mazuz
Conservative
Posts: 155 
|
Post by mazuz on Mar 18, 2017 20:59:29 GMT
They really need a 5% threshold. At this point, what would that do? The only 'serious' party it'd remove is the CU, and most of the cranks who vote for the other sub-5% parties would keep doing so anyway. CU and SGP would run together on one list, (barely) make it in, and then go their own way anyway, just like they do in the European elections. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,761
|
Post by mboy on Mar 19, 2017 0:08:43 GMT
Does this mean that a minor party can force a general election by resigning from the govt? Yes, which is what happened in 2006 when D66 rescinded its support for the second Balkenende government. In which case i don't like the idea, as individual parties shouldn't be able to force elections at times of their own convenience. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 19, 2017 12:50:07 GMT
One for mazuz. I note that Wassenaar voted VVD, and neighbouring Katwijk went for the CDA (and indeed, was the only place where CDA topped the poll for some distance). Having been to both a few times, I'm surprised that they voted so differently and that Katwijk voted so differently from all the surrounding places. Is there any obvious reason? |
|
mazuz
Conservative
Posts: 155
|
Post by mazuz on Mar 19, 2017 18:16:29 GMT
One for mazuz . I note that Wassenaar voted VVD, and neighbouring Katwijk went for the CDA (and indeed, was the only place where CDA topped the poll for some distance). Having been to both a few times, I'm surprised that they voted so differently and that Katwijk voted so differently from all the surrounding places. Is there any obvious reason? Katwijk used to be (and to a certain extent still is) an insular fishing village with a lot of orthodox Protestants. Wassenaar is a posh, upper-class The Hague suburb, one of the wealthiest places in the country. Both are anomalies. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 20, 2017 11:04:49 GMT
It would be nice if the public could get it into their head that minor parties in a coalition will inevitably have to make more compromise than the major parties(s)... But the minor party really does have to consider whether that coalition makes any sense for them. In Labour's case they not only joined up with a party with who they should have nothing in common but had also campaigned on the basis of not entering a coalition with them. This is the problem when parties just can't resist power even though the compromise necessary is simply unacceptable. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,761
|
Post by mboy on Mar 20, 2017 11:07:16 GMT
Or maybe it's about parties putting the national interest ahead of their own party interest. Just imagine if every party behaved like that, right? {shudder}
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 20, 2017 11:14:36 GMT
Or maybe it's about parties putting the national interest ahead of their own party interest. Just imagine if every party behaved like that, right? {shudder} I don't think keeping the VVD in power without altering any of their policies in any substantive way was about the national interest. Just like the LibDems and their involvement in the coalition. Both parties were suitably punished. Both wanted power above anything else. The national interest didn't come into it. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,761
|
Post by mboy on Mar 20, 2017 11:36:28 GMT
That's right Mike. You keep believing that we're power-crazed obsessives. I mean, why else would anyone join a party that hasn't been in government for a century, if not out of an uncontrollable lust to be in government?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
|
Post by The Bishop on Mar 20, 2017 12:29:21 GMT
Its not exactly outrageous to think some LibDems were seduced by the prospect of at least a share of national power, having been deprived of it for so long.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
|
Post by jamie on Mar 20, 2017 12:51:17 GMT
I think it's fine to go into coalition as long as you were open about it beforehand and you are getting a good compromise. However, if that's not the case then don't expect voters to back you at the next election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antiochian on Mar 20, 2017 15:22:42 GMT
It would be nice if the public could get it into their head that minor parties in a coalition will inevitably have to make more compromise than the major parties(s)... But the minor party really does have to consider whether that coalition makes any sense for them. In Labour's case they not only joined up with a party with who they should have nothing in common but had also campaigned on the basis of not entering a coalition with them. This is the problem when parties just can't resist power even though the compromise necessary is simply unacceptable. Sounds familiar to us Cleggophobes in LibDemmery.... |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
|
Post by Sibboleth on Mar 20, 2017 15:35:22 GMT
In Labour's case they not only joined up with a party with who they should have nothing in common but had also campaigned on the basis of not entering a coalition with them. The first part is normal enough in the Netherlands where consensus politics is the order of the day and there has only even been one Left dominated government (1973-77). The problem was the second part. Even then, though, I think they could have gotten away with a fall back to 'normal' levels of support had they swung government policy towards the centre and maintained a distinctive profile in government (as happened when they were part of Balkenende's goverments etc). The remarkable part is that they had the seats and so the clout to do this, but did not. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,036
|
Post by Sibboleth on Mar 20, 2017 15:38:27 GMT
Its not exactly outrageous to think some LibDems were seduced by the prospect of at least a share of national power, having been deprived of it for so long. No harm in that as politics is all about power. The problem is that they confused power with 'we have ministerial cars now' - the classic blunder. But back to the Netherlands... |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 20, 2017 18:01:01 GMT
The idea that the PvdA and VVD have little in common, and almost ended up there by accident, is quite inaccurate.
They worked together in Kok I and Kok II, a full eight years.
Earlier, the VVD and a PvdA were in the Biesheuvel I cabinet, and in the key Drees-Van Schaik cabinet back in the late Forties.
And in the pillarisation era, there were lots of connections between the socialist and liberal groupings due to their anti-clerical nature.
|
|
mazuz
Conservative
Posts: 155
|
Post by mazuz on Mar 20, 2017 18:51:50 GMT
The idea that the PvdA and VVD have little in common, and almost ended up there by accident, is quite inaccurate. They worked together in Kok I and Kok II, a full eight years. Different times; much less polarization, a lot less differences between PvdA and VVD. The story goes that during Purple, the party leaders of VVD, PvdA and D66 used to make deals on what points they had to disagree before debates; in reality they agreed on everything. The 2012 campaign, on the other hand, showed clear differences between a PvdA that had clearly turned to the left under Samsom and a VVD that had turned to the right more than ever under Rutte. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 20, 2017 21:26:18 GMT
The idea that the PvdA and VVD have little in common, and almost ended up there by accident, is quite inaccurate. They worked together in Kok I and Kok II, a full eight years. Different times; much less polarization, a lot less differences between PvdA and VVD. The story goes that during Purple, the party leaders of VVD, PvdA and D66 used to make deals on what points they had to disagree before debates; in reality they agreed on everything. The 2012 campaign, on the other hand, showed clear differences between a PvdA that had clearly turned to the left under Samsom and a VVD that had turned to the right more than ever under Rutte. Oh, I totally agree- but just wanted to point out that some over here like to paint it as getting into bed with an avowed enemy rather than a party with whom they had previously worked. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 20, 2017 22:32:10 GMT
Different times; much less polarization, a lot less differences between PvdA and VVD. The story goes that during Purple, the party leaders of VVD, PvdA and D66 used to make deals on what points they had to disagree before debates; in reality they agreed on everything. The 2012 campaign, on the other hand, showed clear differences between a PvdA that had clearly turned to the left under Samsom and a VVD that had turned to the right more than ever under Rutte. Oh, I totally agree- but just wanted to point out that some over here like to paint it as getting into bed with an avowed enemy rather than a party with whom they had previously worked. But they fought the election campaign on a programme of not entering government with them, and then not only did so, but also went along with the bulk of their right wing program It certainly appears that PvdA voters did not appreciate this, by their mass defection this time |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Mar 20, 2017 23:13:45 GMT
The idea that the PvdA and VVD have little in common, and almost ended up there by accident, is quite inaccurate. They worked together in Kok I and Kok II, a full eight years. Different times; much less polarization, a lot less differences between PvdA and VVD. The story goes that during Purple, the party leaders of VVD, PvdA and D66 used to make deals on what points they had to disagree before debates; in reality they agreed on everything. The 2012 campaign, on the other hand, showed clear differences between a PvdA that had clearly turned to the left under Samsom and a VVD that had turned to the right more than ever under Rutte. That's the interesting thing about Rutte because when he became leader he was regarded as coming more from the left of the party and would lead away from the previous more right leaning leadership. Crashing disappointment really. |
|
mazuz
Conservative
Posts: 155
|
Post by mazuz on Mar 21, 2017 16:12:16 GMT
Final results as published by the Electoral Council. Turnout = 81.9%.  |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
|
Post by maxque on Mar 22, 2017 1:30:03 GMT
Or maybe it's about parties putting the national interest ahead of their own party interest. Just imagine if every party behaved like that, right? {shudder} Well, in some circumstrances, causing an election and leaving the coalition is what is in the national interest. |
|
