Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Diouf]

In the polling average, VVD is closer to PVV than they have been for a long time. Although, I guess that will not really matter for anything else than optics, but it also means that the difference between VVD and the other potential government parties has increased somewhat, making it even more likely that Rutte can continue as PM.

Quirksmode polling average:

PVV 27 seats
VVD 26
CDA 17
D66 16
SP 15
GL 13
PvdA 11
50 Plus 9
CU 7
PvdD 4
SGP 3
DENK 1
VNL 1

http://www.quirksmode.org/politics/polls.html

[Zinneke]

50+ on 9 seats? I can see them joining a VVD-CDA-D66 government, or at least holding their majority. A scary thought.

Also, VVD will have a net seat loss of close to 14. Rutte is far from out of the firing line, especially if the combined left leaves him no option.

[DavidB.]

Indeed, the VVD is now even larger than the PVV in Peilingwijzer's polling average:



The VVD will end up with around 30 seats, probably as the largest party. Since the 2012 result was inflated because of the two-horse race, that means a "real" loss of approximately 7 seats. This logic is used by party members too. Again, I am hardly a supporter of the current VVD and I will probably not vote for them (am currently inclined to vote SGP), but that would objectively not be a bad result for a party that has led the government for almost seven years now -- particularly in the Netherlands, where governing means losing. I don't think Rutte will be in trouble with a result like that. Remember that the VVD are an applause machine. Unless huge changes in the polls occur during the campaign (which is well within the realm of possibilities, since this is the Netherlands), Rutte is going to remain PM.

And yes, if (big if) 50Plus really end up holding more than 5 seats, they could easily be necessary to sustain a VVD-CDA-D66 coalition from the outside. That would be a big setback for D66 in particular.

I don't know what JosepBroz means when talking about the "combined left". PvdA, SP, GL and PvdD are on 44 seats in the Peilingwijzer. D66 prefer to govern with the VVD and the CDA and are not "left" in any meaningful way. CDA also prefer to govern with the VVD and D66, and unlike in 2012, there will be no large party on the left that is ready to take over control in the event that the VVD end up being too demanding. Of course, VVD-CDA-D66 are in deep sh**t if they don't have a majority even with outside support from CU, SGP, and 50Plus, but Rutte stepping down wouldn't be very important for left-wing parties (GL?); they would likely focus on policy issues.

[Zinneke]

I mean that the combined left + the PVV (who will de facto vote against any government if they are excluded) voting against a centrist government with Rutte as its head is a possibility. Rutte would have to step down if he fails to build a majority. If he has to incorporate GL or PvdA in the coalition his party will hate him.

Alternatively I think the PVV could suffer like the SP did in 2012 when people watch the debates and realise that voting for them is ultimately a wasted vote. They will get 20 seats. Quote this on election day to make me look like an idiot.

[DavidB.]

Ah, the Swedish option. That is, of course, exactly the reason why any minority government has to have an effective parliamentary majority in the sense that the government needs to have the support of a minimum of 76 MPs even if the governing parties' number of seats does not add up to that number. And this is the reason why VVD-CDA-D66 are in deep sh**t if they don't have a majority with CU, SGP and 50Plus. In that case, a Belgian scenario cannot be ruled out, although I must say the flexibility of Dutch politicians after elections never ceases to amaze me. But yes, getting GL or PvdA on board to sustain such a right-wing government (at least on the economy) from the outside is really not going to happen. Basically, the larger the PVV becomes, the harder government formation will be. But regarding Rutte, I don't think there is an alternative to a coalition based on VVD-CDA-D66. Even in the event of a snap election in October 2017, triggered by a government formation crisis, I am not convinced Rutte would have to step down.

The PVV are going to lose some more virtual seats, I think, for the reason you describe, but I'd expect them to still end up with 24-27 seats. I would be surprised if they don't improve on their 2010 result, especially considering the fact that security (as opposed to the economy) seems to become the main election theme. At the same time, I don't think your estimate is a particularly strange one. Chances that they win 20 seats are higher than chances that they win 30 seats, imo (quote this on election day to make me look like an idiot).

[Dutch Conservative]

The VVD will end up with around 30 seats, probably as the largest party. Since the 2012 result was inflated because of the two-horse race, that means a "real" loss of approximately 7 seats.

I could see the VVD end up with more than 30 seats. Today I talked with some colleagues about politics. Some said: I'm not a big VVD fan, but I think Rutte has done a decent job. Its anecdotal I know, but as things stand now: I think the PM-bonus could be quit big this election. Especially when the economy holds out untill march. I could see the VVD end up with around 40 seats. Then a CDA+D'66 (I think many people are a bit tired of Pechtold) becomes a scenario, but probably still some seats short. The combination of CU+SGP could deliver about 8-10 seats, so then we are looking to a 5-party centre-right liberal-christian coalition. At this moment I would put my money on this scenario.

[DavidB.]

I agree. 40 seats is a bit much though: they really maxed out in 2012 because of the two-horse race, and the broken election promises in 2012 have left some PVV-VVD swing voters really pissed off; many of them will not even consider the VVD this time around. However, I could easily see the VVD win something like 34-37 seats. The mood is very positive for the VVD, and they are excellent at campaigning, much better than all the other parties. Rutte's "pleur op" remark (and other parties' outrage over that) already did a great job at giving right-wing voters the subconscious impression that the VVD care more about security than about political correctness, whatever that even means, and that will be valuable in an election campaign focused on security issues. Of course this remark has no policy consequences whatsoever, so it's an incredibly easy way to court voters, but we both know that's how Dutch politics works...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building. (Especially the parties huge underperformance at local levels)

[DavidB.]

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building.

I'm not quite sure I really understand what you mean. The PVV are (or rather: Geert Wilders is) still an extremely strong "brand" among their potential voters and they have a rather high floor in terms of seats. I am skeptical about the potential success of an alternative to the PVV, especially after witnessing the failure of the trainwreck that is VNL. Due to the mere presence of the PVV, the VVD have to move to the right all the time in order to court VVD-PVV swing voters. So even while perpetually in opposition, the PVV exert a certain degree of influence on policy. That said, people may stop believing Wilders, just like Flemish voters stopped believing Vlaams Belang when it was in opposition for too long. If the PVV does not change course, I doubt it will be around in ten years (though an alternative to the/this PVV certainly will). But for now, Wilders will stick around regardless of the election result. It is not as if he has many other options in life by now. And as long as he sticks around, I don't think there is any space for another populist right-wing party or movement.

[Zinneke]

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building. (Especially the parties huge underperformance at local levels)

It doesn't underperform at the local level. It simply decides not to stand at a local level, except The Hague and Almere, where it performs well. Most big cities have a PVV equivalent half-endorsed by Wilders.

We talked about the durability of such a party system (a party that has two members remember, both of them being Geert Wilders), and while I thought that the PVV would implode I now think Wilders' image is so anti-establishment and er, deplorable, it works far more effectively than the "intellectual" right-populism of VNL, especially with the tokkies, white supremacists, and anti-Scheveningen peripheral regions.

His program for the election is a total shambles compared to the last one though.

[DavidB.]

His program for the election is a total shambles compared to the last one though.

It was not his election program but only a "concept election program" aka media stunt. They will doubtlessly come up with a larger election program, which is, indeed, going to be more radical than the 2012 one. I don't know if you ever read the 2012 one, but frankly, that one was already rather embarrassing in terms of style ("bye bye, wind turbines!"). Amusing for sure, but parties should take their voters seriously; that election manifesto was an insult to any and all readers.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by anti-Scheveningen, but the term Scheveningen is certainly not used as pars pro toto for The Hague Scheveningen is actually known as a working-class part of The Hague (though it has extremely rich neighborhoods too), containing some of the most pro-PVV neighborhoods in the entire country, Duindorp being one of the rare pockets of actual white supremacist support in NL. People in certain peripheral (and non-peripheral) areas dislike "The Hague", but when thinking of Scheveningen they will think of the pier and the beach

I largely agree with the rest of your post.

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, a D66 initiative to introduce a pilot in which municipalities have the right to coordinate the legal production of weed now appears to have a majority in parliament. VNL announced that it had changed its position, presumably because their new party leader Jan Roos likes to blaze it. This initiative, which will likely be discussed soon, would open the door to changing the current status-quo (which has existed since the 70s) on the basis of which weed can be sold legally in so-called coffeeshops, yet cannot be produced legally. This, in turn, would be a step toward the full legalization of the entire production and sales process of weed. However, it is doubtful whether the initiative will pass in the increasingly important Senate: the proponents of the law (PvdA, SP, D66, GL, PvdD, 50Plus, VNL, DENK) do not have a majority in the upper house.

[DC Al Fine]

And this is the reason why VVD-CDA-D66 are in deep sh**t if they don't have a majority with CU, SGP and 50Plus. In that case, a Belgian scenario cannot be ruled out, although I must say the flexibility of Dutch politicians after elections never ceases to amaze me. But yes, getting GL or PvdA on board to sustain such a right-wing government (at least on the economy) from the outside is really not going to happen. Basically, the larger the PVV becomes, the harder government formation will be. But regarding Rutte, I don't think there is an alternative to a coalition based on VVD-CDA-D66. Even in the event of a snap election in October 2017, triggered by a government formation crisis, I am not convinced Rutte would have to step down.

A few questions:

1) I thought SGP were a testimonial party? Or does that only apply to participating in cabinets?

2) The impression I get from most of European politics is that the cordon sanitaire outweighs economic concerns in forming government. What makes Dutch politics different?

3) Forgive me if you've explained this before, but why are you, a not particularly socially conservative Jew, voting for SGP?

[DavidB.]

1) I thought SGP were a testimonial party? Or does that only apply to participating in cabinets?

It is highly unlikely that the SGP will actually participate in a government, but I would say that the SGP has moved from being a "testimonial party" without actual influence toward a party that does seek to exert influence. The current political fragmentation simply enables the party to do so. In the past, governments had majorities in the upper house and the lower house, leaving little room for bargaining to parties outside the government. Outside the parliamentary arena, however, broad consensus was sought among various interest groups (unions etc.) on any changes regarding the socio-economic status quo. Nowadays, however, coalitions are much more fragile and the SGP's seats have suddenly come to matter. I would say it is not the SGP that has changed, but political reality. During the Rutte-I minority government we saw that the SGP was willing to lend the government a helping hand, but at the same time it has its own demands, and if these demands were not met, support was not guaranteed. The SGP is currently a "constructive opposition party" necessary for senatorial majorities in various policy areas and would be a likely potential partner for any minority government in need of support.

2) The impression I get from most of European politics is that the cordon sanitaire outweighs economic concerns in forming government. What makes Dutch politics different?

There is no official cordon sanitaire in the Netherlands. Belgium is the only European country in which an official cordon sanitaire against the radical right exists, and to a certain degree one could say that the Sweden Democrats and AfD have been "ostracized" to the extent that one can speak of a cordon sanitaire too (at least on the national level), but that is not the case in the Netherlands. Parties currently rule out the possibility to govern with the PVV, but the VVD would be willing to change that stance in the event that the PVV moderates its views. Currently, however, the PVV are simply too far away ideologically from the other parties to be a partner in government cooperation.

3) Forgive me if you've explained this before, but why are you, a not particularly socially conservative Jew, voting for SGP?

I'm saying I'm inclined to vote for the SGP, but I haven't decided yet. I did vote for the SGP in the Provincial election (and thereby, more importantly, for the Senate) and have no regrets. The SGP do what they say. You know what to expect from them, and what not to expect. There is no party I fully agree with. Indeed, the SGP's views on "social issues" are not exactly mine, but at the same time their worldview doesn't really bother me and their position on many of these issues is either not all that bad or simply irrelevant. I don't think euthanasia should become even easier than it is now, gay rights have been fully realized politically and nothing is going to change in that regard, I am pro-life, and while I think weed should be legal I ultimately don't think this is a very important issue, particularly so in a country where weed is cheaper and sometimes easier to buy than wine. On most other issues, they are spot on: right-wing economically but in a socially conscious way, critical of immigration and the EU without getting "off the rails", as pro-Israel as it could possibly get (anti-2SS), and in favor of religious freedom, including on issues such as ritual slaughter and circumcision. It's pretty good and they never disappointed me: you know what you're going to get. But, as I said, I am not sure about it yet.

Most religious Jews (not that there are many) in the Netherlands vote SGP or VVD.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building.

I'm not quite sure I really understand what you mean. The PVV are (or rather: Geert Wilders is) still an extremely strong "brand" among their potential voters and they have a rather high floor in terms of seats. I am skeptical about the potential success of an alternative to the PVV, especially after witnessing the failure of the trainwreck that is VNL. Due to the mere presence of the PVV, the VVD have to move to the right all the time in order to court VVD-PVV swing voters. So even while perpetually in opposition, the PVV exert a certain degree of influence on policy. That said, people may stop believing Wilders, just like Flemish voters stopped believing Vlaams Belang when it was in opposition for too long. If the PVV does not change course, I doubt it will be around in ten years (though an alternative to the/this PVV certainly will). But for now, Wilders will stick around regardless of the election result. It is not as if he has many other options in life by now. And as long as he sticks around, I don't think there is any space for another populist right-wing party or movement.

I'll try to rephrase, I guess. The PVV (Wilders) is effectively unable to gain power (and seemingly disinterested in doing so after their experience with Rutte 1 - one could troll and claim they are the last testimonial party left). I understand that suits Wilders, but surely some of his lieutenants or subordinates (who can't all be autonomous drones) get irritated that the party is effectively capped in its support? Especially if they look at parties like the FPO or DPP that are effectively becoming part of the government furniture in all levels of government.

Now that I think about it, is there a heir apparent to succeed Wilders as Populist right leader?

[MaxQue]

If the PVV underperform, could we see a post-Wilders populist-right start to appear? I mean it seems like he is really the sticking point in terms of gaining respectable support and coalition building.

I'm not quite sure I really understand what you mean. The PVV are (or rather: Geert Wilders is) still an extremely strong "brand" among their potential voters and they have a rather high floor in terms of seats. I am skeptical about the potential success of an alternative to the PVV, especially after witnessing the failure of the trainwreck that is VNL. Due to the mere presence of the PVV, the VVD have to move to the right all the time in order to court VVD-PVV swing voters. So even while perpetually in opposition, the PVV exert a certain degree of influence on policy. That said, people may stop believing Wilders, just like Flemish voters stopped believing Vlaams Belang when it was in opposition for too long. If the PVV does not change course, I doubt it will be around in ten years (though an alternative to the/this PVV certainly will). But for now, Wilders will stick around regardless of the election result. It is not as if he has many other options in life by now. And as long as he sticks around, I don't think there is any space for another populist right-wing party or movement.

I'll try to rephrase, I guess. The PVV (Wilders) is effectively unable to gain power (and seemingly disinterested in doing so after their experience with Rutte 1 - one could troll and claim they are the last testimonial party left). I understand that suits Wilders, but surely some of his lieutenants or subordinates (who can't all be autonomous drones) get irritated that the party is effectively capped in its support? Especially if they look at parties like the FPO or DPP that are effectively becoming part of the government furniture in all levels of government.

Now that I think about it, is there a heir apparent to succeed Wilders as Populist right leader?

PVV only has 2 members, Wilders and a foundation controlled by Wilders.

[DavidB.]

I'll try to rephrase, I guess. The PVV (Wilders) is effectively unable to gain power (and seemingly disinterested in doing so after their experience with Rutte 1 - one could troll and claim they are the last testimonial party left). I understand that suits Wilders, but surely some of his lieutenants or subordinates (who can't all be autonomous drones) get irritated that the party is effectively capped in its support? Especially if they look at parties like the FPO or DPP that are effectively becoming part of the government furniture in all levels of government.

Now that I think about it, is there a heir apparent to succeed Wilders as Populist right leader?

This happened countless times already, and it seems clear that everyone who leaves loses. Wilders' personal "brand" is simply too strong for others to try and form a successful, more moderate populist right-wing party. Hero Brinkman left and tried it, Van Klaveren and Bontes left and formed VNL and tried it (and they could perhaps win 1-2 seats, but that's almost irrelevant)... It seems people don't want a watered down copy, people want the real thing. Funnily enough, former MP Wim Kortenoeven's departure from the PVV may have hurt the party the most.

Kortenoeven is close to the Jewish community and could not live with the fact that the party wanted a ban on unstunned ritual slaughter (now they want to ban it altogether, even if the animals are stunned, which is even weirder and reeks of bullying). What did it in was the fact that total loony MP Dion Graus made remarks that can be considered classic anti-Semitic, something like "Jews like to torture animals." So Kortenoeven voted against the proposal, left the party, went straight to America and told all the American Jewish PVV donors about what had happened. This all happened just before the 2012 election. Dutch regulation doesn't require parties to be transparent about their sources of financing but it's safe to say Dion Graus has cost the PVV a lot of money. Since he's stupid and crazy (and a wifebeater) and not someone you really want to have around, many people suspect Graus knows something about Wilders that should remain a secret -- for shutting up, Graus can be a moron, talk about animal rights and stay on as an MP. (Of course this is all totally irrelevant to what you asked, but it is a funny anecdote, I think.)

Many people left the party, but none have actually been able to set up anything successful. Toppling Wilders from within is impossible, mainly because of the party structure (MaxQue mentioned it already). Wilders is extremely afraid of others undermining his position to the extent that he is sometimes portrayed as a little dictator. Books have been written about the internal relations within the PVV, and the party sometimes truly comes across as a cult. That is not strange, because you leave everything behind when you start becoming active for the PVV: people lose friends over it, know they won't be able to find a job afterwards anymore, etc. PVV politicians receive a lot of threats too. It all requires a certain level of devotion (and awe for the party leader) that simply isn't necessary to work for (or be a politician in) other parties. By now, I think everyone who would really want to undermine Wilders' position has left already (especially after the "fewer Moroccans" speech, which was not discussed with anyone before and led to a lot of people leaving).

People within the PVV also seem to be convinced that they are absolutely doing the right thing. They are not fazed by the fact that the party is led in what can be considered a shockingly ineffective way (by which I mean that the party could have exerted a lot more influence over policy by moderating style and substance). Of course, there is a lot of group think at play here, especially given the circumstances I just referred to. I don't know what they have in mind -- do they think other parties will eventually come around, do they think they will end up winning so many seats other parties simply cannot make policy without them, or do they simply think they are "doing the right thing" by "telling it like it is" and that (indeed, completely in the fashion of a testimonial party) futilities like power and influence over policy don't matter? Perhaps the fact that PVV MPs earn a lot of money also plays a role (remember they will probably never be able to find a job elsewhere). Maybe they don't care anymore. At any rate, the fact of the matter is that Wilders can basically do whatever he wants. The Dutch left should really feel blessed over the fact that the PVV has become so radical and thereby rendered itself largely irrelevant. And as I said, this is unlikely to change as long as Wilders sticks around. And there is no heir apparent.

[DavidB.]

Apparently, former PVV MPs leaked internal PVV e-mails to the Algemeen Dagblad. I have translated some of the conclusions.

"Fleur Agema is deputy parliamentary group leader and, according to insiders, she has descended in the hierarchy. In e-mails seen by AD, Wilders depicts her as "stupider than stupid". Martin Bosma, for a long time his main confidant, appears to have made himself less popular with Wilders when Bosma - against Wilders' wishes - published his book on South Africa. "Watch out with Martin Bosma," Wilders e-mailed a fellow PVV MP at the time. Both Agema and Bosma were overtaken in the hierarchy by former civil servant Sietse Fritsma - currently deputy parliamentary group leader - and Barry Madlener. Reportedly, Madlener serves as "handyman" to make sure MPs vote along with Wilders: in the past, rebellion occurred on a regular basis - think of Hero Brinkman, Louis Bontes, or Marcial Hernandez. Wilders' esteem of his MPs, however, does not seem to have increased. He regularly describes them as "fools, all of them", the e-mails show. It is mainly the women in the PVV who suffer from this. Not only Agema, but also Reinette Klever and Lilian Helder. In an e-mail, Wilders describes Helder as "crazy enough" to leave the parliamentary group. One of Wilders' confidants scornfully talks about the women in the PVV, who would have "hormonal changes and mood swings." The complaint about Reinette Klever is that she would "cry too much and often says she wants to quit.""

[Zinneke]

The Dutch Left can also be blessed than such a party is taking so many seats off the traditional right-wing parties. The Left is the ultimate boogey man for those voters though. South of the border, the N-VA - who recently seem hellbent on becoming the Flemish equivalent of VVD in all but name - went into the last election saying a vote for Vlaams Belang, our extreme right, was a vote for keeping the Walloon PS in government. Given the 8-9% swing from VB to N-VA, expect a similar strategy from Rutte.

[DavidB.]

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

[DavidB.]

The Dutch Left can also be blessed than such a party is taking so many seats off the traditional right-wing parties.

Interesting observation. I made some calculations on the basis of this idea.

VVD+CDA ("traditional right-wing parties"*):
1989: 66
1994: 65
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 67 (+/-, even if the LPF gained 26 seats -- i.e. CDA+LPF+VVD won 94 seats here)
2003: 72 (+5; LPF collapse to 8 seats)
2006: 63 (-9; LPF to 0 but PVV to 9, radical right to +1; VVD+PVV+CDA to 72)
2010: 52 (-11; PVV to 24; VVD+PVV+CDA from 72 to 76)
2012: 54 (+2; PVV to 15; VVD+PVV+CDA from 76 to 69)

It is interesting that the LPF surge in 2002 did not hurt CDA+VVD at all. CDA+VVD achieved their best result in 2003 and were hurt by the emergence of the PVV. However, it seems that the 2006 collapse of the traditional right cannot be explained entirely by the PVV: the LPF had won 8 seats in 2003 too, so the radical right was only at +1 and the traditional right at -9 in the 2006 election. The 2010 losses of the "traditional right" are the losses of the CDA, which largely went directly to the PVV, so this can definitely be attributed to the PVV. The PVV losses in 2012 hardly helped the traditional right, though: radical right at -9, traditional right only at +2.

So yes, we can conclude that the PVV has taken seats off the traditional right-wing parties. However, the score of the combined right has gone slightly up, since the radical right has also taken seats from the left.

CDA+VVD+PVV/LPF ("Traditional right + radical right"):
1989: 66
1994: 65 (but 3 seats for extreme right CD)
1998: 67 (no radical right)
2002: 94 (LPF surge)
2003: 72 (LPF collapse)
2006: 72 (LPF gone, PVV in)
2010: 76
2012: 69

Without taking into account the exceptional year of 2002, we see that the combined right (excluding CU and its predecessors + SGP) has gone from a 65-67ish number of seats to something in 69-76ish territory. Once coalition formation with the radical right is impossible and the radical right takes seats from the traditional right, this, indeed, means that the "share of the cake" of non-right parties in a coalition becomes higher and that the way to a CDA-VVD only coalition (like in 1982-1989) is absolutely closed off. At the same time you have to wonder if it matters when D66 has turned sharply to the right on economic issues. Let's look at the development of actual left-wing parties.

PvdA+GL+SP ("Combined left"):
1989: 55
1994: 44 (D66 surge from 12 to 24 in this election, mainly at the expense of the left)
1998: 71 (D66 -10 cannot solely explain this; turnout dropped by 5 points and reached an all-time low in this election -- maybe it plays a role? Usually one would assume lower turnout benefits the right...)
2002: 42 (and D66 also -7; it is clear that the LPF won a surprising amount of otherwise left-wing voters, presumably mainly PvdA voters; turnout +7 also plays a role here, though)
2003: 59 (back to normalcy)
2006: 65 (and D66 -3, partly explaining the growth of the left; otherwise, the SP won a lot of former non-voters in this high-turnout election)
2010: 55 (and D66 +7; still, it is likely at least some left-wing voters went to the PVV, even if this does not amount to a large number of seats)
2012: 57 (and D66 +2)

On the basis of this calculation one can conclude that D66 should have been included While there is not much voter movement between SP and D66, a collapse of D66 generally benefits the left and vice versa. What is interesting to see is that the LPF hurt the combined left a lot more than the PVV. "Normalcy", for the combined left, seems to be the high-mid-50s. At the same time, a lot of swings occur.

We can conclude that JosepBroz was right in saying that the PVV is taking off many seats of the traditional right while not really changing the situation on the left -- though it remains to be seen if this will change in the next election: polls indicate that SP 2012 voters did move to the PVV this time around. Because a) a coalition between the traditional right and the radical right has become impossible for ideological-distance reasons and b) the traditional right cannot form a government solely consisting of CDA and VVD anymore (though, to be fair, this was impossible in the 90s too, see calculations), the position of non-right (which often means: "left") parties has become more important at least theoretically. We see it in the current government: VVD with 7 ministers, PvdA with 6; VVD with 3 deputy ministers, PvdA with 4. The left has a larger "share of the cake" in the current government than in parliament. One could also assume that this "stronger" position of the combined left would lead to more influence over policy at least when it comes to government decisions; on decisions taken by parliament, however, the balance has shifted to the right because of the fact that traditional right + radical right now are larger than the traditional right was before. It is also good to take into account that the radical right does not always vote along with the traditional right; the PVV often votes along with the left on issues like healthcare. If it were not for the PVV, right-wing economic policies would have passed parliament and the Senate more often.

This, however, ignores the fact that the radical right pulls political discourse and, indeed, all other parties to the right on its pet issues. It also ignores the fact that the PvdA has not really pursued many "left-wing" things in government. Perhaps we should simply conclude that for all the changes in parties' number of seats, very little has actually changed in terms of policy.


*traditionally, the CDA cannot really be seen as a right-wing party (the Netherlands doesn't do the "non-socialist = right-wing" thing) and while this is irrelevant to the point, I still wanted to mention this. It used to be a centrist party, but it has moved to the right under Lubbers and under Balkenende.

[Zinneke]

Would you be willing to open a similar thread about politics in Belgium, JosepBroz? That could be extremely interesting. I know too little about current developments in Belgian politics.

Yes, for sure I will do some, but in terms of what is going on now in Belgium things are relatively quiet, largely because everybody seems to be in some form of power apart from the Greens, the fascists and the communists - all of which will likely benefit next election.
I was going to start by looking at the referendum on whether we should have retained the King post-war (very interesting divide between republicans and royalists), then look at the Vlaams Beweging's rise and fall and rise again under De Wever, in tandem with the Frenchisation of Brussels and explaining the PS supremacy in Wallonia. Im currently moving though so I will write it at the time im settled.

Good post above btw, some proper political theory. I read an economics/political science paper on the subject of tactical voting and game theory in the Netherlands in relation to the Left/Right divide and how it functioned in the 2012 election. I'll try and post it here as its applicable to most PR systems.

[DavidB.]

Sounds great! Who are the authors of that paper, and what is the title?

[Zinneke]

I didn't really know Baudet or his movement. He's likely self-promoting if he doesn't want to join VNL though. That picture says as much.

A lot of N-VAers go or have gone to the Ijzsewakke, its no big deal. It does help you distinguish between the ones who are clearly pro-independence and VB-lite cordon sanitaire avoiders, like Bourgeois, Francken and Jambon, and then the N-VAers who "don't have a hard on for Flemish Independence" like Siegried Bracke and the other public intellegentsia in the party who don't attend. But in all seriousness I wouldn't necessarily call the people who go to IJzerwake fascist, just historically illiterate and sharing the same platform as the clear neo-Nazi's and neo-fascists. But as much as I dislike the right-wing of the Vlaamse Beweging and admire the forgotten left of its Movement, I can't in good faith start calling them all fascists like the PS do.

[DavidB.]

... this proves why we need a thread on Belgian politics. I didn't even know there were any people in the N-VA who are open about not giving a damn about Flemish independence. Very interesting. Not that it's a surprise to me, because they're working hard to simply become a center-right catch-all party without any principles (provided that they ever had them). I also didn't say everyone who attends the IJzerwake is a fascist (Baudet, for one, is certainly not), but the event itself has a certain "brown" feel to it, doesn't it?