The anti-Islam, euroskeptic radical Geert Wilders is projected to be the shock winner of the Dutch election.
In a dramatic result that will stun European politics, his Freedom Party (PVV) is set to win around 35 of the 150 seats in parliament — more than double the number it secured in the 2021 election, according to exit polls.
Frans Timmermans’ Labour-Green alliance is forecast to take second place, winning 25 seats — a big jump from its current 17. Dilan Yeşilgöz, outgoing premier Mark Rutte’s successor as head of the center-right VVD, suffered heavy losses and is on course to take 24 seats, 10 fewer than before, according to the updated exit poll by Ipsos for national broadcaster NOS.
A win for Wilders will put the Netherlands on track — potentially — for a dramatic shift in direction, after Rutte’s four consecutive centrist governments. The question now, though, is whether any other parties are willing to join Wilders to form a coalition. Despite emerging as the largest party, he will lack an overall majority in parliament.
What the fuck is happening to the world?
Far right extremists claim easy solutions to complex problems. With housing etc pricea going through the roof it’s easy to demonize foreigners etc.
Look what happened in Germany with hyper inflation.
If you look at the projections for muslims living throughout Europe over the next 30 years with current levels of immigration you can see there will be a Muslim majority in many parts of Europe. I’m not saying that’s a problem necessarily but it will be a big cultural shift if that takes place. There is some concern that many muslims have followed their holy doctrine in moving towards sharia law. I’m not trying to be islamaphopic it’s just quite difficult to discern between the muslims who want to live in peace and live a western lifestyle and those who want to live under sharia law and those who want to live under some hybrid system and what that might look like. These are the outcomes whether you want to accept it or not. Yes it’s complex and difficult.
This is the first generation with worse prospects than the previous one. Wealth inequality is growing, and robber barons are back. Climate change is making any prospects even worse.
Combine that with a communication revolution (social media, to be exact) which allows anyone to pretty much target anyone else with any message they feel like, means disinformation pushing narratives is everywhere. And not to forget, there people in charge of these platforms are among the aforementioned robber barons.
It’s easy to offer simple solutions to these problems and push disinformation to people who don’t have the knowledge, time or energy to debunk everything and think deeply about things, since they’re busy slaving away to put food on their tables, struggling to build a future, and looking for solutions. And simple answers give people a sense of control or explanation over their difficult situation.
It’s why I have completely removed myself from every social media platform there is, except this one and I’m only on here intermittently.
True, but the generation that tends to vote far right is the boomer generation - it’s the generation that failed to pass on rising prosperity and gave us the climate crisis.
If you look at elections in europe, it’s pretty consistently the 35-45 year old demographic that votes right the most. Every age group votes right and it’s not like it’s only boomers, with the exception of young voters <30 (and women) which do vote significantly more left
E. G. Netherlands https://www.statista.com/chart/8178/pvv-largest-party-but-not-among-youth/
It seems you are more equipped to deal with the disinformation on social media than most of us. Although I understand the desire to step away from the fray, a mind like yours is sorely needed in times like this.
That is not true unfortunately. I tend to be very left wing socially - economically I’m more left of center - and that was reflected on my social media as well - either pushing me towards more radical content or stoking anger with more radical right wing content to get me riled up and coming back for more.
I ended up with a growing hatred and emnity for a growing number of people and “groups”, and black and white thinking. Even though I was aware that I was being manipulated, it was still impossible to sit on a high horse above the fray.
It’s quite easy to manipulate human minds, even ones that are careful and aware. We can all be manipulated. It’s why advertising works, for example.
The only thing to do really is to not play that game. Avoid advertising, avoid other content curators deciding what you get to see and telling you how to reason, etc… realise that most people are empathetic, that most people want what’s best, and those that are radical have been manipulated to be that way, sadly.
Geert Wilders is a 100% israeli puppet. At 17 years old Geert went to live as an illegal occupier for 2 years in the West-Bank for the israelis. He has visited israel at least 40 times the last 25 years, more than once a year.
A quote from an NOS article about Geert Wilders life as a colonist: (Dutch article)
The later founder of the PVV resides in the West Bank, territory occupied by Israel since 1967. “Although I prefer to call it ‘liberated territory’.”
Look up what Stephen harper is president of right now.
I don’t think this is Russia. Its ex Canadian PM
The right has a cohesive strategy for getting and keeping an animated base, while the libs are focusing on maintaining a status quo that people hate and are creating voter apathy.
Just to be clear liberal doesn’t really make that much sense in Europe as it dose in the US. Liberals are mostly on the right side of politics while in the US it’s on the left. So if you where to talk with European people then they would talk about the left or the right. In my country for instance the only party that is truly liberal is all the way to the right. The left is socialists mostly and while the US have some socialists the democrats in the US is much more to the right than most Europe “left” would be.
Right, you do have some politicians in the US like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Occasio-Cortes who would be considered Social Democrats in Europe. But yeah, US politics are really opaque due to the two-party system. There are a lot of politicians in the Democratic party who would be considered center-right market liberals in Europe.
From what I see, the center left politicians in Europe are still liberals supporting capitalism. More of a social democracy which is for sure better than the individualistic libertarian ideas being promoted in the states, but capitalist none the less. Still not fully addressing the ethics of the population as a whole.
Also, I do realize that America isn’t the center of the world, but it definitely has serious impact on what the people of the world see as the trajectory of the future. Especially if (and this is pure speculation) if the right is able to create fox style echo chambers in other countries using the narrative of following the American superpower.
In this election, the “libs” are the VVD who, as a socialist (GL/PvdA) I’d hate to say but, are the most right wing reasonable party. You cannot project American political discourse and concepts on Dutch politics.
Other parties haven’t taken any called for measures when it comes to immigration, now far-right is reaping the benefits.
It’s pretty shit but sorta expected if you just stubbornly avoid addressing the issues people have.
Populism never addresses the issues people have, it preys on their insecurity and creates issues.
They’ll probably have 16 parties getting seats and many refuse to work with him. He’s not going to be prime minister or anything.
I like your optimism, but VVD and NSC are probably going to try to work with Wilders.
Won’t get them a majority in the senate, with BBB they have 30 of the required 38 seats there.
Please don’t confuse The Netherlands with Germany. In NL they speak Dutch (“Netherlandish”), in DE they speak Deutsch (German).
Confusing? Yes. But it is what it is.
(And don’t get me started about Holland vs. The Netherlands :) )
Most people don’t understand politics, and think “guy talking louder than everyone is my favorite guy!”
Unpopular take incoming: The Left is principally made up of people who are Agreeable, so they want to help others rather than win resources over others. What happened is the Left are unable to draw lines and limits on certain issues for fear of causing pain. The end result is this alienates a lot of swing voters, often in the working classes.
The Left has always been a haven of the middle classes. They become so preoccupied with calling working class people bigots / stupid, that they forget that the working classes often feel the impact of politics more strongly and are more incentivised to vote.
This is an issue with the left deviating from reason and reality due to an increasing population of younger left wing supporters who have barely spent any time in physical reality, being the most online generation yet. Some of the physical realities that affect the largely natively white working class population in western european countries simply do not occur to these middle class, left wing people.
Migrant workers competing for jobs and class (being told they are better than you and being passed over on jobs by them), eco friendly and green societal initiatives making things often less functional and more expensive, etc etc.
One could blame the ruling classes for some of these elements but truth be told, the bottom half of the middle classes start feeling these effects, they start to see a different perspective too.
Politics has always, and will always follow Economics.
The left isn’t calling working class people bigots. We call people bigots who exhibit xenophobic behavior. If they are working class, they’re being a working class bigot. The working class needs solidarity, not right wing propaganda.
Xenophobia is irrational fear. There is plenty of rational fears, particularly for working class people who see their existence challenged on a daily basis.
What the general narrative suggests (and what you seem to be approaching here too) is disingenuously characterising much of this fear as one of superiority - or in other words predatory, superior views and behaviour. It’s nearly always fear of the unknown, or of threats, whatever those might be.
So the issue is that we haven’t given neoliberals enough after giving them everything?
When the going gets tough the tough get going… Economic crisis, inflation, unemployment, keep choking people with taxes “for welfare” and this is the result. It was politicians and economists who should have studied history and learned before making all this happen, now we can’t blame lay people.
Right it’s welfare making people poor, not corporations pocketing nearly all economic growth for the last few decades.
The slide towards far-right fascism continues…
Don’t worry, the headline is too sensational. (Which is a pet peeve of mine anyway: headlines should be objective. I can make up my own mind please)
He didn’t win a majority. He won’t form a goverment. If he does, he will be powerless in the coalition. If he does get to make laws, they won’t pass the senate (called “1ste kamer” in NL). And if he does, the government will fall anyway (which is a Dutch tradition anyway).
So a lot of ‘outs’ :)
No worries!
Only your last one seems valid. Dutch coalitions aren’t very stable. The only stable factor of the last 12 years has recently left politics.
The question is indeed who is willing to form a coalition government. The most likely option is PVV (far right), VVD (neoliberal), and NSC (Christian democrats), of the latter can convince their voters they can accept the far right.
Not very stable indeed. Since ‘Kok’ (2002!), NL has had 1 cabinet come to full term (Rutte II I believe). In 21 years 8 goverments. 1 full term of 4 years, so 7 in 17 years. Elections every 2,5 years on average :/
But hey, at least NL is not Belgium :D
Geert Wilder wins Dutch election
35 of the 150 seats in parliament
Let’s please stop using FPTP language to describe very non-FPTP systems and outcomes.
Also the Dutch political system relies very heavily on coalitions and the “polder model” since no party can ever win a majority of seats in their House of Representatives.
Asking out of ignorance, but why would no party ever be able to win a majority? Are there just too many parties to allow for one to have that much control?
Its a bit like italy: you have many right and left parties, but each one has some flavors (stance in different issues), so you vote for the right/left party that is more in line with you social and economical policies (or a part leader you like for personality).
Since there are many choices, and each party tries to get a slice if the electorate, its very hard for a single party to cather to the majority if the peoples.
So they form a coalition, and each party in the coalition pass what are the common points, and depending on how well they have done) compromise within the coalition to pass some if their agendas
There is no reason for more unity if folks know they will have to work together. I look at American party’s more as a sort of permanent coalition goverment then political partys really. The real benefit in my view is that this goverment form always stears back to the center, Geert can say what he wants Omzigt and Yeşilgöz wil force him to compromise a lot to form a goverment.
Read the whole wiki, and all I can tell is it’s a label some politician came up with for simply compromising on a common goal to push it through when multiple parties overlap at least partially in agreement of that goal. Nothing beyond that, doesn’t say how, give guidelines or a framework. I guess it’s just a label for being ok with no majority party.
Agreed “win” is too simplistic. Still good shot at forming government though. I’m not familiar with the Dutch system, but, even in systems with proportional representation, the plurality winner usually gets first shot at forming government, and by convention usually does form government. They need 76 seats to govern and are more than halfway there with 37.
This is how we do it. But it might be difficult for him to form an alliance, since all other relevant parties have serious issues with parts of his party program.
Mostly because his program is extremely rightwing but also extremely leftwing at the same time. And financially its all a big foggy mess.
I don’t know how the Dutch system works, but some time ago a pro-Russian party won like 30-40% of seats in Latvia, but every other party joined together against them. And they couldn’t do shit even though they had the biggest number of seats. If it’s not 50%+1 - it doesn’t matter.
I believe no party has ever held an absolute majority in the Netherlands. And there has only ever been one time in the Netherlands when the biggest party did not govern.
Personally, I see two options: the most likely is Geert Wilders will become our prime minister, or (less likely) there will be new elections.
We have had to stand months of the Spanish opposition leader saying he “has won the election” because he leads the most voted party, even though it was impossible for him to form a coalition that would give him the government (the other right wing parties are either centralist, decentralist or independentist, and will veto each other). Even some international media bought this narrative and eagerly presented the idea that there was going to be a change of government.
First past the post - the party with the most votes ‘wins’. It’s in contrast to a range of other systems that rely on proportionality or preferential voting to ensure that the party or parties with majority support wins.
For example, imagine a scenario where there are 10 constituencies electing a representative by FPTP. In each of those 10 constituencies, the result is identical as follows:
- Nazi - 40%
- Liberal - 30%
- Socialist - 20%
- Conservative - 10%
Under FPTP, the Nazi would be the top candidate in every constituency, and so win 10 out of 10 seats and have total control of the legislature, even though 60% of people voted anti-Nazi. This is the system in the UK and US.
Under a proportional system, you would allocate the seats in proportion to the votes cast - so 4 for the Nazis, 3 for the Liberals, 2 for the Socialists and 1 for the Conservatives. The non-Nazis would then have a legislative majority (6 out of 10 seats) that reflects how people actually voted, and could form an anti-Nazi coalition government. This is the system in the Netherlands or Germany for example.
Under a preferential system, you still elect seats on a constituency basis, but you make sure that the winning candidate is preferred by a majority of voters in the constituency - either by having multi-round elections or by having voters rank candidates instead of just voting for one. In a simplified system, you could rule out all but the top two candidates (in this case, Nazi and Liberal), and then have a second round of votes two weeks later for voters to decide between those two candidates to represent their seat. This tends to favour more moderate candidates so it’s likely under such a system that the Liberal would generally defeat the Nazi in the second round in most seats. This is the system in France.
There are also hybrid systems like Single Transferrable Vote, which simultaneously achieve proportionality and preferential voting - this is used in Ireland.
THIS IS NOT AT ALL HOW THE US WORKS
Under FPTP, the Nazi would be the top candidate in every constituency, and so win 10 out of 10 seats and have total control of the legislature, even though 60% of people voted anti-Nazi. This is the system in the UK and US.
This description is outrageously wrong regarding the US. Each contest is FPTP but we have many contests centered on geographic regions. Because of this the the breakdown you listed above for the 4 parties ends up with drastically different results based on how these people are distributed geographically. You could see anything from them winning virtual no seats to the majority of seats. You could NEVER win all seat
Our senate is 2 seats per state with some states having as little as around a half a million people and some having tens of millions. Our house is nominally more democratic but its not truly exactly proportional and its subject to gerrymandering.
It’s certainly broken enough to potentially practically provide 51% of the power to a party supported by 45% of the people but its not so bad as to provide 100% of control to someone with 40%
He only got 25% of the vote and it’s a consolidation of other right wing votes, so there is no right wing majority.
So it’s not much different than earlier elections, but now it’s concentrated in his party, making him the largest.
He will not be able to form a government without making concessions. And making concessions will lose him voters.
So yeah, interesting times, but I am not worried.
The headline seems much more sensational than the numbers lead me to believe.
In most countries “winning” the election implies having a majority.
In coalition countries like ours, it only means becoming the biggest party.
Hence why the headline might lead people to a wrong conclusion.
Practically speaking, it’s more important which potential coalition has a majority. And the parties on the right don’t have a clear majority, nor do the left parties.
So it will either be a center-right or center-left coalition.
Center-right will be attempted first, since we customarily let the largest party initiate, but it will be quite difficult since we have two chambers and different parties on the right are big in different chambers.
If he fails, center-left has a clear majority in both chambers with the same parties.
Edit: need to correct a mistake. Center-left also doesn’t have a clear majority in both chambers. Two of the big parties in this election have very few seats in the other chamber.
But not a problem, we often have coalitions that don’t have a majority in the Senate. Our House (this election) is more decisive and the Senate more facilitating.
Because he doesn’t hold a majority. In the Netherlands parties must form a coalition to govern. It might be difficult to convince other parties to join the coalition given his stances. However, I do think Geert Wilders will become our prime minister. I’m very much hoping he’ll fuck up, the government will fall and a more reasonable person will take over.
I guess netherlands was like, “you know, things have been going too well here”
Things have been going shit here actually, and blaming minorities for a country’s problems is still a surefire way to win votes. As a dutch person I’m sad, embarrassed, and scared.
“Going to shit”, really?
NL is one of the best countries in the world. Yes we have some challenges, e.g. stikstof or crappy goverment (e.g.toeslagenaffaire), but common, don’t be soo fatalistic.
And yes, live is getting very expensive. Which is the result of the late-game capitalistic piramid scheme we live in. That sucks, sure. But that is not solvable any time soon. Especially not by NL :D
- the government doesn’t take climate change seriously
- it is basically impossible for a large group of people (including me) to ever buy a home
- any sort of nature here is dead and over half the country doesn’t seem to care
- inequality has been growing for decades
- the country is incredibly polarized
- after over a decade of neo liberal VVD policy, the majority of people apparently yearn for even more right wing policy
- Ajax are 12th in the eredivisie
Or course I’m being a bit dramatic but considering how things were I do think the Netherlands is going to shit a little bit. Of course it’s a better place to live than many other places, but in my opinion it’s definitely getting worse.
NL is one of the best countries in the world.
That can change. Norway is also one of the best countries in the world, but they’ve been doing the same thing I see happening in the UK: not funding health care adequately, police corruption scandals, refusing to decriminalise and legalise drugs, not really using the oil fund money enough (unlike Alaska (US) which pays dividends to its citizens from its oil fund, not exactly a left-wing US state compared to Norway), welfare benefits being reduced, the Norwegian state used to fund housing coop development which led to 20% of our population living in democratic housing but isn’t doing that anymore and now we’re in a housing crisis, inequality has grown over the last 50 years, union density has reduced over the last 50 years, …
When we’re talking about things going to shit we mean relative to where we were before. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot I wish we had in the UK that Norway has, but the trajectory looks oddly similar to what happened and is happening in the UK. We’re currently boiling frogs and because things are going to shit so slowly it’s harder to notice. Like, so much counter evidence to what we’re doing exists around the world if we simply look at how other areas are solving problems. For example, Finland is the only country in the EU where homelessness isn’t increasing and housing prices have actually decreased* - wanna guess how they did that? (hint: the state gave people free housing)
* at least until recently, housing markets are weird now because of the inflation, but theirs were falling before that
This is happening because things haven’t been going well. Same can be seen all over Europe. Shit times and whether for a good reason or not, immigration issues have become a big issue in the minds of the people. Established moderate parties have avoided addressing that issue and that’s why far-right parties, who keep banging on about being strict on immigration and immigrants, keep winning a bigger share.
Moderates are handing far-right votes by ignoring what people are concerned about. I know it’s a dilemma to parties who don’t consider it an issue (do you really want to go in on an issue you don’t believe is an issue), but people think it’s an issue and feel like they aren’t being heard.
