Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[mvd10]

I'm not really enthusiastic about the euthanasia law either and I completely oppose extending it to people of all ages, but those analysts blaming everything on neoliberalism annoy me. Austerity has hurt people (mainly retired people) and a lot has to improve in the healthcare sector (bureaucracy...) but it's not like we're letting people die on the streets. We also shouldn't forget the really dire budgetary situation in 2013. Immediately slashing the budget deficit to 3% at all costs during a recession probably wasn't a smart thing to do, but eventually long term healthcare costs had to be reduced. And raising taxes wouldn't have covered it. The CPB (hardly a bastion of libertarianism) calculated that the Dutch top income tax rate was actually above the revenue maximizing rate because of the relatively low concentration of high earners in the Netherlands.

[mvd10]

Maybe SP voters flocking to FvD now. Some protest voters see Wilders as too extreme, but now have an alternative with FvD especially with Roemer was a joke leader

SP voters really don't seem like the type to vote for someone like Thierry Baudet.

SP voters are very eurosceptic, so Baudet should appeal to them. But I agree that it's not very likely that the SP lost a lot of seats to Baudet. The PVV still is a much better fit for SP voters than the FvD.

[mvd10]

I do think FvD attract some SP voters (though not too many), particularly since Baudet has continued to criticize both the formation process and the EU and received a lot of media exposure. FvD also introduced a motion to cut co-payments in healthcare by 100 euros. But yes, most new FvD voters seem to come from VVD and CDA.

https://www.trouw.nl/democratie/nieuw-rechts-voor-wie-minder-minder-te-ver-gaat~a5b478df/

They were mainly trying to describe VNL voters with this, but I think this also applies to FvD voters. This article basically says FvD and VNL are better off targeting areas with a high VVD/PVV vote than areas with a high SP/PVV vote.

[mvd10]

A couple of days ago elementary school teachers went on strike for higher wages. Asscher (who still is deputy PM) has demanded more money for the teachers if the current demissionary cabinet has to present a budget (which is very likely because we probably won't have a new cabinet by the end of July). If the new budget doesn't include more money for the teachers Asscher says he will withdraw all PvdA ministers from the cabinet. Asscher's demands are highly unusual, demissionary cabinets usually don't make big decisions. This is going to be very interesting, I don't think the VVD will give in (they are really annoyed by this), and if the VVD doesn't give in Asscher has to withdraw his ministers from the cabinet, otherwise he will lose all credibility.

The PvdA had 4,5 years to do something about this, and they didn't. They also had the opportunity to join the negotiations and arrange more money for the teachers, but they didn't. But I guess you have to do something when you're stuck with 9 seats .

This might also screw up Rutte's little party. If the cabinet had stayed until August 25 it would have been the longest serving postwar cabinet. But that's probably not going to happen, since the PvdA has to sign the budget somewhere in mid August and I don't think the VVD will give in.

[mvd10]

And the negotiations have finally restarted a week ago. The CPB also analyzed the first blueprint of a possible government program (they didn't release it ofcourse ), Even though economic issues aren't going to be a big problem for these 4 parties, there still are 3 important issues that need to be resolved: labour market regulation, pension reform and tax reform.

Labour market reform should be a priority for the next government. VVD, CDA, D66 and CU have some differences on labour market issues (CDA criticized the VVD for wanting a "Wild West labour market) but they all generally support more liberal labour laws. But like I said, there still are some issues. The previous government tried to limit the amount of temporary contacts (millions of people work on temporary contracts) by making it harder to hire people with temporary contracts while making it easier to fire people, but that hasn't really worked. VVD wants to repeal the law limiting temporary contracts while making it easier to fire people. D66 wants to completely ban temporary contracts while making it much easier to fire people. CDA and CU want to make it easier to fire people and to have temporary contracts, but they also want to expand disability insurance to self-employed people (they currently don't have to insure themselves against disability), which is opposed by VVD and D66.

They should come to some sort of agreement, but the problem is that they only have 76 seats, and especially CDA and CU have some left-wingers with ties to Christian unions. The negotiators invited the so-called social partners (trade unions and employers' organizations). They still have a lot of influence in the Netherlands, so an informal endorsement from the social partners could greatly help them (a full-blown "social agreement" is very unlikely though). This also is one of the reasons why PvdA participation generally is necessary for (liberal) reforms. Without the PvdA the unions will come out en masse to oppose reforms (like in the 80s or 2003-2006), meanwhile the past 4 years and the 90s have been relatively quiet even though the government implemented some deep reforms during these periods. But a VVD-CDA-D66-CU coalition doesn't include the PvdA, and it looks like Asscher won't be very constructive.

Reforming the pension system is another priority. Everyone who reaches the pension age gets "AOW", which is the main old age benefit. But working people also are forced to save money for their retirement (with some exceptions). This money is invested by the pension funds, but everyone agrees that the system has to be overhauled. VVD and D66 want more individual systems (what did you expect from the 2 liberal parties ?), I'm not sure what CDA and CU want. But I'm pretty optimistic they will come to an agreement on this (with or without the unions).

The third main issue is tax reform, but I don't think the unions will have a lot of say in this. It's also the issue least likely to be resolved imo. First of all there are differences between VVD/D66 and CDA/CU on taxes (CDA/CU want a more family-friendly tax code). You also need a lot of budgetary space for tax reform, but there is less space for investments/tax cuts than previously thought. And even if you combine tax reform with a big tax cut it still will be difficult. The general consensus is that the income tax system should be simpler (lower rates but fewer deductions/tax credits) and that taxes on labour income should be reduced by raising tax credits on labour income, paid for by higher indirect taxes. But who wants to raise the VAT or property tax? Who wants to touch the mortgage interest deduction? I remember seeing a poll on tax reform in another country. A large majority of people though they would be worse off under the new system, even after the pollster told them something like 70-80% would be better off. 2 years ago tax reform failed even though they wanted to combine it with a €5 billion tax cut (in the end they passed the tax cut without any tax reform). I guess it will be easier this time because the government will have a (small) majority in both chambers but I'm not very positive about the chances of tax reform passing the next few years. Maybe corporate tax reform will be easier, but I don't think they will even bother doing that unless Trump manages to massively cut the American corporate income tax or European courts rule some Dutch corporate tax gimmicks as illegal (cutting corporate taxes probably won't be very popular, so they won't do it unless they see it as necessary to boost competitiveness).

(yes I shamelessly copypasted my post from AAD)

Meanwhile a couple of days ago the negotiators suddenly started being optimistic. Things are looking quite well apparently. I wonder how they're going to solve the euthanasia issue (and to a lesser extent also things like multiple parentage, legalizing cannabis cultivation and stuff like that). Whoever folds probably will be destroyed in 2021 (or earlier). They discussed the possibility of trading issues off, but the euthanasia issue became such a symbol of the D66/CU struggle that whoever loses it is in deep trouble. But if anyone folds it's Pechtold imo. He desperately wants to govern, meanwhile the CU would be fine with staying in the opposition. They see governing as something like a bonus. On the other hand Pechtold knows that he's going to be in government anyway, the only other serious option is VVD-CDA-D66 minority cabinet, but apparently nobody wants that, and I wouldn't be surprised if CU and SGP would go in full opposition against a government that signs the euthanasia bill. That actually would be a sneaky way to ensure something that looks like a VVD-CDA-D66-PvdA/GL coalition (with PvdA and GL as "constructive opposition"). But apparently nobody wants a minority government.

[mvd10]

When we hear minority government we hear instability. Dutch and German people hate that. Meanwhile the last government technically was a minority government (they had a minority in the senate, so they had to cut deals with other parties), and Rutte didn't really like that. Zijlstra (VVD parliamentary leader) has been saying for years that the VVD wants a coalition with a majority in both chambers after 2017. Besides, I think PvdA may want to boost their left-wing credentials a bit, and I doubt CU/SGP would work with a government that signs the euthanasia law. That leaves you with only GL.

And I don't think a minority government can pass bold reforms. The past couple of years were an exception because everyone acknowledged something had to happen. But now the economy is growing and I don't think there is a lot of support for reforms that might be painful for some people. The only way to pass them is to anchor them in the coalition agreement, but when you need to negotiate with parties outside government I don't think there will be much left of it. I don't think PvdA/GL will back some possibly unpopular reforms when they know VVD-CDA-D66 will most of the credit if the reforms succeed (while Wilders and Krol would still vilify anyone who votes for the law).

[mvd10]

Forget my posts about the formation going in the right direction: things started to leak. Leaking usually is a very bad sign in formations. Yesterday a deal on medical/ethical issues leaked. The new euthanasia law won't pass while stem cell research will be expanded. Personally I'd be happy with a deal like that since I'm not really enthusiastic about the new euthanasia law while I strongly support expanding stem cell research. But Segers and Pechtold denied there is a deal on these issues, and they're not happy with this leak.

Today something else leaked. The new government wants to force primary schools to learn their students the Dutch national anthem. Personally I don't have any problems with this. My primary school teachers managed to stuff their lessons with so much useless stuff (why are their salaries much lower than their high school counterparts again?), so why not teach the most outdated national anthem of the world? Seriously, one of the lines is: "The king of Spain I have always honoured". F**ck Spain. Anyway, there isn't much outrage about this leak.

Personally I think Pechtold is behind this. Maybe he's trying to make his base angry so he has a reason to walk out? Perhaps he doesn't want to work with CU after all. But for now the negotiations will continue, so it's still entirely possible that we will have VVD-CDA-D66-CU government by October.

In other news the CPB predicts the Dutch economy will grow by 3.3% this year (twice the German rate ). Thank you Rutte! (to be fair economic growth was anemic in the first few years of Rutte II). But growth predictions always suck (they predicted 2.4% in June lol). If Trump wants 3% growth in the US he can learn a thing or 2 from Rutte .

[mvd10]

Here we go: 400 D66 members signed a complaint letter about the new government allegedly not making multiple parentage possible. A couple of years ago a commission advised to make it possible for a child to have more than two legal parents. VVD and D66 support it, CDA and especially CU oppose it. The D66 members said they voted for a party that would expand their liberties, not one that would limit them because a minority (conservative Christians) wants it.

This could have been expected. Social issues are the issues on which Pechtold is most in touch with his base, and I don't think D66's base can be "bought off" with a tax cut like VVD voters (who generally are surprisingly progressive on issues like abortion and euthanasia but just don't care). A lot of D66 voters are to the left of their leadership on economic issues (they often list reducing income inequality as one of their top priorities, unlike VVD/CDA/PVV voters), and if they also compromise on ethical issues these voters might very well go to GL.

A poll by EenVandaag also showed bad numbers for D66. 49% considered it unacceptable that the euthanasia law won't pass (44% did). But CU voters also aren't that happy with more stem cell research (44% considered it acceptable, 36% unacceptable). Generally D66 voters see CU as the clear victor while CU voters think the deal was fair to both sides. But 65% of D66 voters (76% of CU voters) would accept a compromise on ethical issues if it was necessary for a new coalition, so there still is hope . I also wonder whether CU could lose. 24% of CU's voters (the ones that don't consider a compromise acceptable) is roughly 1 seat, that could possibly push the SGP to a 4th seat.

[mvd10]

At the general elections FvD scored roughly equal among all educational groups while actually scoring higher with upper class and upper middle-class voters (in terms of income). With the PVV it was the other way around. Most FvD voters were too young to vote in 2012 or voted VVD (with a significant minority voting for PVV).

The latest Peil.nl poll shows VVD-CDA-D66 losing 5 seats while FvD gained 5 seats. I suppose FvD appeals to the more right-wing members of VVD and CDA because they sound more reasonable than the PVV. Maybe their more right-wing economic platform also appeals to them, but I'm not sure whether that's an issue for these voters (sadly even wealthy voters aren't really enthusiastic about reducing labour regulation ). Quite a lot of FvD candidates are very vocal about their libertarianism (some even were "famous" movement libertarians and wrote for sites like Vrijspreker) and want to significantly reduce government intervention in the economy, but nobody talked about it (it helps that their MP's Baudet and Hiddema are much more focused on the culture wars and "breaking the party cartel"). In that way the FvD looks a lot like the earlier PVV. In their early years the PVV had a really right-wing economic platform, but they barely talked about it. When Wilders started to talk about economic issues he also took more left-wing positions on them (and he started becoming more popular with . FvD's focus on breaking the system and direct democracy also might appeal to older D66 voters. When FvD was founded a poll showed that quite a lot of D66 voters would consider voting for FvD. But that was before Baudet started being the posterboy of the alt-right and the target of feminist and antifascist organizations.

Peil.nl found out that FvD voters received higher education than PVV voters (but still lower than the average voter), were more likely to be under 35 or over 65 than PVV voters and were more likely to be male. Interestingly enough 49% of FvD voters worried about their financial future (42% of Dutch voters) while they were more likely to have high incomes. But the sample of FvD voters was really small (they were at something like 5-6 seats), so these numbers probably don't mean much. The sample of FvD voters in these polls probably still is too small to say meaningful things. But when they showed crosstabs for polls abouts current events (like a mother being deported while her children still are in the Netherlands) there weren't really any surprising results. Only 21% of FvD voters thought the mother shouldn't have been deported without her children, and 82% thought the mother also should have been deported if the children were with her. So nothing surprising there.

According to peil.nl FvD did win seats from the PVV, but PVV won some seats from other parties. I think most FvD voters are voters who either narrowly went for PVV in the past (most likely 2006 or 2010 when they weren't as toxic) or considered it, but thought the PVV was too vulgar and ended up voting for the VVD or maybe the CDA. This group of people probably is quite wealthy, but not higher educated than average. Non college-educated wealthy voters are extremely Republican in the US for example, and wealthy voters are much more likely to vote VVD than high-educated voters. Maybe FvD voters are the people who would vote for a Sarkozy or a Copé in France (don't they call that droite décomplexée?), but don't quite want to pull the trigger for Le Pen. FvD definitely isn't socially conservative in the traditional sense like some figures in the French right though, but that isn't really surprising (they're still a Dutch party). FvD also scores quite well with young people. I guess this either are the token upper-class young male lolbertarians or people attracted to FvD's obsession with breaking the "party cartel" and changing things.

A (possible) terror attack targeting the Maassilo (an American band called Allah-Las was about to give a concert) seems to have been foiled in Rotterdam. The Dutch police received a very detailed warning from the Spanish police about a possible attack. Initially they arrested a Spanish man, but apparently he didn't have anything to do with it. Later they arrested a 22-year-old man. They don't want to mention his ethnicity. It looks like the threat is over.

[mvd10]

VVD and PvdA have reached a deal on the teachers' salaries, so the cabinet won't fall. The VVD wasn't ideologically opposed to raising their salaries anyway, their main problem was that they had the impression that the PvdA wanted to raise the teachers' salaries and claim all the credit. The teachers will get extra money, but in exchange for that soldiers will also get extra money (yay fiscal responsibility). I guess the VVD now can also claim credit for something, so politically it's a smart deal. CDA, D66 and CU probably will vote for this so it doesn't look like the new balance of power in parliament will be a problem.

[mvd10]

Josse de Voogd did write an article about VNL (and to a lesser extent FvD):

https://www.trouw.nl/democratie/nieuw-rechts-voor-wie-minder-minder-te-ver-gaat~a5b478df/?

(I believe it's behind a paywall though).

On twitter he wrote this:

https://twitter.com/jossedevoogd/status/880786181751005184

For non-Dutch speaking people (do any non-Dutch speaking people read this anymore ?): He writes that his prediction of the FvD electorate was reasonably correct. FvD scored well in wealthy LPF (Fortuyn's party) municipalities. Upmarket populism like he says. The FvD is like a wing of the PVV, but the wing that currently dominates the PVV is the southern Catholic more economically leftist wing (overlaps witht the SP electorate), and the FvD electorate doesn't really feel at ease there. FvD still does quite well in Limburg though.

[mvd10]

I think VVD-PVV might be a better comparison to GL-SP. VVD voters still are fairly right-wing on immigration and crime (just like PVV voters), but the cultural differences between VVD and PVV voters are huge. Wilders might want to paint the VVD as LREM/D66 light but that's definitely not the case. FvD voters might be quite wealthy, but culturally the FvD voters in Katwijk or Volendam probably still are closer to PVV voters than to the VVD voters in Wassenaar or Laren who may tough on crime, but generally are much more elitist, have much more confidence in the system and are much more positive about the future. FvD voters still are less likely to be college-educated (I suppose college means HBO or University here) than the general populace (small sample sizes though).

In other news:

The NPO (public broadcaster) is searching for people for the upcoming television programme "Raped or Not?". Somehow there is a lot of outrage about this.
Europa League runners-up Ajax (eliminated teams like Schalke 04 and Olympique Lyon last year) got eliminated by Rosenborg before even reaching the group stages. This happened a few weeks after PSV got eliminated by known superpower NK Osijek...
Yet another prominent former VVD politician has problems with the tax authorities.

What a lovely week

[mvd10]

Probably not between CU and PVV. CU is fairly left-wing on immigration and things like that. Their voters might be a bit more sceptical about multiculturalism but I don't think CU-PVV swing voters really exist, CU voters still really hate proposals like banning the Quran or closing down mosques.

SGP voters (and their party) are very critical of the Islam so they might see Wilders as an ally but I can't see much movement from the SGP to the PVV. If the SGP suddenly stopped existing most of their voters probably would vote for CU and stomach their leftish views on Islam and immigration. Basically all SGP voters live in the Bible Belt and are very religious (this party didn't allow women to run for office until a few years ago), so I think they still see issues like euthanasia as more important than immigration and the EU (both CU and SGP are fairly eurosceptic btw). And the SGP vote doesn't really swing anyway. There are 250.000 people who will vote for the SGP no matter what, and there are 10 million people who never will vote for the SGP. PVV doesn't seem to perform terribly well in our Bible Belt either. The PVV's growth in the Bible Belt probably comes from people who were already voting VVD or CDA.

There are some people who researched how happy and how optimistic voters were. PVV voters were the least happy and the second least optimistic. SGP voters however were the happiest (tied with VVD voters), but they also were the most pessimistic (only PVV comes close). CU voters were slightly happer and slightly more optimistic than the average.

According to the 2017 exit polls the PVV did better with non religious people (13%) and Catholics (19%) than with Protestants (8%) or people with another religion (3%). Almost all SGP voters obviously are Calvinists (Protestants). The PVV probably does better with members of more conservative churches (which are likely to vote SGP) than with members of the more activist Protestant Church of the Netherlands (this is were the CDA's left-wingers come from and they hate the PVV) but overall these numbers aren't very convincing. 

Ideologically there definitely is a lot of overlap between SGP and PVV voters, but the vast majority of SGP voters just isn't going to vote for a "secular" party (or any party that isn't the SGP or CU for that matter). And culturally there also are a lot of differences (the difference in "net happiness" is huge). This guy also found out the PVV barely won votes from the SGP.

[mvd10]

The SGP vote share in Urk only increased after 2006 (even the SGP/CU vote significantly increased). CDA dramatically collapsed (from 37% in 2006 to 14% in 2017). VVD went from nothing to 6% in 2012 and back. Only 11% of Urk voted PVV btw, that's still below their national average. The CU collapse in Urk also is interesting. They went from 22% in this very religious municipality in 2006 to 12% in 2017 while not losing that much nationwide (they went from 6 to 5 seats). Maybe they were not happy with CU's leftish positions on immigration and went to the SGP? SGP went from 34% in 2006 to 56% in 2017. It's pretty hilarious how the most right-wing municipality in the country also is the weakest VVD municipality.

[mvd10]

My post on the VVD and the PvdA reaching a deal about teachers' salaries was premature, apparently there is no such deal. According to the Volkskrant VVD leaders told PvdA leaders that they don't yet want to spend more money on teachers. A couple of months ago Asscher (PvdA leader) said he would let the cabinet fall if the VVD didn't agree to spend more money on teachers. This angered the VVD because it's very unusual for a demissionary cabinet to make big changes in policy and because the PvdA would likely get all the credit if the VVD agreed to spend more on education (people would think only Asscher's threats made the VVD agree). Both parties still hope to find a solution.

Some people think CDA, D66 and CU forced the VVD to walk away from the deal because it's still unclear what the budgetary policy of a new cabinet will look like, but sources deny this. They say there never was a deal between the VVD and the PvdA in the first place.

[mvd10]

Everyone already knew the SP was a dictatorship (and their party chairman election was about as democratic as your average election in Zimbabwe or whatever), but this really is interesting. I hope this receives as much media attention as all the VVD scandals (yes, I'm that kind of butthurt hack ). As far as I know there actually were some interesting stories about Meyer's time in Heerlen (dodgy real estate deals), but that was the Telegraaf to be honest. Lately the SP also got in the news for one of their MP's living in social housing ("skew inhabitants") and the party leaders giving themselves a big wage increase. And they still refuse to condemn Maduro (Sadet Karadulut didn't see much wrong with the things Maduro is doing). I understand that the media hates far-right deplorables, but the SP gets off way too easily imo. They're as bad as the PVV on these things. Rutte really should have ruled out working with them, and I really hated Pechtold when he said he preferred a coalition with the SP over a coalition with the CU (luckily Roemer ruled out any coalition with the VVD).

Amazing. Sharon Gesthuizen, SP MP from 2006 until 2017 and losing candidate for the chairmanship, wrote a book about her experiences in the SP. She describes how former party leader and longterm chairman Jan Marijnissen was present at all parliamentary group meetings, intimidated MPs (sometimes under the influence of alcohol), and set up Roemer to fail on tv. He talked degradingly about women and made sure the SP only focused on healthcare and bread-and-butter issues, not on the environment, refugees (a subject Gesthuizen found to be relevant), integration, or SMEs. When Gesthuizen, who was used as former party leader Agnes Kant's personal slave even when elected as an MP, suffered from a burn-out, Kant told her that it was her own fault and she better be back at work soon, otherwise her days in the SP would be numbered. A crazy and frightening story, but unfortunately very credible.

Link in Dutch: http://politiek.tpo.nl/2017/08/31/elf-jaar-knoet-jan-marijnissen/.

And they say I should be "protected" from working 50 hours a week even if I want to and receive what Trump calls a big, fat, beautiful paycheck (though that imaginary future paycheck wouldn't be that big under SP policies to be fair ).

[mvd10]

Yeah, I also disagree with abolishing the referendum law. The referendums aren't binding anyway. If voters really colossaly screw things up you could always ignore the result as a very last resort (and I doubt Dutch voters really would make an objectively terrible decision, the association agreement and EU constitution didn't matter in the grand scheme of things and both eventually still passed without much trouble anyway). Abolishing referendums is very bad PR-wise (except in the parts of Amsterdam where all pundits live, Josse de Voogd is at something with that lol) and sends a rather bad message.

[mvd10]

Something else leaked:

The next Dutch government might implement a "social flat tax". Everyone would pay a 35% tax rate, but high-earners (I guess the threshold will be something like 70k) will pay an extra surcharge of 10-13% (the surcharge wouldn't take deductions into account). Currently there are 3 (officially 4) tax rates: 36% (first 20k), 41% (20k-65k) and 52% (65k+). Marginal tax rates are criminally high here, I really doubt there is any incentive to work more if you're a renter earning 25k and don't have any young children. The marginal income tax rate already is high (41%), but if you add all phase-outs for tax credits and means-tested benefits that rate gets really high. So I'd personally support the social "flat tax" (it also would include slashing deductions, so overall the tax code would be simplified which is really necessary).

Sylvester Eijffinger (professor at my university ) has strongly supported a simplified tax system with 1 rate and a surcharge for years. CDA and to a lesser extent the CU also have been pushing for this for years, since almost everyone would pay just the 35% rate (and even the ones who pay the surcharge only can deduct to the 35% rate) the tax code wouldn't distort choices made by families as much as it currently does. But the problem is that hard choices would have to be made if you want to reduce income tax rates by that much, so it's still very possible to push for tax reform fails in the end.

The employers' organizations and labour unions weren't able to reach an agreement on labour market reform or pension reform. The government can still go ahead and try, but the labour unions probably will come out against it in full force (especially since Rutte 3 probably won't include any left-wing parties after the GL fiasco, so by Dutch standards it will be a fairly right-wing government).

Hurricane Irma has been raging over the Dutch part of the island Sint Maarten. The government is closely monitoring the situation, it's currently unknown if any Dutch citizens died. I'm hearing concerning stories about people walking around and plundering ravaged shops in Sint Maarten with guns and machetes, but that hasn't been confirmed so I hope it's just a rumour. Communication with the island is nearly impossible.

[mvd10]

I'm not aware of any generic subsidy or hand-back to landlords. But they do receive a subsidy for building new low-income housing and because of government guarantees they can get very cheap loans. And the housing cooperatives used to receive a lot of public money in the past which got them in their current financial position (though they don't receive it anymore they're still possible to keep rents very low because of insane amounts of money they got in the past).

Housing cooperatives currently have to pay a special tax which has to be paid by selling off houses or becoming more efficient instead of raising rents (but the main goal really was to raise an easy 2 billion without much political consequences). Cooperatives selling homes to private corporations is the result of this, and it's also what the VVD wanted. VVD (and CDA/D66) want more rental houses for middle-earners while the left-wing parties focus on building them for lower-earners. Both VVD and D66 want to decrease the "liberalization border" (rents over 710 euros a month aren't regulated as tightly) which probably would increase the supply for middle-class rental homes and get middle-earners off social housing (which in turn would increase the amount of social houses available for the people who need them).

According to a CPB paper released a couple of years ago rent regulations and subsidies reduce housing expenses by about 5000 euros for all income groups. Completely deregulating the rental markets would cause waiting lists to be reduced and average housing consumption to increase by 12% (it means that people would live in bigger houses at better places), but it would reduce housing consumption for people with low incomes (first 3 deciles). I favor completely deregulating the rental market, but keeping (or if necessary actually increasing) the housing benefit for low incomes, the effects rent increases would have on their purchasing power would be pretty draconic. There basically are the insiders (people living in a nice place with low and regulated rents) and the outsiders (low-earners on waiting lists and middle/high-earners who are forced to stay in social housing because there aren't other houses available).

Rental markets in Amsterdam and Utrecht are pretty f**ked up. Utrecht even decided to ban renting small studios for more than 700 euros a year. "Met minister Blok 1000 euro voor een hok", Blok made it easier to rent small studio's and flats and Utrecht and Amsterdam aren't happy with all those small studio's turned yuppie nests. Extremely high rents in Amsterdam probably are caused by the very small amount of available houses for sale, a strong housing market (selling homes probably is more profitable than renting them out) and a huge shortage of rental homes for middle-earners (this is why the VVD wants to lower the liberalization border, but the problem is that in Amsterdam there even is a shortage of homes with rents of 700-1000 euros which already fall above the liberalization border). Anyway, I'm not really an expert on the housing market.

[mvd10]

It's really sad. I dislike media talking about how many "Dutch" people (i.e. mainlanders) are still on the island. I view these islanders as just as Dutch. I hope we do as much as we can to help them out.

Sybrand Buma made a terrific speech, so good that it almost made me want to become a CDA member. He really gets it. I hope he can maintain this tone as part of the government. I do think profiling himself in that direction will enable the party to maintain a unique and crystal-clear profile as part of the government.

It seems as if CDA and CU have gotten their way and youth will have to do "non-voluntary volunteering" (some sort of national service outside the military) for a number of months, which I am much less happy with. The news that there will not be a road pricing system based on the number of kilometres driven is good, though (but no surprise, the VVD would never allow it).

The number of ministries per party will apparently be 6-4-4-2.

Buma's "non-voluntary volunteering" is enough reason for me to not even consider voting CDA as long as it is in their platform. It probably won't affect me anymore (I atleast hope so lol), but it's reprehensible, expensive and probably illegal. The only legal form of this is actual conscription, and that involves actually being trained to be a soldier, and not just cleaning the baracks or whatever Buma wants us to do. Maybe the majority of older Dutch people support forcing young people to do annoying tasks in order to increase social cohesion or whatever but I doubt they want actual conscription for their sons and daughters. Honestly, Wilders should do something good for once and frame this as giving "Moroccan scum" or jihadists military training. Buma himself was rejected from conscription btw (cuck level: over 9000).

I mostly agree with Buma's stances on immigration and integration, but the constant pessimism (I almost sound like Rutte ) and his attacks on individualism and liberalism annoy me. I liked Schippers' speech more (the HJ Schoo lecture is a recurring event and Schippers gave the main lecture last year). But in my horribly biased opinion Edith Schippers is the biggest FF to ever walk the earth (though Bolkestein and post-2008/2009 Rutte also come close) so maybe that doesn't say much.

This speech does show even a VVD-CDA-D66 government wouldn't be as easy, it shows that Buma has a completely different worldview than the other 2 liberal parties. Maybe the VVD/D66-CDA gap on individualism/collectivism (can't come up with a better name) is as big as the D66-CU gap on ethical issues. Buma certainly intends to give the CDA a face in the next government instead of just immediately jumping on board of what should be his dream coalition (and I naïvely expected the second to happen).

More news on the formation: even the budget is a problem. CDA (and presumably also the VVD?) campaigned on across the board tax cuts for both individuals and companies (technically the VVD wanted to raise taxes on companies by raising taxes on housing cooperatives, but I don't know whether you should see the housing cooperatives which only got so big by the boatloads of public money they received in the past as private companies), and they intend to keep that promise. Meanwhile D66 is open to raising taxes on capital and companies in order to pay for other tax cuts and investments in green energy (where is the Pechtold that wanted extra austerity in order to pay for tax cuts again?). CU also wants tax cuts, but they want them to be focused on single-earning families (since they pay much more in taxes than dual-earners, and they also are CU's main constituency). VVD and especially D66 won't like this. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this cabinet will be a Balkenende IV redux (hopefully not with the same ending for the PM , Balkenende didn't deserve such a humiliation anyway imo).

I think Pechtold did shift to the left under pressure of D66 members. The past couple of years they tried to outflank the VVD on economic issues, but the recent D66 manifesto wasn't that right-wing on economic issues. They did push for huge income tax cuts, but nearly all of it would have been paid by tax increases on capital (property taxes basically) and pollution. Companies would have had a net tax increase of some 4 billion euros (and D66 did not include raising the housing cooperative tax). And the stories about D66 not being enthusiastic about further tax cuts also are a change compared to a couple of years ago. Jan Terlouw's speeches probably really did influence them.

[mvd10]

How go the government talks?

I guess they probably will reach an agreement by mid-October, but I'm not sure whether it will be a very successful cabinet. It seems like there is no love between the 4 parties, and since the unions and employers' organizations didn't reach an agreement on labour reform the unions will come out in full force against any proposed labour market reforms. Tax reform will be difficult because of the gap between VVD/D66 (more incentives for dual-earners) and CDA/CU (tax cuts for single-earners). Buma also seems to want to present himself as a national conservative, something D66 and parts of VVD won't like.  Meanwhile ethical issues also will cause problems the next 4 years (CU is quite socially conservative while D66 is extremely liberal on these issues) and even the budget seems to cause problems for them (everyone thought economic issues weren't going to be the problem with this coalition, but there is less budgetary space than thought so it might end up as a problem). Meanwhile they only have a 1-seat majority and I doubt the SGP will support them again since CU will have to give in on some ethical issues and the SGP is much more socially conservative than even the CU. I think there will be a VVD-CDA-D66-CU cabinet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fell somewhere in 2019 or 2020 without achieving much. But Rutte is extremely good at keeping small and ideologically incoherent majorities together, so if anyone can do this it's him.

[mvd10]

There could be some problems with foreign policy. If Rutte gets to be PM again (100% sure) and CDA gets the finance minister (also fairly sure) D66 will want the foreign policy minister. Their main candidates seem to be Sigrid Kaag and Petra Stienen (though VVD politicians Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert and Han ten Broeke also are mentioned often). Stienen called herself an activist while Kaag has been critical of Dutch immigration policy. VVD and CDA wouldn't be happy with either of them. The VVD isn't a fan of activist foreign policy, trade comes first. Or to quote possible VVD foreign minister ten Broeke: "We can keep our souls unstained by refusing to shake hands with people like Al-Sisi or Erdogan, but in the end we will realize that we need them and regret our moral arrogance.

Kaag and Stienen probably wouldn't be happy with deals similar to the Turkey deal (Kaag thinks Dutch refugee policy is too strict). Meanwhile Kaag and Stienen probably are supportive of Palestine, and I don't think CU (very pro-Israel as far as I know) would appreciate that.

But in the end the only foreign policy crises that really can kill a government are Dutch participation in military missions and EU bailouts like David said.

[mvd10]

6 months pass and still no gov, this will be record in dutch politics. whos running country, maybe new elections would be good idea.

New elections wouldn't solve much. You also have to take the senate into account, and the only semi-viable coalition which has a majority in the senate while not having one in the Tweede Kamer is CDA-D66-PvdA-SP (that's not going to happen and I doubt you would be happy with it). VVD-CDA-D66 doesn't have a majority in the senate and the next senate elections are in 2019. Meanwhile a right-wing bloc of VVD-PVV-CDA-SGP-FvD (I assume this is your preferred coalition) doesn't have a majority in the senate either, you would need to add 50PLUS and it would get really complicated after that. And VVD/CDA really don't want to work with Wilders again, they've said it for a billion times now. So with or without new elections, it's going to be VVD-CDA-D66-fourth party (or VVD-CDA-D66 minority).

The negotiations are in the final phase btw. Most people expect that there will be a cabinet by early October (a deal in a week or 2, plus another week to let the CPB analyze the economic effects of the cabinet's economic policy and to search for ministers).

It's possible that they will break the record. The record is 208 days and we're at day 180 (but the Belgian record is 500+ days ). But it's always hard to compare formations. The longest formation was van Agt I, but that largest part of that formation were the ultimately unsuccessful negotiations on a PvdA-CDA cabinet. The formation of the actual cabinet (CDA-VVD) only took 30 days or something (but because of a thin majority and annoying left-wing CDA MP's the cabinet literally achieved nothing, Lubbers' CDA-VVD cabinets were much more successful. Van Agt probably will be remembered as one of the worst Dutch PM's). It's the same with this formation. It took them 60 days to realize a VVD-CDA-D66-GL cabinet wasn't going to work (and another 2 weeks to realize it really wasn't going to work). Negotiations on VVD-CDA-D66-CU "only" lasted 50 days or so (they didn't negotiate during the summer break).

[mvd10]

Yeah, it might take a while in Germany while we probably will get our cabinet by early October. SPD isn't going to bend over for Mutti again (so if they enter it won't will be after tough negotiations), and negotiations on a Jamaica coalition will be long and painful.

EDIT: Halifax was right, typo

[mvd10]

HAHA DUTCH FORMATION TAKES SO LONG. THE NETHERLANDS WILL HAVE A GOVERNMENT BEFORE THE NETHERLANDS.

Anyway, you forgot Wopke Hoekstra (CDA, 42) for Finance minister. He currently is senator and partner at McKinsey (do you even have time to eat if you work for McKinsey? He must be f**ing superman).

This is my prediction:

PM: Rutte, no doubt
Finance: Probably goes to the CDA, though D66 might want to try and claim it for Koolmees. But it most likely goes to the CDA. Wopke Hoekstra is the clear favourite. Pieter Omtzigt and Marnix van Rij also are mentioned.
Foreign Affairs: If D66 doesn't get the Finance ministry they will want this one. They probably want to profile themselves as a progressive, internationalist pro-European party. But their candidates probably won't be terribly popular. Kaag and Stienen are too left-wing for VVD and CDA. Pechtold doesn't have any qualifications for the job. Meanwhile VVD candidates MP Han ten Broeke and Defense minister Hennis-Plasschaert are very palatable to D66 as members of the more leftish wing of the VVD (and the Christian parties also like ten Broeke). And there are some other ministries which D66 wants, so I think Hennis-Plasschaert or ten Broeke gets it.
Interior: Nobody has cared about this ministry since they moved Security from the Interior to the Justice ministry. This portfolio probably goes to an old and loyal party soldier (the CDA has TONS of those).
Social Affairs: Zijlstra badly wants this, but I don't think CU, D66 and the CNV wing of the CDA would be happy with hard-right VVD policy at Social Affairs. Schouten has been getting a lot of positive media attention, so I agree that Schouten likely gets it.
Economic Affairs: I think D66 gets this one. Science and innovation are classic D66 themes, and Ollongren seems like a good candidate for this spot. Perhaps even Pechtold himself. If Schouten doesn't get Social Affairs she could be an option for this ministry as well, but I still think D66 claims Economic Affairs.
Security and Justice: If you're sick and tired of politics and want to make headlines one more time (hey, positive or negative: headlines are headlines) this is your chance. But there aren't that many suicidal politicians. My biggest fear is that Klaas Dijkhoff (VVD) gets it. Dijkhoff is future PM material, but one f**k-up from civil servants and a inadequate reaction and his career is stained. My guess is that they ask an older and more experienced politician without further ambitions. Again, the CDA has a lot of these types (remember, only a decade ago they were the clear #1 party of government).
Defense: If Hennis-Plasschaert doesn't become Foreign minister I think she keeps this one. Out of all Foreign Affairs portfolios D66 probably is least interested in this one (and Foreign Affairs or Development Aid look like better fits for Kaag or Stienen). CU might see Defense as very important, but Schouten already is poised to get an important economic ministry so I don't think CU will get another important ministry. I don't know any CDA candidates. I looked up Knops (I vaguely knew him, but I can't recall the specialities of all 150 MP's ) and he seems like an okay pick.
Education: D66. Sander Dekker may want it, but the teachers would revolt. The CDA probably isn't terribly interested in this under Buma's new course, but Hugo de Jonge (CDA alderman in Rotterdam) nonetheless is an option. But it's most likely that D66 gets it. Maybe even Pechtold himself.
Healthcare: I've always seen Mona Keijzer (CDA) as a shoe-in for this. Maybe Tamara van Ark (VVD) stands a chance, but I think Keijzer gets it. Or perhaps Heerma (also CDA) gets it.
Foreign Trade & Development Aid: D66 and CU are the main contendors imo. Voordewind (CU) could be a good candidate. But Stiene (D66) is very qualified for this role and Development Aid is a D66 theme.
Energy: D66 seems like an obvious choice (but this is like the 7th time I mentioned D66, and they're only going to get 4 ministers ). Stientje van Veldhoven won some green MP awards.
Infrastructure: If Environment goes to a new Energy ministry I suppose this will be a bit of a leftover ministry. Herna Verhagen (VVD, PostNL CEO) could be an option.
Public Housing: Another leftover ministry. Idk who gets it.
Immigration: I seriously think Zijlstra is a possibility for this. Immigration might be a low position for someone like Zijlstra, but he really wants to be PM and being Immigration minister made even notorious narcissistic idiot Rita Verdonk the most popular politician of the country, so maybe he'll do it for the sake of his career.

I forgot 1 ministry and I'm too lazy to look it up (it probably isn't a very important one). If they seriously are going to create a new Family and Youth ministry it goes to CU, but I doubt that is going to happen (there was a Family and Youth ministry from 2007-2010 and it wasn't a success). Anyway, I expect Pechtold to become minister as this probably will be his last term as D66 leader and he wants to achieve something lasting. Buma might stay in parliament, as that gives him the freedom to profile himself as the nationalist conservative champion of the forgotten middle-class or whatever he wants to call it (and theoretically it gives him a better shot at becoming PM in 2021).

Pechtold's future job could be an indication of how much faith he has in this cabinet. If he thinks it will fall soon he might stay in parliament to prepare for an early election in 2018/2019 (and govern with a more progressive cabinet afterwards). If he becomes minister it could show that he thinks this cabinet can achieve something without falling within a year.