Elections in the Netherlands (again)

Thanks.

If the cabinet (administration) loses the majority of the parliamentery, usually there are new elections.

No, he wasn't.

But its good to finally have someone else from Holland to disagree with

It's going to take me awhile to learn who all of the players are, and what the issues are. But it seems to me, from what I read and hear, that the influx of immigrants from outside Europe is a pretty polarizing issue: economic and social. And not just in Holland but in all of the "old" Europe.
I'll be watching and asking questions. -rjb-

Re: who the players are ... here's an updated graph of how the polls have been developing the past three years or so ...:





The graph is based on weekly averages of the Inter/view, SBS6 and (when available) NIPO polls.

Numbers on the left are seats not percentages (total:150)

Starting point of the graph on the far left is the 1998 election result, which segues into the 2002 polls of when Fortuyn had just left Livable Netherlands to instead make his own List Pim Fortuyn surge in the polls.

From left to right we then see reflected the 2002 local election campaign (with Fortuyn surpassing even the VVD after his famous first TV debate victory over the then-leaders of the "old parties", now all gone); the general election campaign that year (with Fortuyn falling back somewhat after disappointing further debate appearances); Pim's murder on the eve of the elections, which were, in a landslide of a surprise, won by Balkenende's Christian-Democrats; the ill-fated Christian-Democrat-led government with the VVD and the List Fortuyn, which slid down and further down before the cabinet fell apart in acrimony; the 2003 elections, in which new Labour Party leader Wouter Bos had his party surge back up (but not enough to ensure government representation); and the two years of right-wing CDA/VVD/D66 government that have followed, with notably, the VVD moving up in early 2004 after its integration minister Rita Verdonk started speaking tough; the Labour Party sharply moving up in September after the government announced cuts in pension arrangements and the trade unions organised the biggest demonstration in 15 years; and the Group Wilders moving sharply up after the murder of Theo van Gogh by an extremist Muslim.

Party names:
PvdA = Labour Party
VVD = People's Party for Freedom & Democracy (conservative liberal)
CDA = Christian-Democratic Appeal
D66 = Democrats '66
Groen Links = Green Left
SP = Socialist Party
ChristenUnie = Christian Union
SGP = State Reformed Party
LPF = List Pim Fortuyn
LN = Liveable Netherlands
PvdDieren = Party for the Animals
Wilders = Group Wilders

Lost in the maze? In brief:

The left consists of the Labour Party (centre-left) and the more radical Green Left and Socialists. Traditionally these parties and their predecessors have together garnered some 40% of the vote in Dutch elections.

The right consists of the Christian-Democrats (centre-right), the conservative-liberal VVD and the Fortuynist LPF and Group Wilders, as well as the tiny, stringently Protestant SGP.

Defined this way, the Left got some 39% in the elections of January 2003, and the right some 55%. At the moment, the two sides seem to hold each other almost exactly in balance, with the Left at 48% and the Right at 45%.

The balance in the polls thus currently is held by two or three small, other parties:

* The Democrats '66 are traditionally also counted with the Left, lifting its total result up to some 45% and in 1998, for the first time ever, 50%. Last year however they broke their campaign pledge and joined the current right-wing government, of which they've turned out to be a loyal partner.

* The Christian Union, a merger of two further tiny stringent Protestant parties, is traditionally referred to as "the small right" (together with the SGP), and placed to the right of the CDA and VVD on the political scale. But they, too, are perceived to have kind of changed sides, except in their case its not them who've changed, it's the world around them. They're still anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-euthanasia, anti-drugs, etc; but they're also still principled in their social policies, when it comes to poverty but also their reliable support for refugees and asylum-seekers, for development aid, etc. And since those issues have jerked to centre-stage in the debate, they are now usually categorized between left and right.

* The Party for the Animals ...

Yes he was :wink:

He stood up for the 'weak' people/things, like muslims, animals and people who get socials benifits. That's why he murdered Fortuyn.

Party Animals

I think the most important issues are: 1. immigration 2. security (safety) 3. economics (jobs) 4. healthcare.

And afcourse issues 2 to 4 are big affected by the immigration-issue.

Yes, all over Europe there are great movements against more immigrants, and/or immigrants, certain in Holland, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy and Scandinavia. But I think the rest of modern-Europe will follow soon.

The conservative liberal VVD, emboldened by the recent successes of populist right-wing politics in Holland and feeling the heat of the competitors to its right (Wilders, List Fortuyn), is launching ever new trailblazing ideas.

Last week, newspaper De Telegraaf published some of the points the VVD is planning to include in its new Liberal Manifesto, and two eye-catching points were:

- Direct elections of the Prime Minister
- Introduction of the flat tax

Now popular elections of the PM have long been the idiosyncratic hobbyhorse of the small Democrats'66, but its the first time a large party has embraced it. Labour Party leader Wouter Bos, himself the first party leader elected in direct elections among party members, did suddenly speak out in favour of an elected PM on the eve of last year's elections, but his party hasnt followed suit yet. Now the VVD is to include the point in its new declaration of principles - despite the rather small chance that a VVD candidate would have in ever winning such elections.

It's the introduction of the flat tax however that is totally unheard of in Dutch politics. We've had a progressive tax system for decades, which has been the basis of our post-war welfare state. Tax cuts in the 80s and 90s, benefiting the higher tax brackets especially, have decreased the level of progression already, but the idea of a flat tax was thus far mostly seen as something American radical conservatives would want, something un-Dutch.

This is for now reflected still in the polls. According to pollster de Hond, only 27% is in favour, and 65% is against. The numbers are split up by party preference, and unsurprisingly it's Socialist voters (87%), Labour voters (82%) and Green Left voters (76%) that are most opposed. Christian Democrat voters however are also opposed by a 2-to-1 margin (61% vs 30%), and even among the VVD's own voters a plurality is against (48% vs 44%), as there is among Wilders voters (48% vs 39%).

The VVD-top is making things extra hard for itself by, laudably enough, stating that if a flat tax is established, then tax deductions in return have to be cut/abolished; including the "holy house" of Dutch politics, the "hypotheekrenteaftrek": the possibility to deduct the interest you pay on your mortgage from your taxes. This deduction has allowed ever more people to buy their own house, but also constitutes a tax gift for the rich, a gift that gets larger the more expensive your house is. Home-owners feel so strongly about it, however, that even the Labour Party does not dare touch it, despite decade-long internal debate about it. So the VVD proposal on the one hand alienates the left in its conservative orthodoxy, and on the other estranges the home-owners who are an important right-wing constituency, as is reflected in the poll results when the question is amended to include the quid pro quo (low, flat tax but no mortgage interest deduction anymore): then just 16% is in favour, and 76% against, including 72-75% of VVD, Wilders and Christian Democrat voters.

Anyway - you can say what you want about the contents of the VVD's new ideas (or the degree of simulation involved in a government party launching ever new ideas in the public debate that it's not, actually, prepared to itself implement in government policies) - but one thing it's true: for bold new ideas, you gotta be at the right nowadays. While oppositional Labour Party leader Bos continues to politely present himself as the reasonable alternative, the VVD-leaders and Wilders have been exhibiting a kind of I-dont-give-a-**** attitude: this is what we stand for, whether you like it or not! That has its appeal, obviously, and taps into the spirit of these new times.

It should also make it easier to get a Labour/Christian-Democrat coalition in place in 2007 ...

Monarchy safe

In the category things that might seem non-items, another poll's results. What makes them interesting is the breakdown by party.

On the day after the Queen gave a speech that was broadcast live, pollster Maurice de Hond asked: "How would you describe yourself?"

49% said: I am for the monarchy. Another 23% said, As far as I'm concerned Holland can stay a monarchy, but if the Orange family wouldn't want it anymore I wouldn't mind of Holland becomes a republic either. Makes for a pro-monarchy total of 72%.

On the other hand, just 16% said, I am for the republic, and another 10%, I'd rather have a republic, but don't mind if Holland stays a monarchy either. Makes 26%.

Interesting - apart from how many people opted for a half-hearted answer - is how it breaks down. Sympathy for changing over to a republic turns out to be largest both (unsurprisingly) among the far left and, curiously, the far right.

Thus, the total of those who'd rather have a republic, on the left, is 47% of Socialist voters and 41% of Green Left voters, tapering off to 24% of Labour voters and 34% of Democrat voters. No surprises there.

But the same total is also up at no less than 54% of Fortuynist voters and 38% of Group Wilders sympathisers, sharply more than the 21% of conservative liberal VVD-voters and 13% of Christian Democrat voters.

The new, Fortuynist right in Holland again shows itself to be a different beast than its counterparts elsewhere in Europe. It is militantly secular and apparently also republican; a pre-dominantly urban movement, it is stridently modernist so to say, demonstrated also in its use of women's rights and gay rights arguments when lashing out at the "backward" Islam. Its xenophobia is combined with libertarian, rather than christian conservative values.

Is there any other country where you have something similar? The Lega Nord in Italy perhaps?

Still, no need for Crown Prince William Alexander to worry. Asked if the Netherlands should become a republic once Queen Beatrix abdicates, only 24% says "yes", and 66% "no", with only among List Fortuyn voters a majority saying "yes".

Arrgh. Lost in the maze, indeed, nimh!
The conservative liberals? Or was it the liberal conservatives. Perhaps some nuance is lost in the translation. Could you arrange the parties from left to right? (Liberal to Conservative in US parlance).
Also, I asked before and yall may have answered, but what is the timetable for this debate: national elections (when?); local elections of import (when?). Is some change imminently possible or is this a lot of jockeying for position in, say 2007?
Damn, I thought Oz politics was confusing! -rjb-

"Conservative liberal", yeah - its the best description I can come up with! The party's actually called the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, though like most parties it's simply referred to by its acronym (VVD). Its originally a classical liberal party - ie, RIGHT-wing, but with a focus on capitalist, free market policies (low taxes, small government) and no interest whatsoever in christian/conservative/moral issues. Traditional constituency: the rich, businessmen, shopkeepers. But, being the most rightwing of the main parties in the country, its also always had a populist wing, which it has capitalised on lately through anti-immigration and -asylumseeker policies.

But, right you are - here they are again, from left to right. The scale starts quite far to the left of your liberals though, and ends just short of your conservative mainstream.



Short descriptions:
SP: Traditional left, with a programme like 1970s Labour - but formerly a Maoist splinter
GL: Once a merger of radicals, socialists & ex-communists ("the small left"), has now come to head for merely a "social liberal" course
PvdA: Mainstream social-democratic party, centre-left.
PvdD: Err, yeah. For the animals.
D66: Formerly radical-democrat liberal party with a fetish for referendums and direct elections, now part of right-wing government
CDA: 1970s merger of Catholics and Protestants, oscillates between centrist and rightwing, long the mainstay of government (party of PM Balkenende)
VVD: See explanation above
CU + SGP: Stringently Protestant parties, formerly grouped together as "the small right" (SGP'ers dont watch TV, play sports on Sunday, etc). Nowadays the CU's committment to the poor, asylum-seekers and development aid makes it seem centrist tho.
Group Wilders: Geert Wilders is the populist VVD dissident who was thrown out for all too firebrand anti-Muslim/immigrant rhetorics
LPF: Followers of Pim Fortuyn: urban, secular and (apparently) even republican, but still nostalgic for simpler times; anti-left, nationalist, anti-muslim, anti-asylum-seekers. Party is pro-market but working-class core voters are not necessarily.

(As you can see I find the smaller parties more interesting than the bigger ones ;-))

National elections in, pfffttt ... 2007. Local elections in 2006. Last year we had the European ones.

We're having something of a near-cabinet crisis here ... I've just been avoiding talking about it, because its kind of complicated. But I'll try - luckily I put up that overview of Dutch parties here on this page earlier ..

OK, this is the dealio. The current government consists of the Christian-Democrats, the right-wing liberals of the VVD, and the small party D66, the Democrats.

Now the Democrats were founded back in 1966, as the name suggests, and ever since, their main cause in politics has been the reform of the political system. They want an elected Prime Minister, an electoral district system like you have in the UK and America, an elected mayor, and referendums.

They never had much success pushing for those points.

Their first real breakthrough, back in 1999, already almost caused a cabinet crisis. It was about the referendum. Occupying a crucial position in the then Purple government, in which they functioned as mediator between the Labour Party on the left and the VVD on the right, they managed to get the introduction of a corrective referendum into the government agreement, and then through the House of Representatives. But the Senate spoiled their victory. It needed to approve a Constitutional change with a two-thirds majority. Knowing that the vote would come down to the one vote difference, former VVD leader Hans Wiegel voted against in "the Night of Wiegel", and so had the proposal thrown out.

A cabinet crisis ensued, but was eventually "glued" back together with an improvised law that allowed the introduction of more modest referendums, with only advisory scope (which lapsed in 2002 or 2003).

OK, fast forward. Again the Democrats, even though they have just the 6 seats (4%), occupy a crucial position. Without them, the right-wing government of Christian-Democrats and VVD has no majority in parliament. So this time, they forced the elected mayor and an adapted electoral system into the government agreement (they want districts, but with preservation of proportional representation - something like the German system). And again, on the elected mayor, the vote came through to the Senate.

Now, by ways of background. At the moment, mayors are appointed by the Queen, although a previous reform of the system at least already allows the city council to make a formal recommendation. The Christian-Democrats want to keep it that way, and are in reality quite strongly against the elected mayor. The VVD always was against as well but recently made an about-face about the issue and is now in favour - but now wants to go all the way, and have one with considerably stronger powers than current mayors have. And the oppositional Labour Party is divided: its leader is in favour, but the cadre mostly against (they instead want the mayor to be appointed by the city council). So Democrat Minister of Administrative Reform Thom de Graaf (the party's former leader) had some tough negotiations to face.

He failed. In the end, Labour voted against, as did the Green Left and the Socialists, as well as the Christian Union and the (also strictly protestant) State Reformed Party. With that, the required constitutional change failed to get a two-thirds majority - even though the Christian-Democrat Senators actually voted in favour.

At the same time, it also seems clear that the VVD will block the district system, which was supposed to be up for discussion and voting next.

In response, De Graaf resigned. Surprisingly, the other Democrat ministers did not. Instead, Democrat leader Dittrich opened negotiations with the other government parties to get "satisfactory compensations" on other matters of concern to the party: media, education. Those are now under way - and it's unclear whether they'll succeed. If they don't, who knows - new elections? A minority government?

De Graaf's downfall is a bit of a classic tragedy, one that transcends the minutiae of various proposals. Here he was, carrying the banner of what had been the party's raison d'etre for thirty years. But now? The oppositional Labour Party, with whom the Democrats got along well for so long, has toppled him. The Democrats' fellow government parties didn't lift a finger to help. And his own party leader seems to have merely shrugged and moved on.

Blame thus falls to many people. Himself, for one: he insisted on an all-or-nothing approach until almost the very end, when the Labour senators were trying to get the concessions they needed to approve. He wouldnt make any. Then again, at the eleventh hour he did propose all kinds of last-minute concessions, and none of them seemed to make any difference to the Labour senators, who seemed to have already made up their mind.

Then there's the Christian-Democrats. They played a smart game. They were against, but also did not want to cause the fall of the government - its their leader who's Prime Minister. So what did they do? They had the opposition throw it out for them. What played an important role in the vote, after all, was that the government decided to postpone discussion of the plan's details in the House of Representatives until later - until after the Senate had approved the necessary constitutional change. The Senators were thus asked to vote on the principle, while being withheld the details of how the government wanted to actually work it out in practice. That was a smart move on the part of the proposal's opponents in the government, who gambled rightly that the opposition Senators wouldn't accept that kind of deal.

Then there's Dittrich, the Democrat leader. Meeting with the other government parties after the vote, he is reported to have hardly pushed them at all on any kind of promise to venture a second try - or at least then push forward with the district system. In fact its after Dittrich came back with the news that said system would probably not make it either that De Graaf resigned. He seems to be using the opportunity to reshape his party's profile and move it away from its "crown jewels" of administrative reform.

Now what?

Negotiations are under way. In them, Dittrich will try to get significant concessions on other issues by ways of 'compensation'. He seems determined to stick it out. In fact, none of the government parties can well afford new elections now. In the polls, the Democrats are down to a miserable 2% and the Christian-Democrats are polled as dropping from 29% to 23%. And the VVD would prefer postponing elections until they've better dealt with the challenge from the right of populist Geert Wilders.

On the other hand, the VVD is unrepentant about how things went and already announced that they see no obligation to make any concessions to the Democrats at all: they'll just have to accept their losses. And Dittrich faces overwhelming dissatisfaction from his own party's rank-and-file. Already, Democrat voters of 2003 now "graded" the government with a 4,3 out of 10 according to the polls; the party's joining of the government coalition was controversial from the start (in the election campaign it had promised not to). And now this. Prominent veterans like former leader Van Mierlo (who took the Democrats to 16% of the vote in 1994) said they believe the party should resign from the government. According to a poll, 48% of the party's voters agree, while only 33% says it shouldn't. The members are demanding that if Ditrich does keep the party in government, he needs to call a special party congress to approve it.

Who knows? I'm gambling that in a month time, nothing will have changed. But who knows, perhaps we'll have new elections soon.

nimh, do you love politics? I don't know how you keep all the details in your head.

8 or 9 parties aint so hard to keep track of for someone who grew up in a multi-party system ... France got about 8 relevant ones too, Germany 6, Belgium I dont know how many (separate Flemish and Walloon parties for each ideology) ... I guess it comes with the territory.

Good to see you back btw! Some folks here was worried about you ...

All right! It's getting to be a bit late for johnboy to comment and I really need to find my file folder on Dutch politics (yes, I really do have a file folder with notes on this topic. How weird is that?)
It's great to see you back, nimh, giving your reporting, commentary, and analysis. -rjb-

OK, so tomorrow is still a little bit of an exciting day, in this surreal kind of way.

The government crisis that ensued the other week after Democrat minister Thom de Graaf of Administrative Reform was forced to resign, after the constitutional change needed to establish an elected mayor was shot down in the Senate, has in principle been swiftly patched up. Elections offered none too attractive a scenario for any of the three government parties (see above), so they were understandably eager to avoid them. So they locked themselves up in a room and more or less cobbled together an "Easter Agreement". It throws the Democrats a few bones, but in return they've actually had to swallow a further setback or two as well.

This is the Easter Agreement summarised:

- The Democrats' far larger right-wing coalition partners have pledged to once again try to get the elected mayor through the Senate. Sceptics say this is a symbolic pledge since the opposition Labour Party has already announced it will simply shoot it down again, but Democrats in favour of the agreement say Labour won't dare to block it once more.

- The district voting system, the Democrats' other hobby horse which was actually accorded to them in the initial government agreement, has for now been pulled. Instead, an "investigation" will explore various topics of administrative reform. Enthusiasts say this will widen the scope of potential reform, sceptics consider it a gratuitous gesture without any obligation.

- 750 million Euro will be spent extra on education and "the knowledge society" this year, 250 million of which will be structural. An important infusion that underlines that the Democrats are about more than administrative reform fetishes, say proponents; a pittance, say sceptics, pointing out it amounts to a 1% increase in the education budget, most of it once-only.

- The Democrat deputy minister of Culture gets more of a free hand to reform public broadcasting, reducing the power of the denomination-based broadcasting corporations that now divide up the three stations amongst themselves. Pure entertainment should disappear from public broadcasting, since the commercial stations can do it just as well.

The latter point instantly led to surreal discussions with the press, who started asking about this and that programme, which made the deputy minister argue that no, schlager singer Jan Smit would still be allowed, because music is culture, but the game show Battle of Stars would not, but the sarcastic comedy show Kopspijkers would, because it was an "opinion-shaping" programme. Enter Christian Democrat spokesperson Atsma the next day fuming that Kopspijkers is "pure leftist entertainment" and should thus disappear. Quite a can of worms they opened there.

Anyway, thats the deal. The Democrats failed to get (or even ask?) other points, like a general amnesty for 26,000 asylum-seekers who have been here already many years. Opinion is mixed. All remaining Democrat Cabinet (deputy) ministers are in favour. So are the 6 Democrats in the House of Representatives. The party's leader Dittrich seems to have grasped at this opportunity to steer the party away from its signature issues of electoral reform, and to the right. But prominent former Democrat bigwigs are critical.

This is important because its not quite the end of the story yet. Thats why tomorrow still offers some suspense. A special congress of the Democrats will convene to judge on the Easter Agreement. Any member of the party can come and vote. About two thousand are expected. If they vote against the Agreement, the government will fall.

Thus the fate of the government is now in the hands of 2,000 members of the seventh-largest party of the country.

Chances are the government will survive. Democrat Cabinet members and MPs are travelling around the country to convince sceptical local branches. But the Democrat Commissioner of the Queen of the Province Utrecht is spearheading the resistance. Five of the 27 Democrat mayors have declared their opposition in an open letter as well. The two largest branches, Amsterdam and The Hague, are in favour, albeit barely, but Rotterdam is against. And the near-legendary former leader Hans van Mierlo said first that he was against and would reconsider his membership of the party if it were approved, then retreated to the position that he "wasn't convinced". Also, opinion polls show that a majority of those who voted Democrat in 2003 want the congress to reject the agreement.

Moreover, with expectations of a close vote, opposition activists have started to make use of the open membership procedure of the party. People can become new members of the party up till the day of the Congress itself, paying cash at the meeting if need be, and several leftist websites are calling on activists to quickly become a member in order to go vote against and help make the government fall. And indeed, the Democrats apparently registered hundreds of new members the last two weeks.

So who knows ... there's always a glimmer of hope, even if it comes in surreal guises.

Today in the news: the Democrats announced that the new members who have registered massively the last week or two will not have voting rights at the congress today. The spokesperson said the new membership requests will first be 'investigated' before they're approved, which can take a few weeks.

News story says that normally, the Democrats get about 5 new members per day, but the first few days after the Easter Agreement it went up to 30 a day and since Thursday it's "a multiple of that number".

Heh. Well, I can imagine why they decided to: it would be something of a kidnapping of the party, after all. (Hey, I seriously considered going there myself today and paying to become a member so I could vote against - but it was too early in the morning ;-)). Frowning about the timing though - after an earlier announcement of a suspension of new memberships last Tuesday or so, the day after they again announced that new members would still be able to register up to the day of the congress - and now, just before it started, they came up with this new rule. Sounds a bit tricksy, like they could cash all the new members money before telling 'em it wouldnt do them any good ...

Bookmark