Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Zinneke]

I think you provide excellent analysis DavidB, apart from the bit where you talk about a potential two-horse race forming up. Given how unpopular the coalition is (which has its roots in the 90s "purple" nightmare and the rise of Fortuyn) rather than the individual parties, Dutch voters won't be fooled again into a two-horse race and tactical voting, only to see the dichotomy enter coalition together. So SP and D66, who are the mirror parties of PvdA and VVD, might actually make the projected gains. They need to get their supporters to the poll booth.

With the above paragraph in mind, and to elaborate on ''mirror'' parties, it is important to note that all parties are competing for several sections of Dutch society and focusing their resources accordingly. Grosso moddo, the groupings are
 
VVD-D66 : mainstream liberal middle class in Randstad

 PvdA-SP-(GroenLinks) : "forgotten" peripheral regions of the Netherlands and the inner-cities,

PVV-CDA this is controversial given the split in the CDA due to their time in government with PVV but I stil think they are essentially competing for the same electorate or electoral base.

CU-SGP : Bible belt.

Those are where the real battles are fought and therefore they can't be seen to associate themselves already with each other.


There are anomalies for sure, mainly because PVV is a catch-all party, and therefore represents a threat to each patch if you like. In Limburg for example they are competing with VVD in Venlo, CDA in Sittard, SP-D66 in Maastricht and SP in Parkstad. In the latter two's case they came joint first, vote for vote, with SP. Limburg is an anomaly in itself though.

[Zinneke]

The PvdA are gonna get Clegged basically?

No, its more like if Labour campaigned on a populist platform, then formed a coalition government with the Tories. I use this analogy lightly because the last election was presented as a two-way battle towards the end, with Samson seen as the "man of the people" and Rutte as the "safe pair of hands" to choose between. It was a sh**t election because it was based on characters and fear politics ("don't let xyz into government!") rather than policies and people convienently forgetting how Dutch politics works. Remember that your vote is rarely wasted here unlike in Britain and France so there is nothing to lose by voting for a minor party. I guess people got tired of big coalitions. That worked out well.

PvdA need to regain the peripheral regions and industrial communities they gained from SP towards the end of that election, largely thanks to Samson. They used to have the North tied up to a tee and they used to get solid results in Limburg and Brabant industrial cities and towns. They still have somewhat good results in Ranstad inner cities that can be recovered once people remind themselves what the point of D66 is.

DavidB is very positive and upbeat about VVD for obvious reasons, but that won't change is the fact that they will still have lost half their seats as things stand. In the old ways of doing Dutch politics you reward the "winners" and punish the "losers", according the net seats they have gained or lost. Losing 20 seats counts as a loss IMO. If they are the ''largest'' party as Rutte's fratboys will tell you, it will be because the left is totally fractured.

I think Rutte's biggest mistake was ruling out another coalition with the PVV. He only has one option now and that's VVD-CDA-D66. He'll be going into negotiations as a "loser", the other two on his left as big winners, and his core electorate are generally speaking the right-wing of his party.

So yeah, DavidB is pushing the two-horse race more in hope than expectation I imagine...

Possibly stupid question: why are the purple cabinets of the 90s so widely regarded as "a nightmare"?

Because Fortuyn wrote a book about it called "the Purple Nightmare" and Fortuyn is God.

EDIT : My mistake, here is the book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_puinhopen_van_acht_jaar_Paars

[Zinneke]

Yeah, I thought Wim Kok was super popular?

Again, I would say its less the individuals and parties in question that are unpopular and more the configuration and having to share government with the class of society you think is responsible for all of the NL's problems.

Keep in mind the VVD during the 90s wasn't nearly as conservative, and D66 joined midway, so Kok's supporters thought they were getting the good deal out of it, while some core VVD were pissed. Many voters had switched to VVD from CDA too, so they didn't mind Purple at the time, thinking it would move the country's politics into the 21st century (and it did).

Today, it is the opposite. The PvdA is structurally a more right-wing party so VVD voters, while annoyed at having to share power with lefties, think they are getting a good deal on it, particularly on the socio-economic level. Either way unlike in the nineties people didn't expect to vote for the two parties only to realise they are going to enter coalition together. The last election was all about making sure Samson beat VVD from the PvdA's perspective. Once all the Kunduz club made it clear that they would not enter coalition with SP, Samson went into every election debate with his stupid lightbulb and said "let's make sure we beat the VVD on a moderate left platform so they can't let in the fascists again". There's your reason why PvdA are crashing right now.

Purple just doesn't work, whichever way you look at it. When Kunduz called themselves Paars+ every man and his dog went apesh**t in the NL and called for Fortuyn to be revived from the dead. In flanders they had purple for about the same length of time and it brought about first record gains for Vlaams Blok and then De Wever-mania. In Wallonia last year people were expecting MR to get a look in due to their improvement (net seat gain is important) only to realise how much PS and MR despise each other on a personal level.

[Zinneke]

Huh? I'm not a big VVD fan at all. I didn't vote for them in 2012 and I will most certainly not vote for them in the next election, so by all means continue criticizing my perspective on the political situation, which might be perfectly legitimate, but please do so without assuming things about my position that simply aren't true. My perspective on the Dutch political situation has nothing to do with me wanting the VVD to "win" the elections or something like that.

Woah sorry, I thought I had read above that you were a VVD-supporter.

A lot of their militants around here push the Right vs Left, two horse race line around here, unaware of the irony...

On a lighter note, does the Party of the Future still exist?

[Zinneke]

50+ and Senior parties all over the land gaining ground, as well as a disastrous young voter turnout, have obviously pushed parties such as VVD, PVV, PvdA and SP to swing towards them with bribes while they cut education. CDA and SGP are already comforatble appealing to traditionalists. Politics is a competitive market and votes are their currency. The scared, elderly vote is gold in times like these.

[Zinneke]

I'm intrigued as to when the transformation of D66 from democratic pluralism to a rather fervent brand of social liberalism occured, was it in tandem with the PvdA's swing to social liberalism in the early 90s?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Zinneke]

Unlike the N-VA and Vlaams Belang, as well as other 'new right' forces in Europe, Wilders has no base whatsoever in local and regional governments. People forget that Wilders' party was born out of a parliamentary defection that attracted a lot of attention. He then started a complete path of political stunts to attract various types of electorates that I went into detail at the start of the thread. He still has no local party organisms, and his strong regional results probably coincide with the same election of a national chamber on the same day.

At best the typical structures he can rely on are the scared elderly, the people who still believe in Fortuyn's core anti-Islam message and the intellectual baggage around it (which is far from a flawed political philosophy given current events, but not enough to constitute a genuine reliable electorate in the long run), and anti-globalists who are also anti-leftist. There's no way the Netherlands hasn't benefited from globalisation.

I know it is clichéd to say the 'new right' movement is a flash in the pan in Europe, but in the Dutch case the PVV will probably not exist in ten years time. Another party will take its place, that is either currently standing or will be born out of another round of VVD defection and crucially, the growing number of local parties that adopt a few 'New Right' ideas. This started with the Leefbaar movement.  

[Zinneke]

Possibly heading off-topic, but why is it that Flanders has a heavy amount of populist-rightism, but Wallonia doesn't?

A few factors i can think of :

1/ No Walloon identity. You will find it hard to find anyone who responds ''Walloon'' when you ask them where you are from here. Completely different to Flanders, which is a homogeous nation. Very little ethnic nationalism, Walloons seem to me to be adherents to the moderate Castillan ''poquito nacion'' concept of only caring about your close environment rather than grandiose forms of nationalism.

2/ Previous "Front National" was a total shambles and dissolved before it could ride on the "Bleu Marine" wave (which is popular here in Belgium, more than you think). Its successors were ''La Droite'' (mainstream new right but claims to be the equivalent of the French centre-right, which is essentially political suicide in Wallonia), Parti Populaire (Wilders-esque rank and file populism with Modrikamen as their cult leader, anti-Islam), Debout Les Belges (Laurent Louis leading the anti-Zionist charge). Basically they are too busy arguing who to hate more (muslims or jews) to form a united ''New Right'' party with at least a degree of sane rhetoric a la Wilders, Le Pen.

3/ In many ways, Walloons who lost out due to globalisation realise that the problem wasn't European integration (that if anything preserved their coal and steel industries), but global capitalism as whole. The conservative right-wing parties like Partie Populaire are openly free market liberals.

4/ Masterful politicking by the de facto party of government, PS, who play any Walloon inferiority complex to a tee on the federal level.

[Zinneke]

1. Flanders is wealthier but thats a more recent thing, Wallonia used to be the industrial heart of Belgium and was more wealthy, However post 1970s when deindustrialization in most of the west became a long-term trend. It was flipped, the flemish who weren't dependent on industry and developed a better Services economy to compensate, flourished in the aftermath.  More wealthier = more right of centre leaning.

Yes, this is partly true, I forgot to mention this. Flanders skipped its industrialisation phase and specialised in services and developing its port in Antwerp (with Walloon funding). Its agrarian roots explain why the CVP (Catholics or ''Tjeven'' as some like to call them) were so dominant until the early 2000s when Flanders' urban service economy took off. CD&V (CVP's successor) transformed themselves for the farmers party into a standard right of centre, light nationalist party to compensate this.

Walloon socialism has its roots in old school marxist theory in places like Liege and Charleroi (mainly the former), that Marx himself used as an example of working class exploitation. Since there ain't much else in Wallonia apart from the 3 big cities and the small mining and steel towns surrounding them, its very hard to look past Marxism as a way to emancipate yourself from industrial conditions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why exclusively Flemish? Wealth redistribution is something that happens all over Europe in some shape or form. Transfers from Flanders to Wallonia only became a thing because the Flemish demanded a federal state. Very easy for them to paint it as transfers between two nations that they constructed rather than redistribution of wealth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, we've arrived at the ultimate confusion of a Francophone Bourgeois Fleming and ''Wallonians'' who while the Flemish were living in agrarian misery, were down in the coal mine living their own form of misery, with disgusting housing conditions. But because the coal miners spoke the same language as the Flemish elite, they are obviously the same people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but there are reasons for this, and this has nothing to do with the fact that there hasn't been a 'New Right' party that has made considerable gains in Wallonia, given that industrial communities in neighbouring Pas-de-Calais, Flanders and Limburg have all swung from left to New Right parties.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't personally believe in preserving old inefficient industries, hence why I voted Ecolo in the last election rather than the PTB/PVDA, despite the stigmatisation the Greens got for their  ups in the regional government.

I do think however you are fairly clueless as to how the average Walloon in places like Borinage, Liege and Namur feels. It is the same feeling the people in Genk has when they lost Ford. The Walloons are french-speaking, and Genkies are flem..whatever that is they speak, people like to paint ridiculous narratives about the lazy Walloon socialist vs the hard working middle class Fleming. But them Walloons deserve that given that they speak the same tongue as the Flemish elite.

Therefore I understand totally why PS and PTB's scores have only gone up despite them being in some form of government for the good part of 3 decades. Poor people vote for parties that look after the poor. Shocker. What we're trying to figure out is why a New Right party hasn't tapped into this working class electorate in the same way FN and PVV have.

[Zinneke]

Good contribution I found it especially interesting that you said that Marine Le Pen is popular in Wallonia. I didn't know that. To me, it just seems like the conditions for a successful new-right party are present in Wallonia.

I wouldn't say the Le Pen family are popular in Wallonia, rather the New Right movement in France being seen a legitimate political force in the face of mass PS, Ecolo, Cdh and MR disgust with the New Right movement and populism in general. If there were still an FN party in Belgium they would get something like 5-10% (based on what the split far right got last time), which given the high voter turnout (Belgians are forced to vote) is really impressive.

On this subject, scholars like Simon Hix who say voter turnout doesn't matter ought to look at Belgium and Luxemburg and see just how static some parts of the electorate are. Belgium may seem like a volatile place but overall we haven't seen massive changes apart from the rise of the N-VA, which as I explained is as much down to them setting up a proper, functioning political party from top to bottom, adapted to the modern world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, hundred per cent agree with this. It was the Flemish parties who decided to split from their Walloon counterparts and create parties specifically tailored to flanders (with 'Flemish' in their names...CD&Vlaams, Open Vlaams liberalen democraten, etc). None of the Walloon parties employ any kind of identity politics. FDF in Brussels is the only one I can think of, and their party leader announced today that they will drop the Francophone in their name to target Flemish speakers in Brussels (and as much as I respect FDF, good luck with that...).

[Zinneke]

Didn't D66 use to hate, like absolutely loathe, the CDa?

Nah. In the 80s and the early 90s, yes, when the CDA was still the pivotal party. But the CDA's power as a pivotal party has been broken, which was essential to D66's founders ("breaking the system"), and most of D66's "crown jewels" in order to democratize the country have been implemented. What's more, the traditional culture wars on "social issues" (which D66 waged fanatically and which the CDA tried to hold back) are now over in the Netherlands. I could see a liberalization of our euthanasia policies and a liberalization (legalization) of our marijuana policies happening, somewhere in the future, but it doesn't really matter to most people anymore. We already have same-sex marriage and liberal trans laws, women can have an abortion, we might have the most liberal euthanasia policy after Belgium, and even if marijuana and XTC aren't "legalized" you can smoke up and pop pills as much as you want if you really like to do so (for instance, the nearest "coffee shop" is within 250 meters from my house and it's still open ). And even if the CDA isn't okay with all of this (though they're okay with some of it, such as abortion and SSM), they know it's not going to change anymore (and they never talk about these issues). All they can do is preventing it from becoming even more liberal.

CDA and D66 are quite different in terms of electorate, tone, and focus, but apart from the "social issues" that don't matter anymore anyway, they very much see eye to eye with each other: on the economy, on the EU, to some extent on immigration... Marijuana definitely won't be a dealbreaker. CDA and D66 might very well be the two parties that could most easily work together in a government right now: many overlap in policies yet not a lot of people who would be tempted to switch between these two parties.

D66 went into the 1994 election with the slogan ''let's put the CDA in opposition''. They won 24 seats. If you look at their militants today there is a clear difference of opinion, to put it lightly. They don't like each other. Old vs new politics.

Those clear divisions in the grassroots and the old grudges will make them working with each other harder than you make out. Particularly as the CDA is taking a socially rightward swing under their new leader.

[Zinneke]

Re: DavidB's hypothesized minority cabinet.

Wouldn't this sort of thing play right into PVV's hand? At some point a cordon sanitaire just looks like ignoring the legitimate will of the people. Would it not be more prudent to let PVV form a government and let the difficulties of power take them out?

There is no cordon sanitaire with PVV. I can understand why you would think that given the situation presented to you (ie PVV largest party but not in government). They have brought their political isolation upon themselves, mainly after their last stint supporting then collapsing the VVD-CDA government. Those were always going to be their only realistic coalition partners. The reason there is a cordon sanitaire here in Belgium is because Vlaams Blok/Vlaams Belang have historical quasi-fascist or outright collaborationist roots. Had the old Centrumpartij been resurrected they would have a cordon sanitaire. PVV are not a successor partty to the Centrumpartij or TROTS Nederland. They are a successor party to the LPF.
 
Even if PVV win a plurality, they will never win a big enough majority to be able to take full responsibility for whatever problems they may ensure, barring extraordinary circumstances.  
The reason the PVV's score went down is because most sane PVV voters were happy with the PVV's role, that they subsequently blew by collapsing the government. Then the election was presented as Left vs Right. (Thankfully, IMO) this won't be the case again, and people will vote for the parties they feel represent them best. If that's the PVV for a plurality of dutchmen so be it. Doesn't mean you should exile the political parties on the left by prioritising the PVV for winning a plurality (of about 30%)


Regardless, one thing we are forgetting is that the King will nominate the first formateur and he will pick the party with a plurality, which will be the PVV. Wilders will have a fair crack of the whip. But DavidB is right, the most realistic coalition now is CDA-VVD-D66. It will be a government similar to ours in Belgium. The CDA and their social wing will suffer the most out of that, but not as much as when they allied with PVV. The other two are in dreamland. I still think VVD should be punished for losing half their electorate, but clearly Rutte won't go away. And I still think D66-CDA will be the main source of tension in that coalition, but DavidB is pretty spot on in his post above. I just don't think their characters will get along both in high and grassroots politics.

[Zinneke]

That actually reminds me of the guy who killed Fortuyn, Volkert van der Graaf (Fortuyn's murderer) was a  leftist environmental activist who saw Fortuyn as a threat to the weakest members of the society (muslims, refugees, people living from welfare). The only real threat to society and democracy was van der Graaf himself though. Van der Graaf actually was released not too long ago and there already is a lot of controverse about him living on welfare and violating some rules. I really hope he goes back to jail again, like a talkshow host said: 'You either hate Volkert or you are him.'

Yes, the same ''hero complex'' applies both to left and right-wing extremists, and I think this is what makes them worthy of the term (rather than ideology) : in order to ''protect'' other people's rights, they intend to infringe upon others. With Van der Graaf, or the extreme left, it is the silencing of certain political figures through violent/forceful means. With Wilders and the extreme right it is a return to one set of right-infringing values by selling the idea that the alternative is a progress towards a different set of values that are incompatible with the current ones (Islam).

The difference is that the perceived extreme left do not create the same climate that the extreme right does (all over Europe), that encourages such violence. When Le Pen comes out saying the current situation is like Nazi-occupied France, or Wilders actually outright believes the Dutch people are at war after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, they outright encouraging violence - to be perpetrated by unhinged people like VDG. As much as Fortuyn was supposedly demonised, and I have no reason to believe he was given the attention surrounding him, no prominent SP or GroenLinks member came out and said Fortuyn was Hitler's second coming. That was Van Der Graaf himself who came up with this idea through perfectly reasonable associations to Hitler/Mussolini that are made whenever a member of the hard/ extreme Right turns up.

[Zinneke]

No, Wilders and Le Pen are not encouraging violence by merely articulating people's ideas. As much as you may dislike them, they have always denounced violence. Also, many prominent mainstream party politicians actually did draw WWII comparisons when Fortuyn showed up: Thom de Graaf (D66), for instance, made a speech in which he cited Anne Frank's diary, clearly comparing Fortuyn to Hitler. Sorry, but your version of events regarding the Fortuyn murder is simply factually wrong and, quite frankly, a bit bizarre.

Interesting logical fallacies here :

- Articulating people's ideas automatically discourages you from engaging in the encouragement of political violence, either consciously or unconsciously. The People are Always Right (in every sense of the word). Go figure.
- Saying things like you are living under occupation or are at war, have apparently no implicit link to the subsequent justification of violence used by right-wing terrorists like Breivik and the German guy, or the proportionately higher amounts of violence towards Muslims in France than another minority such as Jews ( yet reactionaries such as Finklekraut and Zemmour maintain that France is a more anti-semitic society than it is anti-muslim, while FN rides on its new ''We will protect the Jews from Islam'' image, ten years after Le Pen snr made his oven jokes).
- Citing Anne Frank's diary in a speech has the same demonising value as saying you are living under occupation or at war.

Nobody of the main leftist parties called Fortuyn Hitler and nobody suggested, ever, that he should or would be physically stopped. Some, admittedly, compared his method and his rise to power through ''fear mongering'' tactics. How is that the same as explicitly stating that you are under occupation or at war?

[Zinneke]

There is a difference between the voting constituencies of PvdD and GroenLinks. GroenLinks attracts inner-city creatives, students, and some "young urban professionals". The PvdD has two core constituencies. One consists of largely the same people that GL attracts, minus the students. Add to this first PvdD constituency rich people in rich suburbs (sometimes somewhat older), mainly women, who could otherwise vote for D66 or for the VVD (yes, electoral competition between the PvdD and the VVD is a thing; some rich people love the environment, are "progressive", but don't like to be taxed). This constituency consists of generally highly educated people in the Randstad metro area who are concerned about the environment and animal rights. A second constituency, however, seems to be very different: the PvdD continues to attract a sizeable amount of working-class protest voters in peripherical areas, for instance in Limburg. Many people lost their trust in politicians. Voting for a party that supports animal rights and poses an alternative to "the system" seems both harmless and a signal to "The Hague".

DO you have a source for PVdD being a protest party? Their vote is almost entirely urban. Their results in Limburg and Brabant are pathetic outside standard progressive cities.

As someone who lived in Limburg let me tell you how people saw Dutch politics from there. There are Hollander parties (VVD, GroenLinks, D66, PvdD) that are not worth voting for. Then there are traditional parties who are good mates with everyone and shake the right people's hands to get thheir solid results (CDA, PvdA). Now there are **** off Holland and globalisation parties (PVV, SP). These will do the strongest in Limburg if it doesn't pick itself up, and the old people who voted for Timmermans and the CDA go six foot under.

[Zinneke]

If we're talking South Limburg then you have to take into account Maastricht, where animal rights issues have been at the forefront of the community's political debate in recent years. 4% PvdD in the last election there brings their average up.

[Zinneke]

I'm surprised they call Limburgers belgians given that both countries call Limburgers ''moffen''.

Otherwise its spot on.

[Zinneke]

If we are talking conflict of interests, why don't we just disqualify half of parliament for their private holdings in the business world. Just as damaging as holding dual citizenship.

[Zinneke]

del

[Zinneke]

They don't want the monarch to select the mayors either. They want directly elected mayors. Seems logical to me.

[Zinneke]

It's not just the logistics, it's the fact that many mayors are parachuted into communities they know nothing about and switch municipalities for careerism. Case point : Limburg and Friesland. Hollander mayors have been less than welcome there.

D66 used to be big into direct democracy and emphasis on radical forms of democratisation. They also were in favour of toppling traditional forms of governmental and non-governmental power, including the Churches. As DavidB explained earlier in the thread, they switched to social liberalism as a creed. Pechtold is part of the branch of D66ers who would have been in the other "liberal" party, the VVD, if it weren't for VVDs rightward swing and D66's conversion to social liberalism.

D66 are the closest party to the LibDems I have seen thus far, if the Brits need a proper comparison. They're famous for selling out their electorate too. The times they come close to government usually end up in a bloodbath come the next election, largely due to perceived antics during the negotiation process. Sound familiar?

[Zinneke]

I think you shouldn't be ashamed of plural societies. I understand the British, majoritarian way way doing things (ie they hate coalitions, like certainty and good governance, even if it means a clear democratic deficit), but Dutch electorates can't be aggregated into Left or Right, and when they have been you get very unpopular governments like the one currently in place.