Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

The differences among the Dutch pollsters are remarkable. I distrust them and like to use Tom Louwerse's "Peilingwijzer", an aggregate model of all polls that takes into account the "house effects" of the polls (i.e. Peil.nl's tendency to overpoll PVV): http://peilingwijzer.tomlouwerse.nl/.

Dutch journalists (in fact, most journalists all over the world) don't understand nuances. Dutch polls are useful to see how the parties trend, but the exact seat estimations are worthless, as is the idea of a party "leading" in a poll when other parties are just a percent behind. On the other hand, when Maurice de Hond published a nuanced prediction model for the EU elections with ranges like "3-4 seats for party X", "4-5 with a slight chance of 6 seats for party Y" etc., some journalist stated on Twitter that "this is worthless because it can be anything". Uhm, no, it can't "be anything"...

[Beezer]

PVV in first place according to latest poll:

[DavidB.]

Though this is peil.nl/Maurice de Hond (tendency for underpolling VVD and overpolling PVV) and the seat differences among VVD, PVV, SP, and CDA are probably all within the MoE.

Still, the trends are interesting - albeit not too surprising. It seems that Rutte's performance has, after all, indeed hurt him. He's been criticized a lot in the media, more than normally. The VVD can't afford losing the quite big chunk of the electorate that's somewhere between PVV and VVD.

Some other questions:
"Would you have voted in favour of the PVV's vote of no confidence against the government?"
In favour - 45% (among VVD-2012 voters: 44%)
Against - 47% (among VVD-2012 voters only 51%)

"The CDA is opposed to the new aid package for Greece. How do you think about this?"
Positively - 49% (among CDA-2012 voters: 59%)
Negatively - 30% (among CDA-2012 voters: 21%)
Neutral - 19%

"How do you evaluate the Prime Minister's position in the debate?"
Positively - 15% (VVD-2012: 31%)
Negatively - 58% (VVD-2012: 43%)
Neutral - 17%
Don't know - 10%

"After the next general election, do you want Mark Rutte to become Prime Minister again?"
Yes - 18% (VVD-2012: 43%)
No - 73% (VVD-2012: 47%)
Don't know/no answer - 9%

Mark Rutte should really, really be worrying about these figures. There are rumors, however, that he wants to succeed Donald Tusk as President of the European Council in 2017. As a liberal who is not as controversial as Verhofstadt and who has been around for quite some time, he seems to be fit for the job.

[BundouYMB]

PVV in first place according to latest poll:

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

[DavidB.]

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

The what?

[BundouYMB]

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

The what?

wtf. I meant to type SP, I have no idea where "SocPol" came from.

[DavidB.]

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

The what?

wtf. I meant to type SP, I have no idea where "SocPol" came from.

Oh, okay. But no, the SP isn't. It has 22 seats in the poll of today, 22 seats in the poll of last week. The PVV has 24 seats in this week's poll and 22 in last week's. Again, all of this is within the margin of error, but stating that the SP is in first place in this poll is clearly not true.

[BundouYMB]

No it doesn't. The SocPol is in first place in that poll.

The what?

wtf. I meant to type SP, I have no idea where "SocPol" came from.

Oh, okay. But no, the SP isn't. It has 22 seats in the poll of today, 22 seats in the poll of last week. The PVV has 24 seats in this week's poll and 22 in last week's. Again, all of this is within the margin of error, but stating that the SP is in first place in this poll is clearly not true.

Oh, Christ. Wtf was with my comment. Was there anything I didn't screw up?

[DavidB.]

The petition for a referendum on the EU Association Agreement with Ukraine has been signed over 50,000 times in the first three days. In order for the referendum to be organized, 300,000 signatures are needed before September 28. This is going to be interesting.

[DavidB.]

No changes in the new peil.nl/Maurice de Hond poll: PVV still the biggest at 24 seats.

New ipsos poll of August 27 (previous poll on July 30):
Party (last poll, election 2012):
VVD 30 (+1, -11)
D66 23 (-1, +11)
PVV 20 (-1, +5)
CDA 20 (nc, +7)
SP 18 (-1, +3)
PvdA 14 (+1, -24)
GroenLinks 8 (nc, +4)
ChristenUnie 6 (+1, +1)
SGP 4 (nc, +1)
PvdD 4 (-1, +2)
50Plus 4 (+1, +2)
VNL not polled.

Ipsos overpolls VVD, D66, and PvdA and underpolls SP, PVV, and CDA.

From now on, I think I'm going to stop posting polls from De Stemming, peil.nl/De Hond, and ipsos, and instead will give you the trends that political scientist Tom Louwerse's Peilingwijzer ("Poll Indicator") finds on the basis of his aggregate model of the polls, which takes into account the polls' "house effects" with regard to underpolling and overpolling. The polls are simply too useless and differ too much from each other to give you a clear (and factual) view of the situation, but Louwerse's aggregate model is truly accurate.

Some questions in the peil.nl poll:
- In 2012, the right-wing Rutte-I government has increased the speed limits on highways from 120 km/h to 130 km/h. The PvdA now introduced a proposal (which doesn't have any chance of passing) to lower it again, back to 120 km/h. 57% of Dutch voters are against this, only 33% being in favour. The PvdA is the only party with a majority of 2012 voters in favour of the proposal.

The current situation is an absolute mess, based on a typical Dutch moderate hero compromise. VVD and PVV wanted to increase the speed limits very badly, but CDA wasn't too happy with increasing the speed limit on all highways because of some plants and animals nobody knows, so the compromise was to introduce the following zones: 100 zones, 120 zones, 130 zones, 100-120 zones depending on the time (night = higher speed limit), 120-130 zones depending on the time, 100-120 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened, 120-130 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened, and 100-130 zones depending on the number of lanes that are opened... So while 130 is the standard, on almost half of the highways the speed limit is lower than 130 at least at some point of the day. In short, after a few years, everyone has now finally gotten used to the "new normal" and changing this will only confuse people even more.

- A majority of voters (53%) are against Sander Dekker's (VVD, Undersecretary for Education, Culture and Science, responsible for the public broadcasting system) proposal to force the public broadcasting unions to make fewer entertainment tv programs and more educational, informative, and cultural tv programs. 41% support the proposal. The VVD is the only party with a majority of 2012 voters in favour of the proposal. Only 29% think that the public broadcasting unions shouldn't broadcast any entertainment programs anymore, while 65% think they should keep broadcasting such programs.
- A majority of voters (61%) think that youth trolling broadcasting union "Powned", associated with the well-known shock weblog GeenStijl.nl, should lose its broadcasting time on the national tv and its subsidies. (Yes, this really exists...). However, only 33% of PVV voters think this should happen. There are also (albeit narrower) majorities to defund humanist broadcasting union "HUMAN" (56%) and right-wing, (Dutch Daily Mail) Telegraaf-associated WNL (52%).

Tl;dr: nothing happened.

[Zinneke]

Tl;dr: nothing happened.

I think the refugee crisis is one of the few issues that can drive PvdA to collapse the government. There was a controversial decision to withdraw right for refugees after an absurdly short amount of time. Anything happening on that front?

[DavidB.]

Tl;dr: nothing happened.

I think the refugee crisis is one of the few issues that can drive PvdA to collapse the government. There was a controversial decision to withdraw right for refugees after an absurdly short amount of time. Anything happening on that front?

Every issue that pops up might lead to a new coalition crisis because of the parties' radically different outlook on the world, which is of course very, very different from the way VVD and PvdA used to govern during Paars (1994-2002), but issues about refugees, asylum seekers and the like are especially subject to fierce debate, because PvdA members care very much about these issues while the VVD needs to court VVD-PVV swing voters and show its "law and order" face. (I know you know this, but others might not )

The crisis you describe took place in May, and it was actually about asylum seekers who had been rejected and are now staying in the Netherlands illegally - which might, for many, feel like "the same thing" as refugees, but there is a difference. Rejected asylum seekers used to get some basic facilities in municipalities: they could sleep somewhere, get something to eat and then leave the next morning, to show up late in the evening again. However, the VVD wanted to scrap this after a month or so: illegals should leave the Netherlands instead of being helped by the government, they argue. The PvdA wanted to keep the status-quo. Eventually, after a coalition crisis of a week, they managed to find a compromise: only six municipalities (the "big four" cities + Eindhoven, big city in the south + Ter Apel, a rural hellhole bordering Germany in the north east, where the most important asylum seeker center is - and therefore many rejected people hang around there as well) will be giving aid to rejected asylum seekers, and the asylum seekers need to agree to leaving the country (but there are no guidelines for the required timeframe of leaving yet). It seems like not really much will change in reality (apart from the fact these people will now move to the cities even more often; but most of them already are there anyway), because some (mainly left-leaning) cities already declared that they won't stop aiding the rejected asylum seekers, and some judge already decided that illegals should be helped by the government with facilities that count as human rights, regardless of their compliance in leaving the country. So that's the situation right now.

The issue, by the way, was called "bed, bad, brood" ("bed, bath, bread") in the Netherlands, because these are the facilities that municipalities offer to illegals. Many Dutch people don't have a bath at home, so the wording seemed quite "generous", even though the facilities are certainly not (and don't really include baths, only showers).

With regard to the refugee crisis: due to our geographical location, we're not a top target, like Austria, and we're not really renowned for being the most easy country to get in (we aren't), like Sweden and Germany, so while it is definitely the number one issue in the news and it's certainly debated in parliament, there is no real urgency to change domestic policy (yet).

---

Another topic: the EU Association Agreement Referendum petition has now been signed 100,000 times. They need 300,000 before September 28. There is barely anything about this in the news.

[DavidB.]

The SGP launched a campaign against... adultery. Party leader Kees van der Staaij warns for the dangers websites like SecondLove and Ashley Madison pose to families, communities and society. It shows that the SGP and its media-savvy leader are increasingly comfortable with using modern platforms to communicate their ideas regarding society. Under their last leader, the SGP was often called the "polder Taliban" by critics, but now Van der Staaij was invited to the most serious political debating program in the Netherlands (whereas most SGP members don't have a tv...) to discuss this topic, and I believe many people were positive about his performance. To be sure, this doesn't have to do with politics or proposals to limit these websites' activities (which would have no chance in liberal Netherlands): the SGP simply wants to draw attention for the devastating consequences adultery has.


A billboard on the beltway of Utrecht, the fourth city in the Netherlands. Text: "Adultery: the family game in which there are only losers!"

The SGP financed this campaign privately, through donations. Within a few days, they already raised 50,000 euros: many devout Reformed Protestants have extremely successful businesses in the Bible Belt (Max Weber was right...).

[Zanas]

The SGP launched a campaign against... adultery. Party leader Kees van der Staaij warns for the dangers websites like SecondLove and Ashley Madison pose to families, communities and society. It shows that the SGP and its media-savvy leader are increasingly comfortable with using modern platforms to communicate their ideas regarding society. Under their last leader, the SGP was often called the "polder Taliban" by critics, but now Van der Staaij was invited to the most serious political debating program in the Netherlands (whereas most SGP members don't have a tv...) to discuss this topic, and I believe many people were positive about his performance. To be sure, this doesn't have to do with politics or proposals to limit these websites' activities (which would have no chance in liberal Netherlands): the SGP simply wants to draw attention for the devastating consequences adultery has.

snip

A billboard on the beltway of Utrecht, the fourth city in the Netherlands. Text: "Adultery: the family game in which there are only losers!"

The SGP financed this campaign privately, through donations. Within a few days, they already raised 50,000 euros: many devout Reformed Protestants have extremely successful businesses in the Bible Belt (Max Weber was right...).

Fascinating reading by the way.

Would you say the SGP is to the right of the PVV ? I mean on economic policies it's obvious, but on social matters, how would you place both of them on a spectrum ?

[DavidB.]

The SGP launched a campaign against... adultery. Party leader Kees van der Staaij warns for the dangers websites like SecondLove and Ashley Madison pose to families, communities and society. It shows that the SGP and its media-savvy leader are increasingly comfortable with using modern platforms to communicate their ideas regarding society. Under their last leader, the SGP was often called the "polder Taliban" by critics, but now Van der Staaij was invited to the most serious political debating program in the Netherlands (whereas most SGP members don't have a tv...) to discuss this topic, and I believe many people were positive about his performance. To be sure, this doesn't have to do with politics or proposals to limit these websites' activities (which would have no chance in liberal Netherlands): the SGP simply wants to draw attention for the devastating consequences adultery has.

snip

A billboard on the beltway of Utrecht, the fourth city in the Netherlands. Text: "Adultery: the family game in which there are only losers!"

The SGP financed this campaign privately, through donations. Within a few days, they already raised 50,000 euros: many devout Reformed Protestants have extremely successful businesses in the Bible Belt (Max Weber was right...).

Fascinating reading by the way.

Would you say the SGP is to the right of the PVV ? I mean on economic policies it's obvious, but on social matters, how would you place both of them on a spectrum ?

I'd definitely say that the SGP is to the right of the PVV on social issues, although I'd like to call it "conservative" rather than "right". The SGP is as Christian conservative as parties could possibly get. They are vehemently opposed to abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, prostitution et cetera. They understand that nothing of this is going to change, but that doesn't change their positions. In their party manifesto, they still claim that the Netherlands ought to be a theocracy (let that sink in for a moment...). The SGP is also anti-islam, based on theological grounds. Recently, on a local level, the SGP tried to block a controversial new mosque in provincial city Gouda from being built because of "idolatry". (The PVV would simply have said that islam is incompatible with Dutch values, the neighborhood doesn't want it, etc.)

The PVV, on the other hand, has never made a real point of abortion and they see themselves as pro-LGBT. In a liberal, secularized country as the Netherlands, Christian opposition to LGBT rights/abortion etc. is not going to fly with non-Christians and with "cultural Christians", who happen to be the vast majority of the Dutch people. The PVV stands within the tradition of the Northern European new-right and of Pim Fortuyn in articulating its opposition to multiculturalism from a liberal perspective, even though the PVV sometimes looks inconsequent in doing so (just like many Scandinavian new-right parties). This is a big difference between the PVV on the one hand and Front National/FPÖ on the other hand, and it has to do with the fact that the Netherlands is a lot more liberal than France and Austria. The average potential PVV voter, even if lowly educated and low-income, is pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, et cetera. It makes no sense for the PVV to take a controversial stance on that, and I don't even think Wilders and his MPs are against gay marriage or abortion themselves.

The SGP doesn't have to worry about this. As a "testimonial party", the SGP is not primarily interested in getting as many seats as possible. Its Reformed "sub-pillar" is still in tact: we're talking about people living in the Bible Belt who are part of the same kind of organizations, go to the same kind of schools, go to the same kind of churches, listen to the same Christian music, and will always vote SGP (and they will always turn out). Every non-Reformed conservative who votes for the SGP is a plus, but they will always have the Reformed basis and they're in parliament to represent these people, no matter in which direction the rest of society shifts. Not many people are leaving this sub-pillar, and because of the high fertility rate, it is actually a growing (albeit slowly) part of Dutch society, both in a relative and in an absolute sense.

(Rectification on an SGP-related issue: earlier in this thread, I rebutted someone who said that most SGP voters don't want to vaccinate their children, whereas I said this was an exaggeration - I thought it was only a minority. To be sure about that, I asked a friend of mine who knows a lot about this "world", and he said that a vast majority of people in the Reformed "sub-pillar" still don't vaccinate their children. So the other poster was right and I stand corrected.)

[DavidB.]

The newest Peilingwijzer. As said before, the Peilingwijzer is an aggregate model of all Dutch polls, taking into account polling firms' tendencies to over- and underpoll certain parties. This leads to a somewhat realistic model of the current situation.

In other news, a Dutch combat soldier decided to trade the Dutch military for the Islamic State. At least he will now be able to use real bullets during trainings... Prime Minister Rutte said that he'd rather see this guy being killed in Iraq/Syria than seeing him return to the Netherlands. In March, he said something similar about Dutch IS fighters in general, which sparked much debate with Alexander Pechtold (D66). This time, Pechtold again said he was "shocked" by Rutte's "populist stance".

(Since D66 voted in favour of bombing IS, along with the parliamentary majority and the government parties, Pechtold's opposition to Rutte's statement sounds somewhat hollow to me, voting for bombing IS and now being "shocked" by the consequences.)

[Zinneke]

The newest Peilingwijzer. As said before, the Peilingwijzer is an aggregate model of all Dutch polls, taking into account polling firms' tendencies to over- and underpoll certain parties. This leads to a somewhat realistic model of the current situation.

In other news, a Dutch combat soldier decided to trade the Dutch military for the Islamic State. At least he will now be able to use real bullets during trainings... Prime Minister Rutte said that he'd rather see this guy being killed in Iraq/Syria than seeing him return to the Netherlands. In March, he said something similar about Dutch IS fighters in general, which sparked much debate with Alexander Pechtold (D66). This time, Pechtold again said he was "shocked" by Rutte's "populist stance".

(Since D66 voted in favour of bombing IS, along with the parliamentary majority and the government parties, Pechtold's opposition to Rutte's statement sounds somewhat hollow to me, voting for bombing IS and now being "shocked" by the consequences.)

Pechtold made the point that the Netherlands is home to many international organisations with some sort of legal apparatus, including the ICC. He was basically saying Rutte had abandoned the fundemetal belief in (neo-)liberal institutionalism that the Netherlands has almost enshrined in its constitution. I mean Rutte saying he'd rather the guy got shot up in Syria rather than return to the Netherlands pretty much confirmed what everybody knew : VVD foreign policy is not liberal.

[DavidB.]

Pechtold made the point that the Netherlands is home to many international organisations with some sort of legal apparatus, including the ICC. He was basically saying Rutte had abandoned the fundemetal belief in (neo-)liberal institutionalism that the Netherlands has almost enshrined in its constitution. I mean Rutte saying he'd rather the guy got shot up in Syria rather than return to the Netherlands pretty much confirmed what everybody knew : VVD foreign policy is not liberal.

Theoretically, you can look at it in two ways, I think. It is of course true that adherence to liberal institutionalism (and respect for international law in general) has historically been one of the Netherlands' pillars in foreign policy. However, the current war against the Islamic State is taking place in a framework of international law and cooperation with likeminded states. The idea that Islamic State fighters will die by consequence of the war we are currently waging is just logical, and that's Rutte's point. Pechtold's point is also rooted in the very same Dutch tradition of institutionalism and international law, but it focuses on the individual rather than the war situation in the region. I don't really agree with you that the VVD's stance is not liberal (even though I'm not a VVD fan and I'm not a liberal myself); its stance is understandable from a conservative liberal perspective, whereas D66's stance is conceivable from a progressive liberal perspective. These are both legitimate forms of liberalism.

In practice, however, I wouldn't focus too much on the parties' ideologies: both Rutte and Pechtold are just looking to gain votes. Of course the VVD is populist. Everybody is always acting as if this is something new (I'm not accusing you of this, btw ) but the VVD has always been "two-faced", even when Wiegel ("Santa Claus exists, he's sitting over there!") and Bolkestein led the party. In the 2000s, the party might have reached a low point regarding its populism, but that changed when the PVV started to quickly win VVD voters. Rutte's statement is populist and it has no consequences for politics whatsoever, so it is an easy issue for sounding like the tough guy. Pechtold's "reasonable", "humanist", "legalist" stance is a ploy too: this is an easy issue to be "shocked" about in order to win votes from highly educated left-leaning people, who often don't like Rutte's Wilders-light style.

[DavidB.]

Not going to give any attention to the new peil.nl poll regarding parties and seats, but the separate questions might be interesting for you. (I have to say that my opinion of Maurice de Hond's polls is colored by the fact that he makes tons of spelling mistakes in Dutch, which is just embarrassing for a professional polling company and which is something I'm allergic to in general. His methodology, however, isn't worse - or better - than the methodology of the other pollsters: they all have "house effects". His separate questions tend to be irrelevant or misleading sometimes.)

Note: The results for GroenLinks 2012 voters - all three of them - are not shown in any of the questions - it is to be expected that GL voters are against intervention, pro-refugee, and pro-EU - the latter two even more than D66 voters.

On ISIS:

Do you think the coalition against ISIS [in which the Netherlands takes part] should let ground troops enter Syria?
Yes - 61%
No - 27%
Majorities with every party's 2012 voters (though this could be different for GroenLinks). Smallest majority among D66-2012 voters and SP-2012 voters (54% each).

On issues regarding refugees and migration:

Do you think Schengen countries should reinstate border controls?
Yes - 66%
No - 29%
100% of PVV-2012 voters want this. Majorities with every party's 2012 voters except for D66 (only 29%, while 65% being against). Narrow majorities among PvdA and CDA voters (53%). More support with SP voters (70%), VVD voters (78%), and 50Plus voters (88%).

Do you think the Netherlands should take in more refugees than announced?
Yes, many more - 13%
Yes, more - 26%
No - 54%
Dunno - 7%
Majorities with voters of most parties to take in more refugees. The first two answers combined: 55% PvdA, 69% D66, 53% CDA. But: 2% PVV, 21% VVD, 39% SP, 13% 50Plus. 98% of PVV-2012 voters said no.

Would you be willing to take in refugees in your own house?
Yes - 13%
No - 79%
Dunno - 8%
24% of D66-2012 voters, 19% of CDA-2012 voters, and 18% of PvdA-2012 voters said yes. This means that 300,000 Dutch would be willing to take in refugees - if this poll is representative (I doubt that, because it's Maurice de Hond...).

On the EU and the petition for the referendum on the Association Agreement with Ukraine:

Do you think Ukraine should join the EU in the future?
Yes - 18%
No - 73%
Least unpopular with D66 voters (35% yes) and CDA voters (28%).

Do you think people should have more say in giving more power to the EU?
Yes - 83%
No - 14%
Least popular with D66 voters (31% no) and CDA voters (28% no). Most popular with PVV voters (94% yes), SP voters (93% yes), and VVD voters (93% yes) - a clear sign to the VVD...

Do you think there should be a referendum about EU enlargement? [this is a strange question because the current referendum petition on the Association Agreement with Ukraine is not about EU enlargement per se; it is also not specified as to what countries this referendum should apply; typical peil.nl trash question, imo, because this means absolutely nothing, it doesn't even translate into support for the current petition]
Yes - 61%
No - 33%
Least popular with D66 voters, which is somewhat ironical, since the implementation of a consultative referendum used to be one of D66's "crown jewels". However, this is not really surprising, since the outcome of such a referendum would likely not match the preferences of D66 and its voters. Only 26% of D66-2012 voters said yes. No majorities with CDA voters (46%) and PvdA voters (40%) either. Most popular with PVV voters (96%), SP voters (84%), 50Plus voters (79%), and VVD voters (71%).

If a referendum on EU enlargement will be organized, do you think the government should act in accordance of the outcome? [again a totally irrelevant question, because nobody even proposes to organize such a referendum]
Yes - 74%
No - 18%
37% of D66-2012 voters think that the government should not act in accordance of the outcome of a referendum. I have a hard time not to voice my opinion on that particular stance... However, still, a majority of D66 voters (52%) support this. Most popular with PVV voters (92%), SP voters (91%), 50Plus voters (85%), and VVD voters (77%). Support with PvdA voters (68%) and CDA voters (63%) is more lukewarm.

[freek]

(Rectification on an SGP-related issue: earlier in this thread, I rebutted someone who said that most SGP voters don't want to vaccinate their children, whereas I said this was an exaggeration - I thought it was only a minority. To be sure about that, I asked a friend of mine who knows a lot about this "world", and he said that a vast majority of people in the Reformed "sub-pillar" still don't vaccinate their children. So the other poster was right and I stand corrected.)

It strongly depends on the denomination:



(Table is from the PhD thesis Acceptance of Vaccination among Orthodox Protestants in The Netherlands)

Apart from 2 smaller denominations: Reformed Congregations in the Netherlands / Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland and Old Reformed Congregations / Oud Gereformeerde Gemeenten in Nederland (of which Van der Staaij is a member), a majority of members of each denomination allow their children to be vaccinated. In total, there is also a majority of about 60%.

[DavidB.]

Interesting, Freek

A new round of PvdA backstabbing has started. Felix Rottenberg is the former party chairman and a long-standing party coryfee in general. He has the reputation of being quite a backstabber and his position as a regular political commentator for the popular daily infotainment program De Wereld Draait Door enables him to do so. In addition, he is also in charge of composing the PvdA list for the next general election (but the party leader is elected by its members). In Vrij Nederland, a centre-left serious political magazine, Rottenberg openly criticized party leader Diederik Samsom.

Rottenberg: "I expect our next parliamentary group to be much smaller after the next election. In this group, there have to be five to six new MPs who will be able to clearly express the PvdA point of view to the Dutch public." According to Rottenberg, Lodewijk Asscher should be the next party leader. He is "very keen on becoming party leader. He has it in him." Rottenberg on the negotiations that led to the current government: "Incautious and thriftless. This cooperation agreement leads to the closing of "social entreprises" [for disabled people] and worsens the position of young disabled working people." According to Rottenberg, Samsom's weak performance led to the dramatic losses in the municipal and provincial elections. "We need to draw radical conclusions from that. Men like Samsom and [Finance Minister] Dijsselbloem have committed themselves to this government. They still think the PvdA will afford to do it this way. That is not the case! As parliamentary group leader, Samsom has chosen to play the defensive role instead of attacking the government. He has become the "store manager" of this government." Rottenberg "has never understood why Samsom immediately accepted the fact that the VVD didn't want to negotiate with the SP as well".

Perhaps the most passive-aggressive thing he said: "Samsom is an ecologically driven man who has it in him to make a great minister for sustainability in the next government." Wow...

Party chairman Spekman called Rottenberg's criticism "silly". (Meanwhile, Spekman called out Education Minister Bussemaker (PvdA) for thinking too much in terms of "efficiency". According to him, she needs to be "put in her place" by the parliamentary group...) Samsom himself said that the party has a long-standing tradition for "correcting each other".

Some interpretation: as usual in social democratic power struggles, much more is going on than ideology. Rottenberg and Asscher are both part of the powerful Amsterdam faction within the party. Spekman and Samsom are not from Amsterdam and they are clearly on the left within the party - even Samsom is, which makes his current position only more painful. Asscher is much more of a technocrat and a manager in general. I don't take too seriously the talk about Asscher being able to negotiate an agreement more to the left of the current one. Rottenberg just wants the Amsterdam machine to be in charge.

It is funny that Samsom is more criticized than Asscher, because Samsom is parliamentary group leader and Asscher is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Affairs... But Rottenberg is partly right: Samsom chose to be outside government in order to be able to criticize it and to keep the PvdA to the left, and he clearly didn't succeed in doing so - instead, he staunchly defends unpopular government policies, especially those that are unpopular with PvdA members/left-wingers. That's an honest thing to do if you're responsible for these policies anyway, but it doesn't make you more popular.

[DavidB.]

Today, the debate on the refugee crisis took place. The positions of most parties are predictable, I think, so I won't elaborate too much on that, but if you have questions about parties' stances, of course feel free to ask them and I will answer asap

The PvdA says the Netherlands will take in more refugees, the VVD says that this will happen only under certain conditions. The coalition agrees on "the necessity of European quota" - the VVD presumably wants this because it would mean that the Netherlands would take in fewer refugees.

Wilders said that the "Islamic invasion of Europe is an inconvenient truth". He says that Gulf states should take in the refugees. D66 leader Pechtold replies with a classic ad-hominem: "what is the difference, a man with a beard or a man who dyes his hair?", referring to Wilders' excentric hair color - this is probably the "contribution" to the debate most people will remember. The Netherlands is so lucky to have politicians who act responsibly and treat each other like adults... Oh wait.

[Zinneke]

Wilders said that the "Islamic invasion of Europe is an inconvenient truth". He says that Gulf states should take in the refugees. D66 leader Pechtold replies with a classic ad-hominem: "what is the difference, a man with a beard or a man who dyes his hair?", referring to Wilders' excentric hair color - this is probably the "contribution" to the debate most people will remember. The Netherlands is so lucky to have politicians who act responsibly and treat each other like adults... Oh wait.

I think the moment our countries politics took different paths in this respect was when Fortuyn increased the use of sensationalism and media to get his point across rather than traditional electoral means. Even in death, he managed to attract publicity to the overall political scene, which allowed people like Wilders, Pechtold and to a certain extent Roemer to thrive on image rather than substance. Even someone like Samson was parachuted in based on image and how well he did in debates (reinventing the lightbulb, etc...).

Here in Belgium, we are still very rigid across party lines, everybody has their own little electorate that they are satisfied with, and the only sensationalism comes from the cross community debate. The N-VA were more of a success due to the eclectic nature of their political philosophy (nationalism can be bent so many ways) and De Wever comes across as more credible than the three characters above, hence why he has the keys to power and a certain degree of influence. Wilders is an isolated populist who reacts to news items. He is box office for media but he will never be trusted with power again, and will probably fade. Conversely, I don't think we will see the N-VA under 20% for the next 20 years unless something major happens.

I wonder what you think of it.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

What are CU and SGP views on current situation with mass influx of Albanian, Afgan and Syrian immigrants?

[DavidB.]

SGP's position is that helping refugees "is a part of Christian culture that has left its mark on our continent", but is against "opening all doors for asylum seekers". Party leader Kees van der Staaij said that we should help anyone who genuinely needs help. However, the government should continue to stay critical and reluctant: "Whoever doesn't really need to be here, needs to be discouraged." He thinks it's problematic to select refugees who are already in our country on the basis of religion, but if we are inviting people who aren't in our country yet, we should prioritize Christians.

ChristenUnie is clearly more to the left on the issue. Helping people in their own region is a long-term solution, party leader Arie Slob said, but at this point, the government should take a greater responsibility in solving the crisis - which presumably means taking in more people. It proposes establishing a way for citizens to take in asylum seekers into their homes.

There are not many Albanians or people from other non-EU Balkan countries coming here illegally, by the way. I think that's more of a problem in Germany and Austria, illegals often have relatives in these countries.