Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

[mgop]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

Just one more reason why is necessary for sanity and future of the country that new government does NOT involve GL and D666.

[Former President tack50]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

Why would D66 support it? Doesn't such a measure (forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food) actually go against liberalism (like the VVD apparently said).

[Former President tack50]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

Just one more reason why is necessary for sanity and future of the country that new government does NOT involve GL and D666.

Well, what do you propose instead? Other than maybe VVD+CDA+PVV+CU (which would require parties removing their veto towards PVV) or something along those lines (say, replacing CU with 50+ or SGP+FvD) you probably have to include at least D66

[DavidB.]

Why would D66 support it? Doesn't such a measure (forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food) actually go against liberalism (like the VVD apparently said).

Forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food? The municipality just buys food. The question is whether meat needs to be the standard at municipal events. I don't think it should necessarily be, and vegetarian snacks are often consumed by non-vegetarians too, which leaves vegetarians with an empty stomach. With 50% meat and 50% non-meat everybody can enjoy whatever they like. Sounds like a very reasonable idea to me. Replacements for meat do not require the slaughter of animals, have a less negative effect on the environment and barely taste differently from real meat nowadays anyway.

[Dutch Conservative]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

Why would D66 support it? Doesn't such a measure (forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food) actually go against liberalism (like the VVD apparently said).

You're right. It's a crazy and ridiculous proposal. The fact that a party that claimes to be liberal supports it, makes it even crazier. For days the  political debate in Utrecht focussed on the question wether we should eat beef or broccoli at a municipal event that nobody ever goes to anyway. You can't make this up.

[Zinneke]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.

Why would D66 support it? Doesn't such a measure (forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food) actually go against liberalism (like the VVD apparently said).

You're right. It's a crazy and ridiculous proposal. The fact that a party that claimes to be liberal supports it, makes it even crazier. For days the  political debate in Utrecht focussed on the question wether we should eat beef or broccoli at a municipal event that nobody ever goes to anyway. You can't make this up.

I think what's more absurd is that people think adding vegeterian options to menu's is somehow a betrayal of liberal principles.

[DavidB.]

In line with the verdict of the court in Alkmaar, the Court of Appeals in Amsterdam has decided that 12-year old cancer patient David has the right not to undergo chemotherapy. David has a brain tumor; with chemotherapy he has an 80% chance of surviving, without therapy only a 50% chance. The boy's parents are divorced, and while David's father wants him to be forced to undergo chemotherapy, his mother believes in "alternative medicine" and has presumably talked into the boy. Individuals have the right to decide on medical treatment by themselves from the age of 12, and according to the court there is no reason to make an exception in this case. Incredibly tragic.

[jeron]

Much ado about nothing in Utrecht, the fourth city of the country with a population of about 350k, where a proposal by the PvdD that 50% of the snacks at municipal events be vegetarian or vegan unexpectedly received a 23-22 majority with GL and D66 support. This received quite some national media attention as the local VVD kept droning on about their opposition to this "anti-liberal" motion and even called for an emergency debate to introduce a new motion that would retract the PvdD initiative. This VVD proposal was supported by no other parties and received much scorn by other parties, who blame the VVD for creating the impression that politicians in Utrecht only bother to talk about the snacks they consume.
[/quote


Why would D66 support it? Doesn't such a measure (forcing food trucks at some event to serve certain food) actually go against liberalism (like the VVD apparently said).

You're right. It's a crazy and ridiculous proposal. The fact that a party that claimes to be liberal supports it, makes it even crazier. For days the  political debate in Utrecht focussed on the question wether we should eat beef or broccoli at a municipal event that nobody ever goes to anyway. You can't make this up.

I think what's more absurd is that people think adding vegeterian options to menu's is somehow a betrayal of liberal principles.

Exactly. The PvdD proposal only means that 50% of the snacks are vegetarian. That means everyone can still eat meat if they so desire and the vegetarians can have their vegetarian snack. The only ridiculous proposal is the VVD proposal.

[DC Al Fine]

Are the negotiations taking longer than usual or is this pretty typical for Dutch cabinet formations?

[DavidB.]

Are the negotiations taking longer than usual or is this pretty typical for Dutch cabinet formations?

No, it is clearly taking longer than usual. The average duration of government formations since 1946 has been somewhere between 72 and 90 days (different sources come up with different figures). This time I think we're somewhere around 150 already. But this level of fragmentation is unprecedented, and the last time a government involving more than three parties had to be formed was in the 1970s.

[freek]

Are the negotiations taking longer than usual or is this pretty typical for Dutch cabinet formations?

No, it is clearly taking longer than usual. The average duration of government formations since 1946 has been somewhere between 72 and 90 days (different sources come up with different figures). This time I think we're somewhere around 150 already. But this level of fragmentation is unprecedented, and the last time a government involving more than three parties had to be formed was in the 1970s.

Different figures, because of different definitions. Formation of government after elections took 88 days on average, between 1946 and 2012. If caretaker governments (Balkenende-III, Van Agt-III, Zijlstra, Beel-II) and regular governments formed without elections (Cals, Drees-II) are included, the average decreases to 72 days.

[DavidB.]

From today onward there will be a three-week "formation holiday". This means the formation will be in the top-three of longest formations, behind the Den Uyl government (1973, 163 days) and the first Van Agt government (1977, 208 days). Balkenende-II (2006, 125 days) and Rutte-I (2010, 127 days) were overtaken this week (so my previous post was partly incorrect in the sense that we hadn't come close to 150 days already).

[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.

[Former President tack50]

Looks like a 3 way minority government (VVD-CDA-D66) would be by far the most effective way, but why don't the Dutch want that?

A minority government, while more unstable would probably also be more flexible. So they could pass everything. So some issues would see a conservative majority with CU and others a liberal (in the european sense) majority with PvdA.

[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 .

[DavidB.]

I don't live in NL anymore so won't be updating this as frequently as before, but fortunately I see mvd10 is doing this; great posts! My two cents: the statistics regarding the economy are just great (indeed, thanks Rutte), everyone suspects D66 of the AD leaks, and I already learned the Dutch national anthem in high school and we sung it while standing; should be part of the official curriculum.

[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.

[Zinneke]

mvd, what do you think of Baudet reaching the dizzy heights of 7 predicted seats but seemingly not affecting the PVV score? What kind of electorate is he attracting? He seems way too opinionated to attract mere anti-establishment sentiment, so I can't see left-wing voters flocking to him (especially after he drove a feminist into hiding).

EDIT : +1 for Dutch national anthem being taught simply because its a great hymne!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPCozKpuTC8

[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.

[Zinneke]

Thanks for the answer!

I don't think you can compare the FvD to the LR/UMP Hard Right's political figures like Sarko/Copé because of the commitment of the latter to the EU and establishment ordo-liberalism, as well as the social conservative aspect; but I imagine parts of their electorates would be the type to get on well.

I wonder by your extensive description if the FvD is to the PVV what GL is to SP? As in parties that prima facie seem identical in program to the outsider but in fact reflect a large cultural divide found in the Netherlands between inner-city educated people and the ''wijcken'' or depressed industrial regions (I think Joos de Voogd calls this the cultural divide). Wilders's focus on the latter maybe left a gap open for the FvD.

[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