The normalisation of the far-right continues

[ScotiaNostra]

Its going to be a difficult one for the Dutch when he got that many seats, they can try and form a coalition without him but that might even end up increasing his vote next time an election happens.

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Marten]

12 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Its going to be a difficult one for the Dutch when he got that many seats, they can try and form a coalition without him but that might even end up increasing his vote next time an election happens.

 

I kinda expect him to form a minority government now, with the mainstream right thinking it won't last (which will likely be correct) so once it collapses and new elections are held, they can claim: "look, he got the chance and messed up, you're better off voting for us". These kind of tactics worked before with more extreme parties in The Netherlands who tend to mess up once they are given any kind of responsibility.

[ScotiaNostra]

21 minutes ago, Marten said:

I kinda expect him to form a minority government now, with the mainstream right thinking it won't last (which will likely be correct) so once it collapses and new elections are held, they can claim: "look, he got the chance and messed up, you're better off voting for us". These kind of tactics worked before with more extreme parties in The Netherlands who tend to mess up once they are given any kind of responsibility.

Thats true though the same is now happening to the other mainstream parties and going back to Pim Fortyn till now the extreme parties have become a normal part of Dutch politics and voter discussions

Edited November 24, 2023 by ScotiaNostra

[Marten]

29 minutes ago, ScotiaNostra said:

Thats true though the same is now happening to the other mainstream parties and going back to Pim Fortyn till now the extreme parties have become a normal part of Dutch politics and voter discussions

Yeah, the problem is also how fragmented the political landscape has become. There is nothing new about having to form coalitions as a majority government has never happened since The Netherlands became a constitutional monarchy nearly 200 years ago. However, as in the past there usually were at least 2 parties with over 30 (and often over 40) seats, while 76 are needed for a majority, and few extremes it was rarely an issue to form a coalition in the past. In 1998 for example, there were 9 parties represented in Parliament and the 5 largest ones together had over 90% of the seats. Of those 9, only the left-wing Socialist party was seen as a party not really willing to compromise, but they had only 5 seats so that left 145 MPs to find a majority from.

There were 2 mergers of the 9 parties from 1998, so it's become 7 but all 7 are still around. But now a total of 16 parties have been elected, actually down from 18 last time around. The 5 largest parties only have 3/4th of the seats together and there are 6 parties who are seen as difficult to find any compromises with, including PVV. That leaves only 98 MPs to form a workable majority from.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

3 hours ago, Marten said:

Yeah, the problem is also how fragmented the political landscape has become. There is nothing new about having to form coalitions as a majority government has never happened since The Netherlands became a constitutional monarchy nearly 200 years ago. However, as in the past there usually were at least 2 parties with over 30 (and often over 40) seats, while 76 are needed for a majority, and few extremes it was rarely an issue to form a coalition in the past. In 1998 for example, there were 9 parties represented in Parliament and the 5 largest ones together had over 90% of the seats. Of those 9, only the left-wing Socialist party was seen as a party not really willing to compromise, but they had only 5 seats so that left 145 MPs to find a majority from.

There were 2 mergers of the 9 parties from 1998, so it's become 7 but all 7 are still around. But now a total of 16 parties have been elected, actually down from 18 last time around. The 5 largest parties only have 3/4th of the seats together and there are 6 parties who are seen as difficult to find any compromises with, including PVV. That leaves only 98 MPs to form a workable majority from.

Thats something to think about, as much as FPTP is flawed, doesnt this model end up giving the voters something that no one wanted?

[Marten]

On 24/11/2023 at 17:45, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Thats something to think about, as much as FPTP is flawed, doesnt this model end up giving the voters something that no one wanted?

I think both systems are flawed. In principle, I'm in favour of PR as it gives a more accurate representation of how people vote. I also don't have an issue with coalitions. Different flavours working together isn't necessarily a bad thing. And effectively, it also happens in the UK. To say the Tories are currently split on various issues is a massive understatement, in The Netherlands they'd be 2 parties. Of Labour you can say the same. And moderate Tories have plenty in common with moderate Labour so they could also work with each other (and there are plenty of examples over time of bills being passed by both, leaving the further left/right on either party behind). Also, in FPTP you see it often that people are trying to pander to the more extremes to get votes. Cameron promised an EU referendum to stop UKIP and in the hope that a remain vote would bury that issue once and for all. We all know how that worked out! In The Netherlands, the chance of an EU-referendum happening is exactly 0, Wilders might want it but he knows very well that he won't get other parties to agree to that. He pretty much conceded already that an EU referendum isn't going to happen.

The big downsides of the Dutch system are the fragmentation & the lack of regional representation as all MPs are chosen on country-wide lists. The fragmentation is due to the fact that there are 150 MPs and you simply need 1/150th of the vote to get your party elected. The lack of local representation results in several more rural areas feeling completely ignored with nobody actually representing them. Wilders winning in many of those areas doesn't necessarily mean people in these areas are all big fans of his extreme points, but for many it's been a protest vote as the mainstream parties tend to forget these areas and Wilders has been very smart in trying to please those areas.

But the UK & Dutch systems are really 2 extremes when talking about different voting systems. There are other systems that are at least to some extend proportional, do give local representation & are less fragmented. There are plenty of examples of such systems working well in other countries. This is why the new centrist party NSC has done so well as they want such a reform to make the country better governable. And I agree with that reform which is why I voted for them even though I don't agree on everything they stand for.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Marten

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Thats something to think about, as much as FPTP is flawed, doesnt this model end up giving the voters something that no one wanted?

The Tory majority government in the UK wasn't wanted either by any credible tallying of vote shares.

The bigger issue is that parties all across the world are splintering into smaller and smaller sects based on their weirdo core voters. The voting system doesn't cause that to happen: even in proportional systems that set a minimum bar to win any seats in parliament, a parade of no-hopers stand anyway. 

The UK/US system produce the same result (control by a minority faction nobody voted for) within the facade of large nationwide parties. 

[Fullerene]

3 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Thats something to think about, as much as FPTP is flawed, doesnt this model end up giving the voters something that no one wanted?

Imagine the Dutch have FTFP.  This results in two major parties getting most of the votes and Wilders not getting anyone elected. 

However one party is vulnerable to losing votes to Wilders and so he is able to yank their chain and get them to do what he wants. 

The other party has a bigger problem sharing votes with several other parties and thus loses more elections than it wins.

Suddenly Nexit is a possibility because of a flawed electoral system.

Sound familiar?

[effeffsee_the2nd]

2 hours ago, Marten said:

I think both systems are flawed. In principle, I'm in favour of PR as it gives a more accurate represenatation of how people vote. I also don't have an issue with coalitions. Different flavours working together isn't necessarily a bad thing. And effectively, it also happens in the UK. To say the Tories are currently split on various issues is a massive understatement, in The Netherlands they'd be 2 parties. Of Labour you can say the same. And moderate Tories have plenty in common with moderate Labour so they could also work with each other (and there are plenty of examples over time of bills being passed by both, leaving the further left/right on either party behind). Also, in FPTP you see it often that people are trying to pander to the more extremes to get votes. Cameron promised an EU referendum to stop UKIP and in the hope that a remain vote would bury that issue once and for all. We all know how that worked out! In The Netherlands, the chance of an EU-referendum happening is exactly 0, Wilders might want it but he knows very well that he won't get other parties to agree to that. He pretty much conceded already that an EU referendum isn't going to happen.

The big downsides of the Dutch system are the fragmentation & the lack of regional representation as all MPs are chosen on country-wide lists. The fragmentation is due to the fact that there are 150 MPs and you simply need 1/150th of the vote to get your party elected. The lack of local representation results in several more rural areas feeling completely ignored with nobody actually representing them. Wilders winning in many of those areas doesn't necessarily mean people in these areas are all big fans of his extreme points, but for many it's been a protest vote as the mainstream parties tend to forget these areas and Wilders has been very smart in trying to please those areas.

But the UK & Dutch systems are really 2 extremes when talking about different voting systems. There are other systems that are at least to some extend proportional, do give local representation & are less fragmented. There are plenty of examples of such systems working well in other countries. This is why the new centrist party NSC has done so well as they want such a reform to make the country better governable. And I agree with that reform which is why I voted for them even though I don't agree on everything they stand for.

Very good explanation.

If it were to happen, what chance is there a majority of Dutch voters vote to leave the EU tho? Given they are a smaller land area with many people who cross their currently open border daily, even that wee toon baarle hertog that has different streets split between Belgium and Netherlands.

We are daft island c***s but surely they don’t have the apetite to cut their nose of spite their face?

Edited November 24, 2023 by effeffsee_the2nd

[Marten]

9 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Very good explanation.

If it were to happen, what chance is there a majority of Dutch voters vote to leave the EU tho? Given they are a smaller land area with many people who cross their currently open border daily, even that wee toon baarle hertog that has different streets split between Belgium and Netherlands.

We are daft island c***s but surely they don’t have the apetite to cut their nose of spite their face?

The chance of it happening even if there is a referendum is very remote. Even a large number of PVV voters don't want Nexit and no other parties other than some very small fringe ones entertain the idea. 

[Fullerene]

33 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

We are daft island c***s but surely they don’t have the apetite to cut their nose of spite their face?

The origins of the EU were the result of countries who never wanted to experience anything like WW2 again, regardless of which side they were on.

By contrast, the UK still has people who thought it was all jolly good fun.

[BFTD]

27 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

The origins of the EU were the result of countries who never wanted to experience anything like WW2 again, regardless of which side they were on.

By contrast, the UK still has people who thought it was all jolly good fun.

That included Britain at the time. The folk involved knew exactly what kind of nightmare it had been, and most didn't want to talk about it, in my experience. The UK was a major part of the ECHR, which was set up to protect us from the horrors that our own governments had just inflicted upon our ancestors, and which our government has been building support to remove us from for decades.

The problem is that somehow the children of the Greatest & Silent Generations grew up with the notion that it was noble and jolly good fun so long as you win, and made WWII a cornerstone of Britain's, and their own, identity. They seem disappointed that they've never experienced wartime, and have become bellicose from impatience; some even seem to believe that inflicting suffering upon younger generations would be "character building". Hopefully this is an attitude that dies with them; I really don't see much of the same mindset with the youngsters, so I guess it depends on how much of it GenX has absorbed.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

That included Britain at the time. The folk involved knew exactly what kind of nightmare it had been, and most didn't want to talk about it, in my experience. The UK was a major part of the ECHR, which was set up to protect us from the horrors that our own governments had just inflicted upon our ancestors, and which our government has been building support to remove us from for decades.

That's an inaccurate account tbh. The British Empire (as it was) did not experience even remotely the same human rights impact of conquest and subjugation by a risible and brutal power. Britain and its Empire did (and has ever since) distinguished its wartime experience from 'Europe'. That's at least one fault line that led de Gaulle to veto British entry to the EEC and was replayed with Brexit. 

British involvement in the ECHR at that time was not based on any shared understanding of horrors inflicted by a domestic government. It was based on revulsion at crimes uncovered within Nazi-dominated Europe. The issue of collaboration in crimes against humanity was never relevant in the UK, while being crucial to every other post-war state in Europe. 

[Freedom Farter]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

The problem is that somehow the children of the Greatest & Silent Generations grew up with the notion that it was noble and jolly good fun so long as you win, and made WWII a cornerstone of Britain's, and their own, identity. They seem disappointed that they've never experienced wartime, and have become bellicose from impatience; some even seem to believe that inflicting suffering upon younger generations would be "character building". Hopefully this is an attitude that dies with them; I really don't see much of the same mindset with the youngsters, so I guess it depends on how much of it GenX has absorbed.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. Many in the generation(s) born after seemed to appropriate the war experience as their own.

[Johnny Martin]

On 23/11/2023 at 18:01, Billy Jean King said:

Lololol. Keep fighting the good fight Johnny

Just admit I'm right.

That guy having to have the amount of protection he does is an absolute disgrace.

I'm delighted he won and the other parties are only being childish by not negotiating with him.  It's only going to accelerate the increase in his support in the long run though, which is good.

[Dan Steele]

1 hour ago, Johnny Martin said:

I'm delighted he won and the other parties are only being childish by not negotiating with him. 

[Marten]

1 hour ago, Johnny Martin said:

Just admit I'm right.

That guy having to have the amount of protection he does is an absolute disgrace.

I'm delighted he won and the other parties are only being childish by not negotiating with him.  It's only going to accelerate the increase in his support in the long run though, which is good.

That lunatic is the cause why others won't negotiate with him. He is so extreme and unwilling to compromise that there is no point. There is nothing good about his victory.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Johnny Martin said:

Just admit I'm right.

That guy having to have the amount of protection he does is an absolute disgrace.

I'm delighted he won and the other parties are only being childish by not negotiating with him.  It's only going to accelerate the increase in his support in the long run though, which is good.

[welshbairn]

Poor Tommy...

 

[jagfox]