Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: Rutte III era

[DavidB.]

Forum (11 seats), VVD (10 seats) and CDA (4 seats) will start coalition negotiations in Zuid-Holland. But they only have 25 out of 55 seats and would need support from the PVV or from 50Plus + SGP, either from the outside as a minority coalition (which is unheard of in the provinces, where broad coalitions are still the norm) or from the inside. Not a good sign for the end result, I suspect this may lead nowhere.

[DavidB.]

Finally: a proper map with the biggest 3 parties by municipality and the biggest 3 parties by polling station, countrywide. Only a couple of municipalities missing. Enjoy!

[Diouf]

Finally: a proper map with the biggest 3 parties by municipality and the biggest 3 parties by polling station, countrywide. Only a couple of municipalities missing. Enjoy!

Love these kind of maps, especially with plenty of these tiny polling places. In my polling place in Denmark, there are 21.500 eligible voters, so not a lot of street to street information to draw from that. My old place in Maastricht is still just between the GL/D66/VVD inner city polling places, and the PVV/FvD heavy suburbs.

[DavidB.]

Shows once again how the PVV did relatively well in Maastricht and Limburg. The combined score of PVV+Forum is through the roof in these residential areas in Maastricht btw, wow. Sometimes even 50%>.

The polling station I was "invited to" and is closest to my apartment is 40%> DENK. I ended up voting in a VVD-D66-GL polling station in the city center. The place where I grew up is one of these suburbs that, to my dismay, is shifting from VVD to GL pretty quickly.

D66 and DENK polling stations do seem to have the same color. Love it.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Data set is overwhelming so it should be very interesting map but this "3D" effect is making everything unreadable. Is there any way to change it?

[DavidB.]

Data set is overwhelming so it should be very interesting map but this "3D" effect is making everything unreadable. Is there any way to change it?

It doesn't seem to work properly on mobile devices. But on my pc it's just fine. Doesn't seem as if there's any way to undo the 3D thing.

Edit: oh, you do need to click the "klik hier" thing in blue on top of the page.

[DavidB.]

The picture for the four big metro areas:

1. Amsterdam

GL dominating Amsterdam almost everywhere. Exceptions: DENK just outside the Ring in West, FVD/VVD further West on the outskirts of the city; VVD/D66 in the South (and VVD/FVD further south on the border with Amstelveen). North is more mixed.

Almere and Purmerend are working-class/lower middle-class commuter cities and used to go PVV - now Forum do well there. What's more interesting, however, is how lower-middle class Hoofddorp has shifted to Forum, in addition to smaller places like Aalsmeer and Uithoorn, which used to be among the top-20 VVD municipalities in the country. The VVD still do well there, but these are the areas in which the PVV never quite managed to break through where Forum really manages to attract VVD voters who are done with their course on immigration and climate change. Forum also do well in the posh but new-money Gooi, the area around Hilversum (municipalities Laren, Blaricum, Hilversum; they do worse in more old-money Gooische Meren, with almost an inverse relationship between D66 and Forum while VVD remain stable). Forum do much worse in Zuid-Kennemerland, the more old-money well-off area to the west and south of Haarlem (municipalities Heemstede, Bloemendaal). Bloemendaal was the only coastal municipality in the Hollands where Forum performed below its national average of 14.4%. Forum also doing really well in (post-)industrial Velsen, Beverwijk and Heemskerk on the coast, as well as in the similar Zaanstreek area (municipalities Zaanstad, Wormerland). The VVD has occasionally won these areas in recent years, but they absolutely aren't natural VVD areas and middle-class people who vote VVD here (but may have a working-class background and could dislike VVD "elitism") are the first ones to leave to a party like Forum. GL have now surpassed the VVD for second place here.

2. Rotterdam


Still more diversity within the city limits of Rotterdam, with a sparsely populated center, quickly gentrifying neighborhoods outside the center (characterized by both a strong GLD66 and a strong DENK vote), and "on the South" (as they call it) DENK ghettos combined with white working-class areas. The real story, however, is in the southern lower middle-class and working-class suburbs. Hellevoetsluis, Spijkenisse, Albrandswaard, Barendrecht, Ridderkerk... all Forum territory, with huge margins. The VVD do better in the more affluent northern suburbs (Lansingerland municipality), but Forum are in ~20% territory there too. The same goes for quintessentially middle-class" Nesselande, within Rotterdam city limits (on the northeastern outskirts): this is an area where the PVV struggled to make inroads and the VVD was north of 35% even in the 2017 election, but where Forum really manages to dig into VVD margins. Proof that unlike the PVV, Forum attracts such voters, especially in the West.

3. The Hague

The most segregated city in the country - evidenced by the extremely high spikes indicating big margins for parties. VVD dominating "on the sand" in the expensive areas closer to the beach, Forum doing very well in residential areas west of the center as well (like the PVV used to do), in middle-class Leidschenveen-Ypenburg (better than the PVV) and in traditional working-class areas. DENK having its best results in the country in the 80%> Muslim Schilderswijk. The city center is GL-VVD-D66. Some "yuppie" areas that are GL-D66-VVD and even PvdD to the north and west of the city center - those are attractive places to live in.

Mixed picture in the suburbs: Zoetermeer (lower middle-class) heavily FVD, more middle-class Pijnacker-Nootdorp and upper middle-class Leidschendam-Voorburg went VVD but with a good score for Forum as well (18% in P-N, 16% in L-V). Forum also doing well in extremely rich Wassenaar to the north.

4. Utrecht

GL dominating in Utrecht, in some areas with scores in the high 30s. Working-class and lower middle-class vote concentrated in Nieuwegein and IJsselstein to the south and in Maarssen to the north, which are Forum-VVD areas. Houten and Bunnik have turned into middle-class GL-VVD suburbs. Zeist and De Bilt to the east have an older and more affluent population and are more VVD-D66 - but the wrong type of area for Forum. Utrecht has a lower share of people with a migration background than the other three cities, so not a lot of DENK here except for the notorious areas of Overvecht in the north and Kanaleneiland in the southwest (where the attack took place).

[jeron]

Climate policy seems to be driving a wedge between FVD and VVD almost everywhere. This has caused multiple attempts at coalition formation with FVD to fail.

In Noord-Brabant, negotiations between FVD, VVD and CDA broke down over the issue, though the VVD want FVD to return to the table. In Gelderland, the informateur advised the formation of a VVD-GL-CDA-PvdA-CU-SGP coalition. Like Noord-Holland, Utrecht will make a center-left turn: GL-D66-CDA-PvdA-CU are coming to an agreement in the central province. And in Friesland, CDA-FVD-VVD-FNP broke down over the climate issue.

But FVD are still negotiating in Drenthe (PvdA-FVD-VVD-CDA), Overijssel (CDA-FVD-VVD-CU-PvdA), Zeeland (CDA-FVD-SGP-VVD-PvdA), Flevoland (unclear which coalition) and Zuid-Holland (FVD-VVD-unclear).

The negotiations in Drenthe have failed and it seems like there will be a 5 party coalition without FvD. Today PvdA left the negotiations in Overijssel after massive pressure from it members, Which makes the negotiations in Zeeland quite uncertain as well

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile the PvdA in Flevoland publicized a six-point demand to FVD that they would need to sign on to for negotiations to continue. FVD Flevoland would have to disavow Nexit, agree that phasing out fossil fuels is necessary, agree that diversity "is our strength" and distance itself from statements by Baudet about women and about "boreal Europe." Obviously never going to happen and the PvdA aren't even needed with their 3 seats (compared to Forum's 8 seats) in Flevoland: Forum, VVD, CDA and CU can also have SGP or 50Plus join them. There seems to be a similar situation in Overijssel.

Seems as if negotiations in Overijssel and Flevoland were going very well until attention was drawn to the PvdA negotiating with Forum, upon which PvdA members started complaining and the PvdA in The Hague presumably intervened, asking that their provincial branches found an "exit strategy" to terminate negotiations with Forum.

[DavidB.]

Data set is overwhelming so it should be very interesting map but this "3D" effect is making everything unreadable. Is there any way to change it?

It's your lucky day. NRC now has a version without these effects: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/04/18/wat-stemden-uw-buren-in-maart-a3957405.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Data set is overwhelming so it should be very interesting map but this "3D" effect is making everything unreadable. Is there any way to change it?

It's your lucky day. NRC now has a version without these effects: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/04/18/wat-stemden-uw-buren-in-maart-a3957405.

Thank you, and thank NRC.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

To what extend FvD is controlled by Baudet? Is this sort of dictatorial relation closer to Central-Eastern Europe style or other people in party actually have something to say in decision making process?

[Zinneke]

LPF 2.0 in more ways than one then...

I do wonder if Baudet is more concerned about selling books than actually governing at some point though.

[Zinneke]

Popular talking point in the left-wing media, but bad analysis as usual. This disagreement is more comparable to the umpteenth PvdA disagreement fought out in the media. The correct comparison is not the LPF scenario, but the PVV scenario, which Otten thinks is a risk that needs to be avoided.

If you can't see how it seems endemic in the Dutch far right for them to be unable to hold several egos in one party, let alone cabinet, then its time for you to take the lavender-tinted goggles off. It pretty much proves Wilders right on his management of his own party (i.e making it only about himself). The FVD is destined to split at some stage (even if its not now), between its alt-right arsonist types with ridiculous proposals that really serve as a way for the voter to say eff off to the political class and the ones who just wanted a more conservative VVD that doesn't ally with the left.
 

And the idea that Baudet would not aim to change the way the country is being run is just nonsense. This is what his whole mission is about. The same goes for Otten. The disagreement is about the right way to do it.

Well thats the thing isnt it. Baudet might have more lofty ambitions given how highly he rates himself intellectually. Becoming a leading figure of 21st century pop-conservatism vs vegetating the Hague bubble the way Wilders did? Unlike Wilders he doesn't seem the type to actually enjoy the parliamentary activities (poor attendance rates and sloppy minor debate performances). He much prefers the broad ideological debate. A bit like you and American culture wars David!

Also, I never said anything about not changing the country. I think Wilders and Baudet are pretty textbook examples of testimonial politics actually working to frame single issues the electorates care about. Whether they are actually of taking up government responsibility is another matter.

[DavidB.]

Wilders' inability to allow other people next to him directly led to the tunnel vision disaster that caused the PVV to become a useless testimonial party. FVD was founded (and is needed) because the PVV didn't do its job. I really don't see how you can say that a) Wilders was right in terms of organizational structure and b) his party is a useless testimonial party. If you agree with b), it means a) has to be wrong.

Baudet, on the other hand, undeniably has an ego but does allow people around him and values their opinions (even if he sometimes continues to ignore them, triggering the Otten interview). I agree that disagreements between the "pragmatic" and the "ideological" wing may remain an issue. (Then again, is disagreement within a party necessarily bad? Only disagreements on the right are immediately framed as "muh LPF".) However, the point of agreement between the pragmatic and ideological viewpoints is also obvious.

I don't have a crystal ball and at some point a far-right splitoff may happen (in which case I'd be inclined to say: good riddance). But there will be space to the right of a worn out VVD and Forum will remain best fit to occupy this space unless they turn out to be useless in bringing about the necessary political change. Which I don't hope and don't expect. But we will see what happens.

As for myself, I don't think you should confuse my ideological stances on this forum with a lack of pragmatism or a lack of willingness to compromise. I think it is really important that we end up governing. To me it would be fine to do that under Rutte or Hoekstra too.

[Zinneke]

Wilders' inability to allow other people next to him directly led to the tunnel vision disaster that caused the PVV to become a useless testimonial party. FVD was founded (and is needed) because the PVV didn't do its job. I really don't see how you can say that a) Wilders was right in terms of organizational structure and b) his party is a useless testimonial party. If you agree with b), it means a) has to be wrong.

I should clarify : Wilders had the right strategy to maintain a monopoly over the Dutch far right, that is to not allow space for other political  entrepreneurs to develop on that spectrum. He only failed because as you rightly put it, he failed to adapt to modern political methods and began sounding like a broken record on Islam, losing the novelty effect, especially with the media who love (to hate) Baudet. I don't think Wilders was wrong in not contesting locals, or not allowing heavy hitters on his national list, because the history of his spectrum is that it attracts people who engage in entryism or backstabbing with the threat of a new party breakaway - he himself is case in point! If he wanted a legacy, or to become a party of government, it was the wrong strategy though.

But building a grassroots party out of Baudet's personal image and political stunts was never going to work IMO. He and Hiddema got them on the map, but now that their ranks are swelling they are facing an identity crisis. Once Fortuyn got killed his party turned into a flash in the pan. If Baudet is forcefully deposed - which might even have happened to Fortuyn had he survived - I expect the FvD to crumble in similar fashion.

b) his party is a useless testimonial party.

And again, a testimonial party is not necessarily useless, as Wilders proved. He spent the good part of 15 years shifting the Dutch political discourse to the Right, keeping the Fortuynist momentum and framing the migration issue as a civilizational struggle. I think he is more responsible for this shift than Baudet, Rutte and Buma put together (although the main factor will remain the migration crisis in the mid 2010s). Their modern political discourses are products of Wilders if anything.

I agree that disagreements between the "pragmatic" and the "ideological" wing may remain an issue. (Then again, is disagreement within a party necessarily bad? Only disagreements on the right are immediately framed as "muh LPF".) However, the point of agreement between the pragmatic and ideological viewpoints is also obvious.

The muh LPF reaction is because we kind of know already what happens if the FvD were to enter government and compromise on issues such as migration and Europe : disarray, cabinet resignations and lack of propper whipping in the Chambers, causing splinters at that level and then potentially  at party level. I think Foreign and European Policy decisions especially are extremely sensitive to this. Whereas the parties from the VVD leftward can now be counted to deliver on important Dutch FP matters*, I'm not sure the FvD has the maturity  or homogeneity to actually vote on pretty important issues. cfr. The Greek Bailout, which had it been rejected could have caused potentially grave consequences for Dutch living standards. So while parties like CDA were in principle against it, they still took their responsibilities. Can some of the political  arsonists in FvD be expected to do likewise ?

*And Baudet isn't necessarily  wrong in his analysis of a lack of proper opposition to such a consensus. After all he also emerged because Rutte was caught out by a popular referendum  on Ukraine, and in the end the "Kunduz"-style consensus triumphed over a legally legitimate  referendum. But the idea of conducting FP or even fiscal, migration and taxation policy via referendum is unsustainable for a NATO and EU member that has to compromise on these levels. So then you go back to the "whether NL should be in these institutions in the first place" debate. Which would also split FvD.

[DavidB.]

I should clarify : Wilders had the right strategy to maintain a monopoly over the Dutch far right, that is to not allow space for other political  entrepreneurs to develop on that spectrum. He only failed because as you rightly put it, he failed to adapt to modern political methods and began sounding like a broken record on Islam, losing the novelty effect, especially with the media who love (to hate) Baudet. I don't think Wilders was wrong in not contesting locals, or allowing heavy hitters on his national list, because the history of his spectrum is that it attracts people who engage in entryism or backstabbing with the threat of a new party breakaway - he himself is case in point! If he wanted a legacy, or to become a party of government, it was the wrong strategy though.

His lack of relevance in changing policy turned out to be Wilders' downfall, just like VB in Belgium lost momentum and votes (while keeping its core vote) when the N-VA came around and suddenly gained momentum - not just because they were "something new", but also because they could potentially enter a government. After the 2017 GE it became clear that Wilders will never be in a position to have direct influence on the government (as opposed to indirect influence through agenda-setting and moving the Overton window). I don't think Wilders' strategy not to care about local elections was necessarily wrong, but his lack of a talent pool did end up becoming a huge problem. But the main issue with the PVV was always that Wilders operates very intuitively, which could be hit or miss, and, partly because of the draconian security measures around him and partly because of his own doing, is in a complete groupthink bubble, with no one daring to question his course.

And again, a testimonial party is not necessarily useless, as Wilders proved. He spent the good part of 15 years shifting the Dutch political discourse to the Right, keeping the Fortuynist momentum and framing the migration issue as a civilizational struggle. I think he is more responsible for this shift than Baudet, Rutte and Buma put together (although the main factor will remain the migration crisis in the mid 2010s). Their modern political discourses are products of Wilders if anything.

No disagreement here. But it hasn't changed the country's policies to a sufficient degree, which shows the limited success of his approach.

The muh LPF reaction is because we kind of know already what happens if the FvD were to enter government and compromise on issues such as migration and Europe : disarray, cabinet resignations and lack of propper whipping in the Chambers, causing splinters at that level and then potentially  at party level. I think Foreign and European Policy decisions especially are extremely sensitive to this. Whereas the parties from the VVD leftward can now be counted to deliver on important Dutch FP matters*, I'm not sure the FvD has the maturity  or homogeneity to actually vote on pretty important issues. cfr. The Greek Bailout, which had it been rejected could have caused potentially grave consequences for Dutch living standards. So while parties like CDA were in principle against it, they still took their responsibilities. Can some of the political  arsonists in FvD be expected to do likewise ?

*And Baudet isn't necessarily  wrong in his analysis of a lack of proper opposition to such a consensus. After all he also emerged because Rutte was caught out by a popular referendum  on Ukraine, and in the end the "Kunduz"-style consensus triumphed over a legally legitimate  referendum. But the idea of conducting FP or even fiscal, migration and taxation policy via referendum is unsustainable for a NATO and EU member that has to compromise on these levels. So then you go back to the "whether NL should be in these institutions in the first place" debate. Which would also split FvD.

Here's our main disagreement. I think there are plenty of parties in other European countries with similar profiles in terms of policy who manage to successfully strike a balance between ideology and influence on policy. Thinking about, for example, FPÖ and the DPP here. On foreign policy and international organizations, the ÖVP-FPÖ arrangement would work as a model here too. The only question is whether Baudet is willing to make such compromises.

Also worth keeping in mind that the FVD elected officials have been vetted by Otten and are mostly very much on the pragmatic side of the party. Baudet moving right would be a bigger risk for mass resignations than the party compromising. For some voters, this may of course be different. Should Forum end up in the government and make compromises, you'll see some voters move back to the PVV (or perhaps split off and form something new), just like what's happening to the N-VA after four years in the Belgian government. But Forum would prove itself a mature party and, because of it, appeal more to voters on the center-right. However, all this does necessitate that Baudet is willing to make painful concessions to enter a government. And you are right that we cannot necessarily be sure about this. I think this would be the litmus test for whether Forum can truly be a force for change or will be just another testimonial party.

[Zinneke]

I should clarify : Wilders had the right strategy to maintain a monopoly over the Dutch far right, that is to not allow space for other political  entrepreneurs to develop on that spectrum. He only failed because as you rightly put it, he failed to adapt to modern political methods and began sounding like a broken record on Islam, losing the novelty effect, especially with the media who love (to hate) Baudet. I don't think Wilders was wrong in not contesting locals, or allowing heavy hitters on his national list, because the history of his spectrum is that it attracts people who engage in entryism or backstabbing with the threat of a new party breakaway - he himself is case in point! If he wanted a legacy, or to become a party of government, it was the wrong strategy though.

His lack of relevance in changing policy turned out to be Wilders' downfall, just like VB in Belgium lost momentum and votes (while keeping its core vote) when the N-VA came around and suddenly gained momentum - not just because they were "something new", but also because they could potentially enter a government.

Right the N-VA analogy is fair, but there's two factors that we are forgetting here : one is that the N-VA is a broad Right movement, which may actually mean more dissent than in the hard right FVD (certainly on the left of the N-VA), but its internal party structure and vetting process is far smarter than the FVD's that allowed some pretty  arsonist alt-right types to join the party early doors, which they may not be able to get rid of so easily (De Wever had gotten rid of Schild & Vrienden within a day, I don't think Baudet can do the same, without looking like a hypocrite).

  and two that the biggest VB --> N-VA swing in 2014 almost immediately went back to VB once N-VA entered government. And now they are losing to VB because of internal strife between conservative De Wever and more radical elements like Francken.

The muh LPF reaction is because we kind of know already what happens if the FvD were to enter government and compromise on issues such as migration and Europe : disarray, cabinet resignations and lack of propper whipping in the Chambers, causing splinters at that level and then potentially  at party level. I think Foreign and European Policy decisions especially are extremely sensitive to this. Whereas the parties from the VVD leftward can now be counted to deliver on important Dutch FP matters*, I'm not sure the FvD has the maturity  or homogeneity to actually vote on pretty important issues. cfr. The Greek Bailout, which had it been rejected could have caused potentially grave consequences for Dutch living standards. So while parties like CDA were in principle against it, they still took their responsibilities. Can some of the political  arsonists in FvD be expected to do likewise ?

*And Baudet isn't necessarily  wrong in his analysis of a lack of proper opposition to such a consensus. After all he also emerged because Rutte was caught out by a popular referendum  on Ukraine, and in the end the "Kunduz"-style consensus triumphed over a legally legitimate  referendum. But the idea of conducting FP or even fiscal, migration and taxation policy via referendum is unsustainable for a NATO and EU member that has to compromise on these levels. So then you go back to the "whether NL should be in these institutions in the first place" debate. Which would also split FvD.

Here's our main disagreement. I think there are plenty of parties in other European countries with similar profiles in terms of policy who manage to successfully strike a balance between ideology and influence on policy. Thinking about, for example, FPÖ and the DPP here. On foreign policy and international organizations, the ÖVP-FPÖ arrangement would work as a model here too. The only question is whether Baudet is willing to make such compromises.

These parties have been in the political arena for years though, and some of them have experience of government.

Also worth keeping in mind that the FVD elected officials have been vetted by Otten and are mostly very much on the pragmatic side of the party. Baudet moving right would be a bigger risk for mass resignations than the party compromising. For some voters, this may of course be different. Should Forum end up in the government and make compromises, you'll see some voters move back to the PVV (or perhaps split off and form something new), just like what's happening to the N-VA after four years in the Belgian government. But Forum would prove itself a mature party and, because of it, appeal more to voters on the center-right. However, all this does necessitate that Baudet is willing to make painful concessions to enter a government. And you are right that we cannot necessarily be sure about this. I think this would be the litmus test for whether Forum can truly be a force for change or will be just another testimonial party.

You undoubtedly know more about the FvD internal dynamics than I do to be confident that the FvD are willing to compromise. I just think the sudden internal strife put on display is going to be a more structural problem in the Dutch hard right (as proven with LPF, and even before them the Centrum Partij (lol)/Centrum Democraten split) that seems destined to repeat itself time and time again. Its very similar to "Peoples Front of Judea/Judean People's Front" image of the Hard Left in countries like France, only rather than crackpot ideological tendencies its often driven by individual ambition, knowing that the mediatic and electoral system benefits individuals who break away from the "mainstream" or governing Hard Right with political stunts (e.g. Fortuyn, Wilders and Baudet himself). Its not disimilar to the Israeli Right although the religious/secular divide makes that more complex.

The problem is when they get into government this becomes more common place, and they could collapse it over important foreign policy issues.

[DavidB.]

Right the N-VA analogy is fair, but there's two factors that we are forgetting here : one is that the N-VA is a broad Right movement, which may actually mean more dissent than in the hard right FVD (certainly on the left of the N-VA), but its internal party structure and vetting process is far smarter than the FVD's that allowed some pretty  arsonist alt-right types to join the party early doors, which they may not be able to get rid of so easily (De Wever had gotten rid of Schild & Vrienden within a day, I don't think Baudet can do the same, without looking like a hypocrite).

  and two that the biggest VB --> N-VA swing in 2014 almost immediately went back to VB once N-VA entered government. And now they are losing to VB because of internal strife between conservative De Wever and more radical elements like Francken.

I understand why people would brand FVD as "hard right" (and don't intend to start up a discussion on the subject) but it is worth noting that most of its members and elected officials actually aren't. The point is that it is still very much unclear what the identity of the party boils down to. Are we even an RRWP? Are we conservatives? Liberals? Nationalists? Perhaps this sounds bizarre to an outsider, but behind closed doors there is a lot of discussion about this (which is in Forum's DNA as a former thinktank-like organization toying with all sorts of ideas), and in this regard the top cadre (as well as the membership) is more ideologically diverse than one would perhaps think based on Baudet's public statements. Otten's interview should be viewed in this light as well.

I do think the N-VA may be even more of a broad tent and its left flank is undoubtedly to the left of anything in FVD, but I would dispute that FVD couldn't get rid of types on the right that would be bad optics for the party. It is Otten who did the vetting for the PS which seems to have gone very well (no "arsonists" in the PS) and despite the fact that someone like Yernaz Ramautarsing was close to Thierry Baudet and was actually elected to the Amsterdam council, he was kicked out pretty much instantly by Otten following the harmful race/IQ controversy. The distancing from DVL (who attended the FVD summer academy) after the Pano controversy also went pretty smoothly for the party. Otten and Rooken also have a 2/3rd majority of "moderates" on the board of the party (the third board member being Baudet himself). The main hardline influence is Baudet himself.

Fair point re: your second point regarding the N-VA to VB swing following their entering the government (though wasn't the 2015 migration crisis also a big contributing factor? Anyway, you definitely know better than I do.)

These parties have been in the political arena for years though, and some of them have experience of government.

Sure, but at some point they didn't have this experience; regardless, they were willing to compromise. As for the FPÖ, you could argue the organization that entered the Ö government in 2017 was almost completely different from (and ideologically actually further right than) the one that was part of the 1999-2006 trainwreck. I don't think there is an inherent reason why FVD couldn't do this if Baudet is willing to compromise.

You undoubtedly know more about the FvD internal dynamics than I do to be confident that the FvD are willing to compromise.

I'm not confident about this. I hope it will happen and there are reasons to be hopeful, but also reasons to be skeptical. What I'm saying is that if it doesn't happen, it will be because of Baudet.

I just think the sudden internal strife put on display is going to be a more structural problem in the Dutch hard right (as proven with LPF, and even before them the Centrum Partij (lol)/Centrum Democraten split) that seems destined to repeat itself time and time again. Its very similar to "Peoples Front of Judea/Judean People's Front" image of the Hard Left in countries like France, only rather than crackpot ideological tendencies its often driven by individual ambition, knowing that the mediatic and electoral system benefits individuals who break away from the "mainstream" or governing Hard Right with political stunts (e.g. Fortuyn, Wilders and Baudet himself). Its not disimilar to the Israeli Right although the religious/secular divide makes that more complex.

The problem is when they get into government this becomes more common place, and they could collapse it over important foreign policy issues.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that the Dutch segment "to the right of the right" has often suffered from people with Messiah complexes. It is up to Baudet whether he wishes to join the Wilderses of this world or is willing to compromise to actually change things. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong in having a healthy dose of skepticism. But I do think this People's Front of Judea stuff isn't necessarily inherent to the Dutch right: even though the comparison with the French hard left has historically been depressingly apt, I think the cycle can be broken. But we will see how this ends up.

[DavidB.]

Otten has just resigned as FVD treasurer according to the Financieele Dagblad. Completely unrelated to his interview, he says: he simply wants to focus on leading Forum's parliamentary group in the Senate. He remains on the board. Interesting timing for sure...

Meanwhile Baudet has finally commented on Otten's criticism, and he did so in his usual "doesn't faze me" fashion. He says he was "surprised" but that it doesn't bother him much: "it's a bit about the tone, a bit about the practicalities in some areas. We can talk about it." There would be no conflict and no LPF issues and he enjoyed his Easter days: "I enjoyed sailing and sitting in the sun. Easter is also a celebration for Forum for Democracy, it is a Renaissance celebration."

[DavidB.]

Seems as if Thierry Baudet has won the fight for the party. "This afternoon, the party board has requested Henk Otten to step back honorably from his function as parliamentary assistent and terminate his contract after two years of intensive cooperation. We wish him every success in his new role as prospective senator!"

https://twitter.com/thierrybaudet/status/1121081392044171264?s=17

[DavidB.]

Otten hits back. First told De Volkskrant he didn't know about the tweet (which means it wasn't discussed with him), then tells De Telegraaf he thinks Baudet's tweet is "not very clever". Says the party board (of which he himself is part) does not even decide on contracts for parliamentary assistants, that talks are still ongoing and that it's best to have these talks in real life, not on Twitter. Baudet will presumably say that the same goes for NRC interviews...

[DavidB.]

Otten told De Volkskrant that Baudet's tweet was an "impulsive move" aimed to "put pressure" on him. "It doesn't faze me, this doesn't work for me", the former London City banker said. "Our conversation about our roles within the party is ongoing." Otten says he wants the party to be more than just "the Baudet fan club", but that "he might view this in a slightly different light, as you now have seen." Meanwhile, the second FVD MP Theo Hiddema said that the head of communications Jeroen de Vries, who also had a role in the saga by providing NRC with perhaps the most spicy and condescending quote about Baudet, will also have to resign as a parliamentary assistent. De Vries himself, who, like Otten, will also be elected to the Senate in May, said this is not the case and he will stay "for the time being".

Otten thinks the damage doesn't have to be lasting and people need to "stay calm, no panic." In the coming days we'll see what happens...

[DavidB.]

This keeps getting worse. NRC just revealed that Otten paid himself more than 30,000 euros as FVD treasurer for "special campaign activities." He paid it back when confronted with it by Baudet, but still thinks he deserves the money. Otten still refuses to resign and says Baudet is using this to shut down debate on the democratization of the party. Because of the party statutes, 16,000 of all 36,000 members would have to attend a conference and vote for his resignation to have him resign.

[DavidB.]

Otten is out. Resigns from the board "in the interest of the party." Unclear whether he will still take his Senate seat. Says he will discuss the whole affair in detail "at the appropriate moment."

https://twitter.com/hendrikotten3/status/1121476004172713984

Some hours before, Baudet had retweeted this analysis from a sympathizer: "Entire crisis (...) by the prospective Senator aimed to sow division and harm Baudet's authority. Unfortunately, it partly worked - for me too."

https://twitter.com/dennis_dw/status/1121438566482157569