of society: who, then, will represent lower educated youth?


This figure shows the difference between voters' self-placement on the "cultural" dimension (1= change our culture, 7 = maintain our culture; accidentally mixed up in Dutch) and the way these voters place the party they voted for. Orange indicates the party's (perceived) position, black the voters' position. As other figures show as well, PVV voters consider themselves to be less "radical" than the party. VVD voters, on the other hand, consider themselves to be on the right of their party on the cultural axis, which is why it is a smart strategy for the VVD to comment on "culture war" issues the way they currently do. CU and D66 voters also place themselves markedly to the right of their parties on the cultural axis. It is interesting to note that except for the PVV, all electorates place themselves to the right of their party (though in some cases the difference might not be statistically significant).


The same thing, but then for the economy: 1 = increase income differences, 7 = decrease income differences. The biggest gap is easily between VVD voters and their party's perceived position, indicating that many VVD voters might have voted for them despite considering themselves to be to the left of the party economically. Interesting information for the party, who already campaigned much less on right-wing economic proposals in GE17 than before: perhaps that was a good choice. The very small gaps between the electorates and their parties might indicate that parties' socio-economic left-right position is still a main vote determinant in the Netherlands nowadays, even if this is analysis has nowadays gone somewhat out of fashion. Another interesting point is that all electorates, except for the VVD, place their parties on the "left" (more towards decreasing income inequality than towards increasing income inequality). I personally doubt that's an accurate analysis, especially for "neoliberal" parties like CDA and D66 (but probably also for the PVV and CU).


Same idea: European integration, more (1) or less (7)? Interestingly, D66 voters are much less enthusiastic about European federalism than their party, and the same goes for PvdA voters. Again, except for the PVV, all electorates are less pro-EU than their parties (though in some cases the difference will not be significant). Interesting to note that the VVD electorate is more pro-EU than the electorates of PvdA and CDA, who have been much less critical of European integration than the VVD. How anybody could think that the CDA is not pro-integration is another question... perhaps people believe Pieter Omtzigt.


How did the youth (18-24) vote? Important to take into account this turnout gap among lower educated youth and higher educated youth, meaning that the youth vote skews heavily highly educated, middle-class etc. The yellow thing is the percentage of the vote a party received among the youth, but because of the low N for young voters the margin of error is relatively high, reflected by the long bars. The black thingy is the percentage these parties received in total. Both PvdA and SP were much less popular with the youth (who actually turned out) than with the electorate as a whole; on the other hand, D66 and GL were more popular. No significant difference for the PvdD, dispelling the myth that young women all vote for the PvdD and nobody else does so.


When did people decide on their vote? Options (from left to right): on election day, during the last days, during the last weeks, during the last months, and earlier. Results presented by party. The options "last days" and "last weeks" best reflect the strength of the parties' campaigns. For the PVV, 53% of their voters had already decided to vote PVV months before the election, and relatively few people were convinced by their non-existent campaign, which surprises nobody and confirms that it was almost as if they wanted to lose the election. The option "last days" partly reflects the importance of the diplomatic crisis with Turkey: this seems to have been extremely important to mobilize DENK voters, essentially choosing Turkey's position over the Dutch position by doing so. Very insightful. Other parties with strong campaigns in the last weeks and days were VVD (Turkey) and FvD (thank you, Cambridge Analytica) and, interestingly, 50Plus: Henk Krol had some really strong debate performances. GL (Klaver effect), CDA (Buma's nationalism) and D66 (why?) also managed to attract quite some people in the later stages of the campaign. Also note just how small parties' real "base", i.e. people who will always only vote for one party, has become.


The NKO also confirmed that most people decide between a small number of ideologically similar parties: the idea of voters who are completely clueless and decide between random parties is baseless.

[Sestak]

Wait the mass surveillance law that was supposed to win didn't win? That's amazing, good on the Dutch!

[_]

Wait the mass surveillance law that was supposed to win didn't win? That's amazing, good on the Dutch!

Yep, the youth actually voted!

[Diouf]

Great post, David!

The figures are perhaps too low to be significant, but I thought the SGP voters were having lots of children, so their young voter share would be a bit higher, but that seems not to be the case.

I think I have an ok perception of most parties and their core voters, but I'm a bit doubtful on CU. How would you draw up a stereotype of a typical CU voter. Of course fairly religious, but what in terms of education, sector of work, (dis)satisfied with politics etc.? From the graph, it seems their average voter is slightly younger than average.

[DavidB.]

Great post, David!

The figures are perhaps too low to be significant, but I thought the SGP voters were having lots of children, so their young voter share would be a bit higher, but that seems not to be the case.

Thank you. I expected this too. However, the N is probably really low, so I'm not sure if I'm ready to draw any conclusions, but at least these findings do call into question this idea.

I think I have an ok perception of most parties and their core voters, but I'm a bit doubtful on CU. How would you draw up a stereotype of a typical CU voter. Of course fairly religious, but what in terms of education, sector of work, (dis)satisfied with politics etc.? From the graph, it seems their average voter is slightly younger than average.

Have to be honest here: I have to rely on what we know in political science, because I know only a handful unrepresentative CU voters; most "bubbles" or spheres in Dutch society I understand, but this one is difficult for me to "get" as well.

I would think of an average CU voter as a fourty-something married woman in the East of the country who works in education or healthcare, has an average education background, is relatively religious (maybe slightly to the right of the mainline option within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands), cares about the environment, is worried about certain changes (growing intolerance on all sides of the political spectrum, climate change, EU integration, losing our Dutch norms and values, increasing number of lonely elderly people) but at the same time feels blessed living in a wealthy country, is not dissatisfied with politics and does not worry too much about making ends meet. People close to her may vote CU, but also CDA or VVD.

CU also does well within certain black evangelical communities ("Hallelujah churches") in Amsterdam Southeast; I imagine that the gender gap would be even bigger there than among white Dutch people. The CU councilman who was just elected in Amsterdam is black.

[DavidB.]

Clickable map for all precincts in Rotterdam both for the local election and for the referendum. Compare here for GE17. The Leefbaar vote held up really well in areas that were strongly VVD in the GE. For instance, in the northernmost polling station in newly built middle-class Nesselande, the VVD got 39% in the GE; D66 and PVV came second and third with 13%. In the local election, 31% voted Leefbaar here, 22% VVD and 12% D66 (and 2% PVV, what a joke). DENK also improved their score really well in "their" neighborhoods, especially when taking into account NIDA taking part as well (who also got impressive percentages in these areas).

Of course, turnout in Rotterdam was 46% in this election and 75% or so in the GE.

[mvd10]

Great post, David!

The figures are perhaps too low to be significant, but I thought the SGP voters were having lots of children, so their young voter share would be a bit higher, but that seems not to be the case.

Thank you. I expected this too. However, the N is probably really low, so I'm not sure if I'm ready to draw any conclusions, but at least these findings do call into question this idea.

I think I have an ok perception of most parties and their core voters, but I'm a bit doubtful on CU. How would you draw up a stereotype of a typical CU voter. Of course fairly religious, but what in terms of education, sector of work, (dis)satisfied with politics etc.? From the graph, it seems their average voter is slightly younger than average.

Have to be honest here: I have to rely on what we know in political science, because I know only a handful unrepresentative CU voters; most "bubbles" or spheres in Dutch society I understand, but this one is difficult for me to "get" as well.

I would think of an average CU voter as a fourty-something married woman in the East of the country who works in education or healthcare, has an average education background, is relatively religious (maybe slightly to the right of the mainline option within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands), cares about the environment, is worried about certain changes (growing intolerance on all sides of the political spectrum, climate change, EU integration, losing our Dutch norms and values, increasing number of lonely elderly people) but at the same time feels blessed living in a wealthy country, is not dissatisfied with politics and does not worry too much about making ends meet. People close to her may vote CU, but also CDA or VVD.

CU also does well within certain black evangelical communities ("Hallelujah churches") in Amsterdam Southeast; I imagine that the gender gap would be even bigger there than among white Dutch people. The CU councilman who was just elected in Amsterdam is black.

I always though SGP was the party of the former Gereformeerde Kerken while CU was the party of the former Hervormde Kerk, but apparently there isn't much of a difference (did some quick background research). Still, CU vote is geographically clustered (not as extreme as the SGP) so I imagine there isn't a lot of CU/other party crossover. Interestingly enough there are some places in the Northern parts of the country where CU does really well but SGP scores only 2% or so. Maybe it does have to do with (former) church denomination after all? I think a large chunk of CU voters were born in GPV/RPF voting families (just like SGP voters) instead of being swing voters (they did manage to win a couple of seats in 2006 though). CU/SGP voters (especially SGP voters) may be the last pillar remaining. Until DENK came along and won 75% of voters with a Turkish background in Amsterdam .

[freek]

I always though SGP was the party of the former Gereformeerde Kerken while CU was the party of the former Hervormde Kerk, but apparently there isn't much of a difference (did some quick background research). Still, CU vote is geographically clustered (not as extreme as the SGP) so I imagine there isn't a lot of CU/other party crossover. Interestingly enough there are some places in the Northern parts of the country where CU does really well but SGP scores only 2% or so. Maybe it does have to do with (former) church denomination after all? I think a large chunk of CU voters were born in GPV/RPF voting families (just like SGP voters) instead of being swing voters (they did manage to win a couple of seats in 2006 though). CU/SGP voters (especially SGP voters) may be the last pillar remaining. Until DENK came along and won 75% of voters with a Turkish background in Amsterdam .

SGP voters are mainly a member of six denominations:

Three more or less exclusively SGP denominations descended from early 19th century splits of the Hervormde Kerk (just like the Gereformeerde Kerken):
- Gereformeerde Gemeenten
- Gefeformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (split from the Gereformeerde Gemeenten in 1953)
- Oud-Gereformeerde Gemeenten
- (and independent churches with similar history, that never joined one of these denominations)

Furthermore the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken, which has a similar history as the first three, but is a bit more moderate (CGK members also vote CDA or ChristenUnie).
The remaining group of SGP voters remained a member of the Hervormde Kerk, as a more or less separate group, the Gereformeerde Bond. After the merger of the Hervormde Kerk into the Protestantse Kerken, a large part of the Gereformeerde Bond left, and formed the Hersteld Hervormde Kerk.

ChristenUnie is a merger of GPV and RPF.

GPV was founded after the 1944 split of the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt from the Gereformeerde Kerken, a particularly messy split. Especially in the North, in Bunschoten-Spakenburg and in the parts of Overijssel and Gelderland, this church is strong.

The SGP didn't have much to do with the former Gereformeerde Kerken. The party of the Gereformeerde Kerken used to be the ARP, which merged into CDA. The ARP moved to the left in the 70s. Disgruntled ARP voters  then founded the RPF. Not that many from the Gereformeerde Kerken, which was quite main stream. RPF voters were typically from the more right wing Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken, the Nederlands Gereformeerde Kerken (a split from the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt) and also evangelicals and other small denominations. Initially they wanted to join the GPV, but that was denied.

The Hervormde Kerk was a big tent church. Some more liberal members voted for non-christian parties, more conservative ones usually voted CHU (and the members of the Gereformeerde Bond voted SGP, ARP and later RPF).

From Wikipedia:

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Weird question: what are the different parties' positions on prostitution laws? Especially with the increased interest in the Nordic model in some quarters?

[mvd10]

Weird question: what are the different parties' positions on prostitution laws? Especially with the increased interest in the Nordic model in some quarters?

CU and SGP obviously want to ban it. Especially the CU is outspoken on this, I guess banning prostitution (which in a lot of cases is forced) uniquely unites CU's social conservatism with their hipster SJW-ish tinge. They want to go to the Nordic system: the customer is punishable, the prostitute not.

SP is surprisingly conservative on issues like prostitution (and euthanasia). Maybe they see prostitution (and euthanasia) as things people are "forced" to do because of the neoliberal system. Or maybe they do it because they're very strong in parts of Brabant and Limburg where the KVP (Catholic party) used to reign supreme.

VVD and D66 seem to be the most libertarian parties on this issue. They only want the customer to be punishable if he (or she lol) could know for sure that the prostitute is forced to do this.

CDA wants more limits and they want to make it easier to punish customers who could have known that the prostitute was forced, but they don't want an outright ban as far as I know. Lately a prominent CDA MP called prostitution a "legalized #MeToo", so perhaps this stance changes in the future.

PvdA actually is quite conservative on this, I don't think they want an outright ban but they're atleast interested in the Nordic model. I imagine for the same reasons as the SP (prostitution as a "natural" negative consequence of capitalism, not as something you'd do out of your free will).

Other than some tweet about stopping loverboys I couldn't find a lot about the PVV's position on this. They support raising the age limit but I guess the Nordic model goes too far for them.

Groenlinks supported a law that would make it easier to criminalize customers who possibly could have known the prostitute was forced to do it, but I don't think they would go as far as the Nordic model. Then again, with the increased SJW presence I wouldn't be surprised.

There seem to be 2 main camps that oppose: Christians that oppose it because it doesn't rhyme with their morals and lefties who see it as a consequence of capitalism instead of a free choice (just like some people see euthanasia as the epitome of neoliberalism). In that case it makes sense that the VVD and D66 are most libertarian on this. They're secular, socially liberal parties (especially D66) and they're probably also not very likely to see prostitution as a consequence of capitalism instead of a free choice because they're generally the most libertarian parties on economic issues (especially VVD).

I wonder what people who want to ban prostitution think of male prostitutes for females (gigolos). It's a marginal sector but surely it's more than just an urban legend. It doesn't look like there is a lot of abuse/forced prostitution in this sector (probably a case of supply and demand, I don't think there is a lack of straight males who would like to bang Miss Sloane for some money ) but if you're going to ban female or gay prostitution you obviously have to be consequent.

Often prostitution and how to handle red-light districts are local issues, and I believe local parties have some sort of autonomy on these issues.

[DC Al Fine]

Is there a lot of NIMBYism when it comes to red light districts and where brothels operate?

[DavidB.]

Is there a lot of NIMBYism when it comes to red light districts and where brothels operate?

Yeah. The VVD support the "Dutch model" nationally but want to ban or heavily restrict prostitution almost everywhere locally for NIMBY reasons (the same goes for "coffee shops" where pot is sold). There are no prostitution areas in Rotterdam and Utrecht anymore. The prostitution area in The Hague turns the whole neighborhood to sh**t. At almost every time of the day, you will see "customers" as well as shady Bulgarians and Poles in huge cars with young hot women next to them. It leads to a decrease in housing prices and a concentration of poverty and social problems.

As mvd10 said, PvdA and SP are shifting towards the Swedish model on prostitution (though they are not there yet) for feminist reasons: prostitution is capitalist exploitation of vulnerable women, and very few people would choose to be a prostitute if a lack of money were not an issue. PvdD seem to take a similar position while maintaining "soft" support for the Dutch model.

GL are split on this issue, but they will never go for the Swedish model. SJWs tend to oppose that model because they get their ideas from America. This is a pretty big issue for BIJ1.

[DavidB.]

Deadlock in the coalition formation in Rotterdam, where D66 and PvdA block Leefbaar's attempts to engage in coalition talks with them. The VVD do want to govern with Leefbaar. In The Hague, talks are led by former VVD leader Hans Wiegel, who will attempt to form a coalition consisting of De Mos, VVD, D66 and GL first. In Amsterdam, GL aim at forming an oversized coalition consisting of GL, D66, PvdA and SP.

Edit: PvdA, GL and D66 will now try and form a coalition in Rotterdam. With NIDA, DENK and SP, they would have a majority, but the optics of cooperating with NIDA and especially DENK would... not be too great.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Are local PVV groups under the same cordon sanitaire as the national party?

[DavidB.]

Are local PVV groups under the same cordon sanitaire as the national party?

National parties leave this to their local branches, so no, not really. However, at this point it seems unlikely that the PVV will govern anywhere, though I would not rule it out altogether in places like Spijkenisse, Venlo or Rucphen. In almost all places (Spijkenisse and Almere seem to be the exceptions) the PVV is no less extreme on the local level than it is on the national level, so the ideological distance between the PVV and other parties is simply too large. What's more, governing with the PVV will lead to a lot of national media attention and scrutiny, which isn't exactly something local parties want to have to deal with. And then there's the issue of scandals. You don't want to be in a coalition with "Rutte should be hanged" (Rucphen), "Germania heritage" (Zoetermeer), and "Burn the mosques" (Utrecht) types of people (the ones in Zoetermeer and Utrecht were elected), and it's likely more scandals with PVV councilmembers will be dug up over the course of the next four years. The PVV train has truly derailed (I've not seriously considered voting for them in the local election for a second) and it's both sad and entertaining to see what will happen next.

[DavidB.]

Based on the referendum result, the government has decided to amend the Law on Security and Intelligence Services by introducing a clause into the law stating that data cannot be intercepted randomly: interception has to be focused on specific targeted individuals. What's more, before bulk data can be shared with foreign intelligence services, the intelligence services will have to show that the services with which information is shared adhere to a similar understanding of democracy and the rule of law as in the Netherlands. More specifics will follow, but this does sound good.

[DavidB.]

In The Hague, the first round of negotiations between De Mos, VVD, D66 and GL has, somewhat surprisingly, been successful. Former Public Health Minister Edith Schippers (VVD) will now lead the next round of coalition talks. The five priorities of the four parties will be sustainability, drawing up an agenda for the inevitable growth of the city, "livability" (related to safety/security), "everyone participates", and mobility/traffic.

[warandwar]

Did that fringe anti-revisionist Communist remnant hold its seats?

[freek]

Did that fringe anti-revisionist Communist remnant hold its seats?

NCPN, the New Communist Party of the Netherlands:

They gained one and lost one:

De Fryske Marren: 2 seats (+1)
https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/de-fryske-marren/GR2018

Heiloo 1 seat (-1)
https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/heiloo/GR2018

In their former stronghold Oldambt, the NCPN doesn't participate anymore. However, the VCP (United Communist Party), that broke away from the NCPN does take part. That party won 3 seats (-1)

https://verkiezingensite.nl/uitslag/oldambt/GR2018

[Angel of Death]

The bellwether municipality of the general election last year was Apeldoorn, which nonetheless voted yes in the referendum. Perhaps this suggests that the referendum would have passed had there been a local election in every municipality.

[freek]

The bellwether municipality of the general election last year was Apeldoorn, which nonetheless voted yes in the referendum. Perhaps this suggests that the referendum would have passed had there been a local election in every municipality.

On the other hand, the municipality of Heemskerk (which also has some fame as bellwether municipality) voted no.

[Angel of Death]

Although Heemskerk has dueled with Apeldoorn for the title of best bellwether in the past few elections, it fell behind a bit in 2017. Better bellwethers for that year include Enkhuizen (against) and Brummen (for).

[DavidB.]

The formation process in Rotterdam is in deadlock, as the VVD currently refuse to engage in talks with PvdA, GL and D66 without Leefbaar. Now, FvD have brilliantly proposed to officially end their alliance when (and only when) Leefbaar start governing with D66 if this would be necessary to make a coalition between Leefbaar and D66 possible. Brilliant, because breaking up the alliance does not actually mean anything (it is obvious that neither the very small ideological distance nor the warm feelings between Leefbaar and FvD have changed), but FvD/Leefbaar get to look constructive and D66 lose their most important argument to decline cooperation with Leefbaar. I would absolutely love for D66 to be cucked into a coalition with Leefbaar and VVD.