Talk:2006–07 Dutch cabinet formation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Overall structure[edit]

I started writing the coalitions section and my intention was to do this structurally, starting with the simplest, two parties - not possible. Then tree parties - few options. Then four, etc. Alas I didn't do that too well and now it's been re-arranged and nothing is left of that structure. Any thoughts of rewriting it again, in this fashion? Btw, in the history section only the first line is about history, so that doesn't make sense. I added this as a starting point, to put it in historic perspective (especially concerning how many parties a cabinet is likely to have). But now it's at the end, which doesn't make sense either. DirkvdM 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Minority and large majority[edit]

Has there ever been a minority cabinet in a new formation? The table at the bottom of Elections in the Netherlands only shows three, including the present one and all the result of a fallen cabinet.
At the other end there is the possibility of a cabinet that has more parties in it than strictly necessary. And this has happened several times; Drees I through IV, den Uyl, van Agt II and Kok II. The article should at least mention that. Whether the present situation makes it unlikely or actually desirable, I can't tell.DirkvdM 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All minimal majority coalitions[edit]

To help the issue of which coalitions to add to the table, I've made an overview of all possible coalitions, using a cold systematic approach, going down the list by party size, adding parties when necessary, ignoring political plausibilities, thus avoiding any pov. Note that these are only the minimum coalitions. Any option could be expanded on with more parties. For example, CDA-VVD-D66-GL-CU is not on this list because D66 is not needed for this coalition. So why is it on the list in the article?

Note that CDA-PvdA-D66 is not yet on the list in the article. Conisdering what is on the list, that is an odd omission. Also a useful illustration of how useful hard science is, as opposed to guesswork.

Also note that this list is not al that long. DirkvdM 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

CDA-PvdA (73)
CDA-PvdA-SP 99
CDA-PvdA-VVD 95
CDA-PvdA-PVV 82
CDA-PvdA-GL 80
CDA-PvdA-CU 79
CDA-PvdA-D66 76
CDA-PvdA-PvdD-SGP 79
CDA-SP (66)
CDA-SP-VVD 88
CDA-SP-PVV-GL 82
CDA-SP-PVV-CU 81
CDA-SP-PVV-D66 78
CDA-SP-PVV-PvdD 77
CDA-SP-PVV-SGP 77
CDA-VVD (63)
CDA-VVD-PVV-GL 79
CDA-VVD-PVV-CU 78
CDA-VVD-GL-CU 76
CDA-VVD-CU-D66-PvdD-SGP 76
PvdA-SP (58)
PvdA-SP-VVD 80
PvdA-SP-PVV-GL-CU 80
PvdA-SP-PVV-GL-D66 77
PvdA-SP-PVV-GL-PvdD 76
PvdA-SP-PVV-GL-SGP 76
PvdA-SP-GL-CU-D66-PvdD 76
PvdA-SP-GL-CU-D66-SGP 76
PvdA-VVD 55
PvdA-VVD-PVV-GL-CU 77
PvdA-VVD-PVV-GL-D66-PvdD 76
PvdA-VVD-PVV-GL-D66-SGP 76
PvdA-VVD-PVV-CU-D66-PvdD-SGP 77
SP-VVD (47)
SP-VVD-PVV-GL-CU-D66-PvdD-SGP 76

Note that PvdA-CDA-D66 IS listed. It is listed under historical coalitions as this was the 1981 van Agt II coalition. Arnoutf 16:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I was looking at it a bit too systematically. :) What about putting this list in the article? It's not too big and it's nice and complete. DirkvdM 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me; for short lists it is a good thing the CDA only exists for 30 years :-) I put the years of the historical coalitions in the footnotes of the table. I don't mind if the current table is replaced by something better (it is not well structured and too big). Arnoutf 19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Another oops - I had forgotten PvdA-VVD, so I added it.
In the table, you say that CDA-PvdA has in total 73 seats, but according to the election results, they have 74 seats. Therefore some other coalitions has the wrong seats amount. For example: CDA-PvdA-VVD has 96 seats (instead of 95), CDA-PvdA-PVV has 83 seats (instead of 82), CDA-PvdA-GL has 81 seats (instead of 80), CDA-PvdA-CU has 80 seats (instead of 79), CDA-PvdA-D66 has 77 seats (instead of 76) and CDA-PvdA-PvdD-SGP has 78 seats (instead of 79). 84.246.50.150 09:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Position of parties[edit]

The parties are now listed in two tables. However, would a 2D Cons-Lib Right-Left chart not be a better representation. We could use the kieskompas chart? [1] - just click on neatral all the time and you will get the landscape. If there is support for this I am willing to make the chart (but that will be a bit of work, so only if there is agreement). Altnernatively split in 3 (Left-Centre-Right) with CU, CDA and D66 being center - these parties can go either way so listing them as left or right may be premature... Arnoutf 23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Untill we resolve this I have replaced the summary with the table that is also on the election article. This representation is leading. We could off course discuss the Kieskompas' representation, here but also on the elections article. C mon 10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as an idea how it could look like on the right
Political landscape in the Nehterlands after the 2006, Dutch general elections. Size of circle indicates size in parlaiment (based on taxonomy from www.kieskompas.nl)
.It shows some of the complexities in formation. If we go for it I will make a more appealling version Arnoutf 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks very good! Three notes though:
  1. The axis should have names in the figure
  2. Use colours!
  3. To avoid NOR issues, make it clear that it is a representation of the Kieskompas, and not something we thought up ourselves.
C mon 23:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course. This was just a sketch; the rest will take me a bit more time so I was waiting finalising it after I am sure people liked the idea. The axis will be anchored: conservative-liberal and left-right. The colors will be the same as in the pie-chart and the other history of 2nd chamber graph. The caption will be something like: "Positions and relative sizes of the parties in the Dutch second chamber (based on http://www.kieskompas.nl)" Arnoutf 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am surprised at the outcome. Shouldn't CDA and PvdA be somewhat further to the right and D66 and PvdD further to the left? And SP is generally considered a conservative party. Of course the terminology for left and right is rather vague, but with the word 'liberal' it's downright confusing. In the Netherlands it's associated with economic liberalism (right wing) and in the US it's associated with social liberalism (left wing). If we use this there should be a clear definition of what the terms are supposed to mean. I don't see 'liberal' and 'conservative' as opposites. The VVD is even often called conservative liberal. Wouldn't progressive-conservative make more sense? Then again, which one is depends on the status quo, whether one wants to change that or not. Is this a standard type of chart? In other words, is there a Wikipedia article on it? :) That would make all the difference. All I could find is Political taxonomy, but that's a stub and I'm not even sure if it's about this. DirkvdM 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Would be something as the above, still open for tweeking (or discarding if wanted).
Btw, I also thought SP was more conservative.
In a next version progressive it will be (good point).
CDA says they are center (but the right wing is in power nowadays). PvdV openly says they are not left. D66 also says they are center.
Anyway I will take up all your advices and make yet another version if we go for it
I have not seen anything like it before; maybe because there are not that many countries with a fully representative system Arnoutf 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The VVD is more to the "right" in the Kieskompas than the PVV on economic issues. That sounds odd to me. (the left-right axis seems to be about economic freedom vs. economic collectivism). Intangible 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I used the "all issues" selection to make the chart. I think VVD is most of all in favour of selling all govt companies and reducing taxes and government. Arnoutf 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The methodology of the Kieskompas is a bit of puzzle to me still, the left-right seems to involve a lot of issues, including international cooperation, privatization and income equalization. Quite some hocus-pocus and then the VVD is more liberal in economic terms, better leave it to the specialists.
These graphs are also used in the United States they are called Nolan Chart, also see World's Smallest Political Quiz for a US KiesKompas.
The KiesKompas actually uses the terms TAN (traditional-authoritarian-nationalist) and GAL (green-alternative-libertarian) to describe its second axis. Progressive-conservative seems to fit best. C mon 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, the Nolan chart puts 'totalianarism' opposite 'libertarianism'. Odd, until you read that Nolan is a libertarian. :) According to the article's intro I'm a full-blood libertarian, but I wouldn't stoop to sucn name-calling to discredit my 'opponents'. Also from the article: "Its corners are capitalist individualism, anarchism, state communism and fascism". So if you're not a capitalist you must be a commy anarcho-fascist. That's one way to convince people that capitalism is the only way to go. :) An alternative linked to at the bottom is the Pournelle chart. But unless we fill these in according to our own views (original research), I'm afraid we're stuck with the kieskompas version. DirkvdM 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, according to that 'world's smalles political quiz' I'm a centrist left-liberal libertarian because I don't agree with halving taxes. There, now you know who you're dealing with. :) DirkvdM 14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CU open[edit]

The ChristianUnion is open to all party coalitions at this point in time [2]. Intangible 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And I haven't seen any CDA statements lately about possible coalitions... Intangible 14:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Terpsta and Ruding were in Buitenhof this morning. Terpstra sees CDA-PvdA-GL as most likely, while Ruding favours CDA-PvdA-CU; both think the other option CDA-PvdA-SP will not work out. Zalm even announced he would not be surprised that no coalition can be formed and there will be elections again. Arnoutf 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Grand Coalition[edit]

Where does the notion of a 'Grand Coalition' come from? This title is given to CDA-PvdA-VVD, but CDA-PvdA-SP is 'grander' in that it has more seats. I'd say the title would be more appropriate for CDA-PvdA-SP-VVD. That would be truly grand, with 121 seats. It would be unique, but it would be more balanced than any combination of three of the big four, in which one would be too much a minority. In this grand coalition each would have a partner. And it would be more democratic. And given the difficulties of finding other workable solutions, it might jsut be considered. But that's just my analysis. Is there a source for calling CDA-PvdA-VVD a grand coalition? Or is that also just someone's personal idea? DirkvdM 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It was my edit, it was originallly listed as large coalition, which I changed because (indeed) CDA-PvdA-SP is larger. I though of the Grand name - as it reflect the broader representation (Christian left and rightwing). Another term would be fine with me, couldn't think of one. Arnoutf 14:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Consistency party colour coding[edit]

In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball[edit]

I had deleted a considerable amount of text about the possibility of resignation of Verdonk. This clearly falls under Wikipedia:NOT. We are not here to discuss the effects of hypothetical motions on constitutional law, because these are not facts, but just theory. Independent of the NOS or Plasterk is a reliable source, they have another role here: they can speculate about the theory of constitutional law, while we, encyclopedists, have to stick to facts, not fiction. C mon 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That bit was really about two things, which was indeed a bit confusing. The part you focused on is the effect on the coalition and that indeed belongs further down, where you put it. But it started as an explanation of how the situation had changed after first there came a minority cabinet and then the new parliament was sworn in, which created a situation in which the cabinet had an even smaller minority in parliament. It was intended as a story on the legal complications (alas, 'staatkundig' translates as 'political;, which doesn't help). I will put back a shorter version in the intro. DirkvdM 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Btw, it was not a 'crystal ball' text. It was based on what I read in the NRC, but that's a bit hard to link to. :) DirkvdM 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

75 seats for a coalition?[edit]

In NRC of last friday it says that CDA and PvdA are one seat short of a coalition. But a coalition requires 76 seats to make sure a coalition can always implements its policies (as long as the ranks remain closed), right? DirkvdM 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

76 is right 1/2+1. C mon 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Exacly. I sort of rely on NRC not making any mistakes, but I suppose every now and then some slip through the mazes of the net of scrutiny. DirkvdM 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps confusion between minority (1/2-1=74) and majority (1/2+1=76); so it takes two seats from minority to majority. A tweede kamer of 149 seats would make the maths much simpler ;-) Arnoutf 11:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And would help to avoid chaos like the one Czechia currently has to endure... —Nightstallion (?) 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Related article[edit]

I just created Dutch provincial elections, 2007; should any relevant information turn up, you know where to put it. ;)Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Deadline?[edit]

Is there a deadline for a cabinet to be formed? 68.41.174.194 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it has to be formed within 4 years after the election, because there would be new elections and a new formation. In practice the longest formation lasted almost 8 months (that would be late June early July in the current time scheme). However, with the upcoming provincial (and subsequent indirect eerste kamer) election on March 7 all involved parties have announced they want to present a new cabinet before then. Thus March 7 is a self-imposed, un-official deadline. Arnoutf 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Face covers forbidden[edit]

It still baffles me that the CDA proposes a ban on Burqas and other face covering clothing. If this comes in effect we have to call the police when we see a circus clown or a carnaval parade as well......... Arnoutf 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Crime numbers?[edit]

I removed the crime numbers from the agreement for several reasons.
First of all, these numbers were made public after the coalition agreement was reached. There has been no reference that these figures have influenced the negotiations in any way; therefore this implied causality constitutes of original research, and thus these figures are not to be mentioned, and not relevant.
Secondly, all other parts of the coalition agreement were presented neutrally (sometimes with a reference to the party preference), this would be the only one with a content based comment; which introduces a editor POV into these decisions. Arnoutf 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree - C mon 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • the article should be more than a copy-paste of government propaganda. Wiki will benefit when the agreement objectives are accompanied by relevant background information backed up by facts. Fact:new government seeks 25% reduction in crime. Fact: latest crime figures from credible source point to top 5 ranking in EU. It is that simple. Where is the POV? This is a waste of my time, I will refrain from making further edits in this article I leave it up to you people to finish it. V8rik 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not that simple, your reasoning is spurious; there is no evidence these specific figures were connected with the decisions. (Example of spurious reasoning - Consider: Fact: Storks (ooievaar) don't breed in areas with a lot of polution. Fact: In heavily poluted areas relatively fewer healthy kids are born. Conclusion -> Storks are involved in the delivery of healthy babies). Arnoutf 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What do we do with this article in a months time??[edit]

This is a nice and very extensive article. However, once we have a Fourth Balkenende Cabinet (probably towards 23 February), what do we do with all that info. It doesn't really fit in the template of earlier Dutch cabinets. These should give a short background (elections, formation process) and then move on to incidents, members of the cabinet etc. This long story will then have to be deleted, or placed under another name (Formation of the Fourth Balkenende Cabinet??)--Dengo 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we move this article to Fourth Balkenende Cabinet and split off a {{main}} article on formation as you suggested. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to (re)move or rename this article. Cabinet formation history is a very much alive form of history, at least in the Netherlands — although most people forget about formations while there isn't one going on. Also 2003 Dutch cabinet formation was quite rightfully kept. Peterbr 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Peterbr. There is no reason to delete this article, there will be separate Balkenende IV article I guess, which can refer to this one. And in 4 yrs time (or earlier if it comes to that), many people may want to check back on the previous one. Arnoutf 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Leave it as it is, just like the 2003 article. —Nightstallion (?) 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep!, though we might want to look critically at what is a) still relevant after the cabinet has been formed (I'm thinking especially of the list of possible coalitions) and b) what could better fit on the Fourth Cabinet Balkenende article, (like the policy which I recently moved off). BTW you all did a great job at this combination of journalism and encyclopedia writing, you were so fast I couldn't keep up! C mon 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please follow citation templates[edit]

Regarding the references in the article, please remember to follow the citation methods as outlined by Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web. AecisBrievenbus 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So...[edit]

Precisely what is missing now? Just parliamentary approval of the new government? —Nightstallion (?) 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No they got that, they need to be officially appointed by the Queen (scheduled for thursday). Arnoutf 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, great. So the new government will be official per 22 February 2007? —Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Cabinets never get parliamentary approval. There is no investiture vote or anything. We are waiting for royal appointment. C mon 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh sorry, that is true, I meant that the involved parties agreed with the program (i.e. gave approval to the results of their negotiators). This, in this case, makes up for a parliamentary majority approval. But yes we are waiting for the official appointment (ceremonial).Arnoutf 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2006–07 Dutch cabinet formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2006–07 Dutch cabinet formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)