Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[DavidB.]

Yeah, you're right. Coalition with PvdA probably more likely than new elections too.

[jeron]

In the meantime, CU leader Segers said that would not accept an invitation for coalition talks right now. He would advise Tjeenk Willink to arrange talks with PvdA or to let PvdA leader Asscher explain on what grounds/issues PvdA doesn't want to negtiate with VVD-CDA-D66. Only after that would CU be willing to negotiate.

[DavidB.]

No negotiations with the PvdA; Asscher continues to refuse, doesn't want to be in a government with "three economically right-wing parties with 71 seats." Only CU remain on Tjeenk Willink's list, otherwise it's going to be a minority government. Segers is still (rightly) pissed off with D66, so a minority government is by far the likeliest option.

[ZuWo]

What kind of role would you expect PVV to play in a minority coalition scenario? Constructive on a case-by-case basis or fully destructive?

[Dutch Conservative]

What kind of role would you expect PVV to play in a minority coalition scenario? Constructive on a case-by-case basis or fully destructive?

Definitely destructive. I think Wilders likes to gamble and he believes the PVV can become the largest party. He would never work with VVD and CDA to help that coalition, when there is nothing in it for him. I cant really disagree with him on that.

[DavidB.]

If Wilders could strike a deal in which he gets things in return (e.g. a more stringent immigration policy) for case-by-case support that would be very positive. Alas, that's impossible. The PVV are currently untouchable and will therefore undoubtedly assume a destructive role.

[DavidB.]

So Tjeenk Willink's legal framework is basically standing EU policy and uses the same standards as the already implemented EU-Turkey deal. Not only VVD and CDA, but also D66 accepted it, and upon public release of the information even the most important pro-refugee NGO in the Netherlands today said it was, quote, "quite good". Klaver remained skeptical until last week Thursday, when experts on international law and diplomats explained everything in detail. Klaver suddenly turned, appeared to accept it ("if this is it, then it sounds acceptable to me", to the astonishment of the other party leaders), but then he went back to GL and it seems as if the party simply got cold feet and didn't want to be in a coalition, because on Friday Klaver suddenly came up with the additional demand of taking in 25,000 African refugees, which was completely new and left VVD, CDA and D66 bewildered. Klaver retracted that demand during the weekend, but the atmosphere had turned sour. On Monday Klaver came up with new additional demands, which proved to be the final straw.

Last time around Rutte, Buma and Pechtold played nice, but now they have been clear that they are pretty mad (and all the details were leaked to De Telegraaf, which didn't happen last time around). Rutte added that the most left-wing governments of Europe, in Portugal and Greece, accept this legal framework and said he was "astonished". Pechtold said that it "bordered on a lack of political will". Not a good look for GL, would have been better for them if the negotiations had collapsed over a green (environment) or left (income inequality) issue.

For some balance, now Jesse Klaver's version of events. He gave an interview to De Volkskrant in which he explained why he felt GL could not be part of a VVD-CDA-D66-GL coalition.

On the question "why did you make talks fail on immigration when you could have achieved much in other policy areas?" Klaver answers: "what policy areas? If this is about the environment, I never had the feeling that we would reach the targets of the Paris Agreement. By far not. On socio-economic policy I did not see us come close to a compromise either. Early in the negotiations we talked about the loosening of the rules on bonuses for bankers in order to attract banks from London after Brexit. This is the exact opposite of what we want. So we said: we're not doing this. The others thought this was a completely strange position to take. I was reprimanded that I could have this opinion during the campaign, but not during negotiations, because it was so logical that we want to attract these banks. But this is not logical! You want to curb discontent in the country and the first thing you do is giving bankers bigger bonuses. We don't want this type of banker boys and girls. Ultimately negotiations on the formation of a government are about the question: do you contribute to making policy slightly less bad or slightly better? It was at risk of becoming the first option."

On immigration and asylum: "We have been very accommodating. We would gladly strike deals with countries in Africa. 90 percent of the people who currently try to cross the Mediterranean from Africa in small boats are economic migrants. They do not belong here and we want to send them back. The outer borders of Europe have to be protected much more. The distinction should be drawn between economic migrants on the one hand and political refugees and those who flee wars on the other hand. For the first category, you can strike deals with other countries. They have to take back their own people. This is the only way to maintain broad public support for the current asylum policy. But there is a limit, and that is the right to asylum for people who flee wars and violence. We cannot accept the focus on fewer, fewer, fewer refugees. Other parties' position was to send everyone back to Africa and let them apply for the status of asylum seeker from there. They were not willing to budge even slightly. The other parties' attitude was: you have to do exactly what we want and then we will write it down for you in a way that it is acceptable to you."

Klaver denies that others in the party told him this policy was unacceptable: "Of course you discuss things with the formation team, but ultimately I am responsible for this decision and I will never hide myself behind others."

[DavidB.]

Segers and Pechtold are having dinner tonight (lol).

[DC Al Fine]

Segers and Pechtold are having dinner tonight (lol).

So how did the meeting go?

[mvd10]

Segers and Pechtold are having dinner tonight (lol).

So how did the meeting go?

Very well. There will be negotiations between VVD-CDA-D66-CU.

[DavidB.]

A lot of journalists swarmed into the restaurant as they found out where Pechtold and Segers were having dinner. Both had brought their partner in the negotiating team, Carola Schouten for CU and Wouter Koolmees for D66: these two have a good working relationship (worked together on the deals with Rutte-II) and were there to watch over the atmosphere. Negotiations on VVD-CDA-D66-CU, probably with a new informateur after a week or so, will take place, and both D66 and CU seem to be serious about it.

Here's an article in English that you may find interesting regarding the "completed life" (or, in Van der Staaij's words, "done with living") proposal, DC: I usually don't agree with this author at all but think she is right on the money here.

[DavidB.]

Gerrit Zalm (VVD, former Finance Minister, currently working for ABN AMRO) will be the new informateur.

[DavidB.]

The Leefbaar-D66-CDA Rotterdam city government has lost its majority following councillor Mohammed Andal's rather unexpected decision to leave Leefbaar for NIDA, the Islamic party on the council. This happened at an unfortunate moment for Leefbaar alderman Ronald Schneider, who already faced quite some political opposition after an entrepreneur's fraudulous activities had cost the municipality over 8,000,000 euros under Schneider's watch, especially as it appeared that Schneider did not have sufficient oversight over the municipal real estate agency and was therefore to blame too: he should have found out earlier. Schneider resigned before the debate on the scandal was supposed to take place. With less than nine months to go before the next municipal election, the coalition now has to look for a way forward.

New composition of the council:
Leefbaar: 13 seats
PvdA: 8
D66: 6
SP: 5
CDA: 3
VVD: 3
NIDA: 3
GL: 2
CU-SGP: 1
PvdD: 1

[DC Al Fine]

A lot of journalists swarmed into the restaurant as they found out where Pechtold and Segers were having dinner. Both had brought their partner in the negotiating team, Carola Schouten for CU and Wouter Koolmees for D66: these two have a good working relationship (worked together on the deals with Rutte-II) and were there to watch over the atmosphere. Negotiations on VVD-CDA-D66-CU, probably with a new informateur after a week or so, will take place, and both D66 and CU seem to be serious about it.

Here's an article in English that you may find interesting regarding the "completed life" (or, in Van der Staaij's words, "done with living") proposal, DC: I usually don't agree with this author at all but think she is right on the money here.

Had to take the author with a grain of salt (violence inherent to capitalism, really?), but I concur. That is horrific if true.

[mvd10]

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

[DavidB.]

Oh, of course most elderly are doing more than fine. I basically support VVDconomics here in the Netherlands and I am confident that the economic situation will improve. But there's no denying that more people in the next generations will struggle to make ends meet once they are over the age of 60, and making it easier for these people to end their lives feels perverse to me. Part of the expected increased economic revenue should be spent on improving conditions for these people.

[DavidB.]

Ipsos poll today (compared to last poll two weeks ago; compared to GE17):
VVD 36 (-1, +3)
PVV 20 (+1, -)
D66 20 (-1, +1)
CDA 17 (-1, -2)
GL 16 (+2, +2)
PvdA 8 (-1, -1)
SP 7 (-2, -7)
FvD 6 (+2, +4)
CU 6 (-, +1)
PvdD 5 (-, -)
DENK 4 (+1, +1)
50Plus 3 (-, -1)
SGP 2 (-, -1)

VVD-CDA-D66-CU 79 (-3, +3)

SP down 7 seats compared to GE17 is brutal. A rejection of Roemer's decision not to talk with Rutte, but if you vote SP you should expect ideological purity. FvD up 4 seats is less surprising but also interesting, especially since it seems as though the PVV win too. I was definitely wrong when I said, before the election, that VVD/CDA-FvD swing voters wouldn't be a thing. If FvD gain traction this may mean that it will be even more difficult to form center-right governments in the future, while the left only lose more compared to GE17...

[SunSt0rm]

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

[Zinneke]

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

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

[mvd10]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

[mvd10]

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

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

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

[mvd10]

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

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

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

[DavidB.]

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

If you look at the election result by municipality you see that FvD performed very evenly across the country, though they did noticeably better in the Randstad and in Limburg.

Of course, a right-wing party like FvD is going to be more popular with right-wing voters than with left-wing voters. You see that most voter movement toward FvD comes from the right too. I think VNL were too explicit in positioning themselves "to the right of the VVD, but more decent than the PVV" without offering a real vision. Baudet had one, managed to create momentum and attracted all sorts of voters just by focusing on his own ideas.

[DavidB.]

Minister Plasterk (Interior, PvdA) today stated that he will make it impossible to directly deposit SP elected officials' salary to the party. The SP has an internal rule according to which elected officials on all levels of government contribute their full wages to the party and in turn receive a much more meager wage. Elected officials' wages are directly deposited to the party, which also means that the officials don't have to pay taxes on it. This recently led to uproar as it became clear that SP MP Sandra Beckerman lives in social housing, which of course isn't really there for MPs but rather for people who truly have to worry about making ends meet. But now a judge has ruled that transferring the wages directly to the party's bank account is unconstitutional, as it makes the elected official dependent on the party whereas the constitutional principle is that officials are elected individually and have to be able to do their work independently, without any burdens. It is for this reason that Plasterk has decided to end this practice. This will probably mean that officials themselves have to transfer a big chunk of their wage to the SP, but since they will have to pay more taxes, it is likely that the SP will receive less money.