PDA

View Full Version : Dutch Elections


Sarevok
06-10-2010, 03:05 AM
Results with 98% of the vote counted:
Previously ruling party of Christian Democrats has been reduced from 42 to around 20 seats; party leader resigns.
Liberals win the elections going from 20 to 32 seats.
Labour comes in a close second at 31.
Freedom Party goes from 9 to 24 seats. :eek:
Pirate Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_of_the_Netherlands)doesn't gain a single seat. :(

CNN on Dutch Eletions. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/09/netherlands.elections/index.html)

Isabel
06-10-2010, 08:07 AM
:( I will be really depressed if it will be a CDA, VVD, PVV coalition.......

Stupid election, stupid pvv voters...........

Davian93
06-10-2010, 08:35 AM
So, is this a good thing or bad thing? Guessing from the names (always dangerous with European politics) it sounds like a progressive liberal gov't is getting elected.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-10-2010, 08:36 AM
:( I will be really depressed if it will be a CDA, VVD, PVV coalition.......

Stupid election, stupid pvv voters...........

who was it that didn't vote for the party you actually wanted to vote for but voted more strategically? :p

then again, I'm not a citizen so I don't even get a vote.

*mutter* bad yks, back to work! *mutter*

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 09:17 AM
So, is this a good thing or bad thing? Guessing from the names (always dangerous with European politics) it sounds like a progressive liberal gov't is getting elected.

I read it as a move to the right. The far right xenophobe party picked up 13 of the 20 seats lost by the center-right CDA.

Of course neither CNN or wikipedia give a really clear picture of where anyone but the Freedom Party (xenophobes) and Pirate party stands.

Isabel
06-10-2010, 09:18 AM
Davian: there are two possible coalitions. One over right and one over left.

The right option would be horrible and bad for the Netherlands.They would have to allie themselves with Geert Wilders. The party of Geert Wilders (pvv) got 24 seats, a lot more than he previously had. I would call him a racist (against the islam) and consider his ideas very dangerous.

He isn't the biggest party, but the third now.
However the party with the most votes is the VVD (liberal party, 31 seats). It's a right wing party.
They might try to form a coalition with Geert Wilders and I would be definitely not happy about it. Wilders is also right (extreme right), so it's a more natural allie.
It really depends on what Mark Rutte (leader of the VVD) really thinks of Geert wilders.

However for this coalition they also need the Christian Democrats (21 seats) and they just lost hugely in the election. So it's unclear if they want to form a coalition.

The other coalition is on the left. The second party with 30 seats is the Labour party. (pvda)
If i knew it would be such a close call, i would have voted for the pvda.

In this coalition you need two more and it would probably be D66 (democrats, they lean slightly to the right) and Groenlinks (GreenLeft).

It would be my preferred coalition, but also very tricky.

There are a few other options as well, but i consider those unlikely.

Isabel
06-10-2010, 09:23 AM
I read it as a move to the right. The far right xenophobe party picked up 13 of the 20 seats lost by the center-right CDA.

Of course neither CNN or wikipedia give a really clear picture of where anyone but the Freedom Party (xenophobes) and Pirate party stands.

It's not exactly a move to the right in my opinion. It's more a signal of a divided country. There are not three big party's, but lot's of small ones. It's not easy to form a coalition.

Oh and the xenophope party didn't only pick up seats by the center right party. They also picked up votes from the Socialist Party (you would probably call them communists).

Last election the Socialist Party got 25 seats and didn't get in the government, now they have 16 seats.

Isabel
06-10-2010, 09:25 AM
who was it that didn't vote for the party you actually wanted to vote for but voted more strategically? :p


For the record, I also do support Groenlink's and i really loved how Femke Halsema debated, so that was also a reason i voted for it.
I also voted it because i thought there would be a 4-5 seat gab between the pvda and the vvd and i wanted a left government :P

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 09:42 AM
Oh and the xenophope party didn't only pick up seats by the center right party. They also picked up votes from the Socialist Party (you would probably call them communists).


Im an American. By definition I can't tell the difference between Communists and Socialists. But as long as they lost seats thats a good thing. :p:D

Sarevok
06-10-2010, 09:52 AM
For the non-Dutch, a quick rundown of the Dutch political landscape. From lef to right:
Socialist Party (SP) (farther left than labour)
GroenLinks (GL, GreenLeft) (Socialist/environmentalist)
Labour Party (PvdA) (socialist, center-left)
D66 (Democrats) (falling somewhere in the center)
Christion Democrats (CDA) (center, slightly right)
Liberal party (VVD) (center-right)
Freedom Party (PVV) (far-right)

The Christian Union (CU) and Dutch Reformed Party (SGP) are more based on the bible that political ideals and don't really fit on the left/right scale.

I nice list of main party leaders (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10269514.stm)by BBC.

reTaardad
06-10-2010, 09:56 AM
Im an American. By definition I can't tell the difference between Communists and Socialists. But as long as they lost seats thats a good thing. :p:D

That Obama is tryin' to make us just like Europe where everyone's gay!

Sarevok
06-10-2010, 10:03 AM
Davian: there are two possible coalitions. One over right and one over left.

What you discribe in the rest of your post are the option over right and the left/right combination option.
Really over left would be PvdA, SP, Groenlinks and CDA, leaving out the VVD. That's unlikely to happen unless the VVD really messes up the coalition talks, though.

Isabel
06-10-2010, 10:12 AM
What you discribe in the rest of your post are the option over right and the left/right combination option.
Really over left would be PvdA, SP, Groenlinks and CDA, leaving out the VVD. That's unlikely to happen unless the VVD really messes up the coalition talks, though.

You are correct;) But i was trying to simplify it :P

reTaardad
06-10-2010, 10:16 AM
I would call him a racist (against the islam) and consider his ideas very dangerous.

I read the party's platform on Wikipedia (I know, really thorough on my part), and I can kind of understand where they're coming from on the "racist" angle. Here in America, everyone is descended from other countries and it's nearly pointless to be nationalistic. In my heritage alone, I can count 6 nationalities just that I know about. But in Europe, I can understand the desire to maintain national boundaries, both on a genetic and political level.

By the way, from what I've heard from Europeans, Muslims in Europe sound a lot like thugs in Atlanta. I'd want to kick them out of the country, too.

Basel Gill
06-10-2010, 10:23 AM
I read the party's platform on Wikipedia (I know, really thorough on my part), and I can kind of understand where they're coming from on the "racist" angle. Here in America, everyone is descended from other countries and it's nearly pointless to be nationalistic. In my heritage alone, I can count 6 nationalities just that I know about. But in Europe, I can understand the desire to maintain national boundaries, both on a genetic and political level.

By the way, from what I've heard from Europeans, Muslims in Europe sound a lot like thugs in Atlanta. I'd want to kick them out of the country, too.

This just happens to bring a question to my mind. Exactly how long does one have to be a country before securing your borders based on genetics and politics is ok? If this was 2210 instead of 2010 would Arizona be considered to be in the right? Don't forget, Europe is an amalgam of different ethnic groups too with a much longer history of conquer/reconquer than we have. They've just had a longer period of stable borders (WWI and II aside).

EDIT: I take that last statement back. Considering the ethnic divides of former Yugoslavia and former Czechoslovakia as well as former Soviet countries plus divides in countries with high Muslim populations, I'd actually say they're ALOT like America in some ways. And you can still be nationalistic without basing it on ethnic heritage...

Orc
06-10-2010, 10:25 AM
Wait, you have right-wing liberals? How does this even make any sense?

Davian93
06-10-2010, 10:55 AM
So the "Liberal" party is a center-right party...

~head explodes~

Ivhon
06-10-2010, 10:57 AM
Wait, you have right-wing liberals? How does this even make any sense?

They're called "Blue Dogs"

Basel Gill
06-10-2010, 11:16 AM
Someone here might know. I saw a sticker yesterday on a truck where the driver was proclaiming himself to be a "yellow dog democrat". Can anyone explain what that means?

Sinistrum
06-10-2010, 12:49 PM
Don't really have much comment on the election results, since I'm not really up on the party stances, except to say. a. I hope whatever coalition forms still maintains the Dutch troop presence in Afghanistan and b. I find the idea of someone being threatened with jail time for simply speaking his mind, regardless of how "hateful" someone else finds it, to be absolutely absurd and a gross violation of traditional human rights.

Crispin's Crispian
06-10-2010, 01:21 PM
Someone here might know. I saw a sticker yesterday on a truck where the driver was proclaiming himself to be a "yellow dog democrat". Can anyone explain what that means?

A yellow dog democrat would vote for anyone his or her party nominates, even if it happens to be a yellow dog, before voting republican. You would call them party-liners.

Wiki: Yellow Dog Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat)


I heard a story about the Dutch election this morning. It looks like Wilders picked up a lot of votes and was influential in the election, but also lost some votes at the end. I'm assuming those were CDA voters who decided at the last minute that he might be too extreme. And by last minute I mean in comparison with how the polls were showing the splits.

The balance of power now kind of rests with Mark Rutte, and it's unclear whether he'll ally with Wilders or labor. That may also ultimately determine whether the election was a referendum supporting PVV's values.

Did I just restate what Isabel and Sare already wrote?


From how they described Wilders/PVV, it's rather ironic. Wilders says that Islam is anathemic to freedom and should therefore be restricted. I guess that's the challenge of a free democracy...

Isabel
06-10-2010, 02:33 PM
You got it exactly, SDog:)

Although I wouldn't say that Wilders gotten less votes than expected. At least on the last polls he had about 17/18 seats and now he got 24, so that's a bit surprising.

Basel Gill
06-10-2010, 03:04 PM
Thanks Crispy.

Sarevok
06-10-2010, 05:01 PM
Wait, you have right-wing liberals? How does this even make any sense?

This is exactly the reason I've given up on understanding most of the threads about US politics. Some definitions seem to be different across the pond...
The idea is, that if the socialists are left, then their counterparts (i.e. liberals) are right. No clue how you have things arranged over there...

Orc
06-11-2010, 08:50 AM
This is exactly the reason I've given up on understanding most of the threads about US politics. Some definitions seem to be different across the pond...
The idea is, that if the socialists are left, then their counterparts (i.e. liberals) are right. No clue how you have things arranged over there...

Here we call the Liberals left and the Conservatives right.

Sarevok
06-11-2010, 09:54 AM
Here we call the Liberals left and the Conservatives right.

Ah...

*goes to wikipedia*
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.
Since "how things were" means "workers have little or no rights"... how is liberalism and conservatism different? :confused:
Or do you have a different opinion of liberalism as well?

yks 6nnetu hing
06-11-2010, 10:27 AM
it's social vs. financial view. If I understand correctly they're conservative (=right-wing) in regards to the economy. No extra spending, less social welfare, leaner government, less complicated taxes. But socially speaking, they're liberal - no opposition to gay marriages, abortions or euthanasia, to name a few.

Sarevok
06-11-2010, 10:49 AM
But socially speaking, they're liberal - no opposition to gay marriages, abortions or euthanasia, to name a few.

Hehe, if that's the US definition of liberal, then it explains something. :)
I've always wondered why the word "liberal", which over here tends to mean the more kapitalist-minded politicians, pertained to things like gay marriage discussions in the US.
If Yks' definition is correct, then both the socialists and liberals could be considered liberal in US-terms. Opposition to things like the above mentioned tend to come from the christian parties, mostly.

Ivhon
06-11-2010, 10:52 AM
it's social vs. financial view. If I understand correctly they're conservative (=right-wing) in regards to the economy. No extra spending, less social welfare, leaner government, less complicated taxes. But socially speaking, they're liberal - no opposition to gay marriages, abortions or euthanasia, to name a few.

That's actually a purist description of libertarianism. In practice, not so much.

Liberals over here generally speaking are socially progressive, pro-government and take the view that the top levels of society benefit when the bottom levels do. Of course, as always, in practice it doesnt work out that way either.

Crispin's Crispian
06-11-2010, 10:52 AM
it's social vs. financial view. If I understand correctly they're conservative (=right-wing) in regards to the economy. No extra spending, less social welfare, leaner government, less complicated taxes. But socially speaking, they're liberal - no opposition to gay marriages, abortions or euthanasia, to name a few.

Who exactly are you speaking of, YKS?

There are really two types of liberalism in the US. There's traditional or classical liberalism, which is the philosophical tradition embraced by libertarians (mostly) in the US. That is closer to your definition above.

The more common modern usage of "liberal" has become a derogatory term referring to progressives or left-wingers who ostensibly believe in a bigger government that provides social welfare but who remain to the left on social issues. It didn't start out as derogatory, but the right-wing media blitz in the past couple decades has turned it that way. Modern liberalism is usually associated with the US Democratic Party.

Modern US conservatism is described as right-leaning on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, religion and the state, etc.) but closer to classical liberalism on economic issues (small government, no taxes, no welfare). These are represented by the US Republican Party, the GOP.

In a nutshell:

Libertarians: classical liberals--get the government out of my life!

Liberals: get the government out of my social life, but let it take my taxes to pay for social programs.

Conservatives: the government should stay out of my wallet, but government must enforce traditional social mores.

yks 6nnetu hing
06-11-2010, 11:05 AM
Who exactly are you speaking of, YKS?

VVD.

The more common modern usage of "liberal" has become a derogatory term referring to progressives or left-wingers who ostensibly believe in a bigger government that provides social welfare but who remain to the left on social issues. It didn't start out as derogatory, but the right-wing media blitz in the past couple decades has turned it that way. Modern liberalism is usually associated with the US Democratic Party. that's why parties like VVD are sometimes also called neo-conservative liberals.

Sarevok
06-11-2010, 11:05 AM
I think from this discussion we conclude that our frames of reference are a bit different...
A look at the "voting compas" for the latest elections (website where you can fill in your ideas to see where you stand):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2OaAhE500AY/S9mh5cho2EI/AAAAAAAAD7U/UNlJyaRBb3A/s400/Capture+d%E2%80%99%C3%A9cran+2010-04-29+%C3%A0+17.12.02.png
In this example, the voter should vote for one of the socialist parties.
The axes are:
left/right axis:
economic left = socialist ("let ppl pay tax, better welfare")
Economis right = economic liberalism ("stay out of my wallet")
Top/bottom:
top: progressive = pro euthanasia etc, also, no problems with immigration
bottom: conservative = anti euthanasia, also usually want to crack down on immigration

Note: I didn't mention gay marriage when talking about Dutch parties, as noone but the SGP is against it. :)
From what I understand of your previous discussions here, only the SGP could be considered conservative on euthansia etc., by US standards.

Orc
06-11-2010, 11:43 AM
The axes are:
left/right axis:
economic left = socialist ("let ppl pay tax, better welfare")
Economis right = economic liberalism ("stay out of my wallet")
Top/bottom:
top: progressive = pro euthanasia etc, also, no problems with immigration
bottom: conservative = anti euthanasia, also usually want to crack down on immigration

Ok, then what we call liberals would be (ideally) in the left-top area, and what we call conservatives would be in the right-bottom area.

From a social perspective, I'm very liberal, but from an economic perspective I'd like to see less spending on unimportant things, and reserve taxes for important stuff like education and healthcare.

Unfortunately in Canada, the Liberal Party (and the NDP, who are further left) tend to have the social thing fine, but spend money willy-nilly on whatever, and the Conservatives are social traditionalists (bleah) who lower taxes, give huge tax breaks to corporations and then cut services.

JSUCamel
06-11-2010, 11:45 AM
Hehe, if that's the US definition of liberal, then it explains something. :)
I've always wondered why the word "liberal", which over here tends to mean the more kapitalist-minded politicians, pertained to things like gay marriage discussions in the US.
If Yks' definition is correct, then both the socialists and liberals could be considered liberal in US-terms. Opposition to things like the above mentioned tend to come from the christian parties, mostly.

Generally speaking in the US, we have two kinds of politics: fiscal and social. Social liberals are pro gay marriage, pro-choice, etc. Social conservatives are anti-gay marriage, pro-life, etc.

Then you have fiscal liberals which are more in favor of regulation, while conservatives are more of a free-market mindset: deregulate and let the market handle everything.

I'm actually beginning to think that 90% of the difference between parties is social and not fiscal...

Basel Gill
06-11-2010, 02:26 PM
Generally speaking in the US, we have two kinds of politics: fiscal and social. Social liberals are pro gay marriage, pro-choice, etc. Social conservatives are anti-gay marriage, pro-life, etc.

Then you have fiscal liberals which are more in favor of regulation, while conservatives are more of a free-market mindset: deregulate and let the market handle everything.

I'm actually beginning to think that 90% of the difference between parties is social and not fiscal...

Funny, I was thinking the opposite at least from a point of real substance of their beliefs. The social issues just seem to be what each party uses as a means of pandering for votes. I don't think there are many poiticians that really give two shits about gay marriage and such, but they know the voters do...

JSUCamel
06-11-2010, 02:43 PM
Funny, I was thinking the opposite at least from a point of real substance of their beliefs. The social issues just seem to be what each party uses as a means of pandering for votes. I don't think there are many poiticians that really give two shits about gay marriage and such, but they know the voters do...

Well, that's what I meant. I don't think most politicians give two craps about anything, but like you said, the voters yell and scream about whatever they feel like. Seems to me, though, that the voters get riled up more about social issues than about fiscal issues.

Ivhon
06-11-2010, 02:56 PM
Well, that's what I meant. I don't think most politicians give two craps about anything, but like you said, the voters yell and scream about whatever they feel like. Seems to me, though, that the voters get riled up more about social issues than about fiscal issues.

not right now. Dont think anything in the top 5 issues is social, unless you count healthcare - which is both

Crispin's Crispian
06-11-2010, 04:16 PM
not right now. Dont think anything in the top 5 issues is social, unless you count healthcare - which is both

Oh, I don't know about that. Maybe the top news issues aren't big social issues. Still, answer this: who is more likely to lose votes? A politician who was outed for raising taxes, or one that was outed for being gay? A politician who cheated on his wife, or one that gave big tax cuts to a (non-BP) corporation?

Social issues have more impact with Joe the Voter; math is hard.

Sarevok
06-11-2010, 04:32 PM
Generally speaking in the US, we have two kinds of politics: fiscal and social. Social liberals are pro gay marriage, pro-choice, etc. Social conservatives are anti-gay marriage, pro-life, etc.

Then you have fiscal liberals which are more in favor of regulation, while conservatives are more of a free-market mindset: deregulate and let the market handle everything.

I'm actually beginning to think that 90% of the difference between parties is social and not fiscal...

Yup, definitely a difference in definitions then. :)

Our liberals are defined as pro-free-market... ("liber" means "free")

Those in favour of regulating the market tend to be the socialists.

Seems to me, though, that the voters get riled up more about social issues than about fiscal issues.
Not over here. No one cares about the social issues, as long as the politicians make the economic deprission go away.

GonzoTheGreat
06-13-2010, 09:01 AM
a. I hope whatever coalition forms still maintains the Dutch troop presence in AfghanistanI wouldn't bet on it. The previous government fell because one of the ruling parties (CDA, which lost massively this time) wanted to renege on a government promise to end the presence there. With a new coalition it is of course possible that they reopen this can of worms, but it seems very unlikely.
b. I find the idea of someone being threatened with jail time for simply speaking his mind, regardless of how "hateful" someone else finds it, to be absolutely absurd and a gross violation of traditional human rights.Worse than getting Hitler in power, and carrying out his agenda?
Remember: that's precisely what sparked those specific laws in numerous European countries.

I have to admit that I would oppose such a law now if it were to be proposed new. But I find it a bit harder to claim that such laws are wholly without reason, given the reason why they were made in the first place.

Even in your own country such violations of traditional human rights exist. For instance, you aren't allowed to say out loud that you intend to kill your own president.

Sarevok
06-13-2010, 09:34 AM
b. I find the idea of someone being threatened with jail time for simply speaking his mind, regardless of how "hateful" someone else finds it, to be absolutely absurd and a gross violation of traditional human rights. I have to admit that I would oppose such a law now if it were to be proposed new. But I find it a bit harder to claim that such laws are wholly without reason, given the reason why they were made in the first place.

Even in your own country such violations of traditional human rights exist. For instance, you aren't allowed to say out loud that you intend to kill your own president.

Also, the chances of getting that jailtime or the 1000s of Euros fine are practically zero. Those are just the maximum punishments. If convicted the fine is more likely to be in the 10s or 100s of .
It's more a matter of principle to see what the judges say about the charge.

Sarevok
07-20-2010, 12:07 PM
Sorry about the necromancy here, but it's the easiest way to have the previously posted info in the same thread. :)

Breaking news:
Coalition negotiations between VVD, PvdA, GroenLinks and D66 have failed. More news at the press conference that is yet to held.

CNN and other English-speaking new agencies haven't picked up on the news yet, so I can't give a link at the moment.

GonzoTheGreat
07-20-2010, 12:24 PM
Who is going to tell Wilders the bad news?
That guy definitely can't afford to ever become part of a government, as it would remove all his credibility. But avoiding it is now becoming a bit more difficult for him.

Sarevok
07-20-2010, 12:34 PM
Who is going to tell Wilders the bad news?
That guy definitely can't afford to ever become part of a government, as it would remove all his credibility. But avoiding it is now becoming a bit more difficult for him.

Well, as long as Verhagen (CDA) keeps blocking the CDA-VVD-PVV option, Wilders doesn't have much to worry about...

Isabel
07-20-2010, 02:50 PM
Are we ever going to get a new government? :(
Or are they going to try it now on left? I thought SP, Groenlinks, D66, PVDA and CDA was still possible? ::)))))

Sarevok
07-20-2010, 03:16 PM
Are we ever going to get a new government? :(
Or are they going to try it now on left? I thought SP, Groenlinks, D66, PVDA and CDA was still possible? ::)))))

That's a 5 party coalition, which would take a LOT of talk to get there, especially between SP and CDA and D66. :|

Davian93
07-20-2010, 03:20 PM
Do the Dutch have oil? If so, I recommend the United States liberates them to help provide a stable government.

If not...well good luck going into the abyss.

Isabel
07-20-2010, 03:21 PM
I am sure Balkenende can stay another 4 years :P

Sarevok
07-20-2010, 03:25 PM
I am sure Balkenende can stay another 4 years :P

LOL. He might have to if they keep this up. :)

Do the Dutch have oil? If so, I recommend the United States liberates them to help provide a stable government.
No oil, but plenty of gas. (I know... no way to make that sound good)
I believe it's enough to power the country for decades. Which would probably mean a few weeks to you guys. :p

lurk
07-21-2010, 11:55 AM
The problenm with dutch politics is that everybody can start a new party if they have some funds and get some voters. This means a lot of single issue parties with some views added. Wilders PVV is a single issue party with regard to immigration and muslims. Their other vies are pretty close to those of Ruttes VVD.
But the main problem is that the older more established parties screwed up, 10 to 15 years ago there only were the establisehed parties and the political arena was more a fight between the more socialist pvda and the more conservatist CDA. VVD could sometimes get some extra voters if both parties did particulary bad. Groen links (environmentalist socialists) played a marginal role in the opposition like the socialis party until now. The problem is that "in the old days you needen 2 and sometimes 3 established parties to get a decent majority in the government. But now those established parties are being punished for poor government givinga lot of votes splinterd across the more single issue parties and the VVD.

In my opinion there is not going to be a new government this year. It is a matter of political manuevering now to see who will "buckle" first and give up some views in order to get into the government. CDA has started this by saying nono we cannot be part of any bargaining now, we are being punished. Meanwhile they have just enough votes and an adaptable program that they may even make it into the government after all.

Mark my words the final influence in the forming of a governemnt is in the hands of the CDA and they are experienced enough politicians to use this to their advantage

Sarevok
07-21-2010, 02:44 PM
2 days later, ONE English news agency seems to have picked up the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38329321