Talk:People's Party for Freedom and Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

free market party[edit]

Should we still cling on to the idea of the VVD being a free market party? They seem to be exactly what the 'liberals' are in the US. Intangible 14:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In the dutch political system the VVD is the most free market party, it has embraced neo-liberalism, and has economic policy stances comparable to the views of Thatcher. Of all liberal parties in Western Europe it is certainly one of the least social-liberal.
But comparing American and European political systems is very difficult. Personally I think the PvdA is much more like the American liberalism, which is both signified by personal relations (between Wim Kok and Bill Clinton), electorates (urban lower and middle class voters and minorities) and policy ('Third Way'). And that the VVD lacks an American counterpart, the two party system is not easy to be compared with multiparty systems for obvious reasons.
This soon becomes our own research or point of view, which might not be compatible with wikipedia policies.C mon 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, describing a party by comparing it to a US party requires the readers to know that party. If it were a big party that would be one thing, but any party other than the Democrats or Republicans is too small to be known internationally, so you're back to square one. They are often described as 'liberal', but that's a Dutch inaccuracy because it isn't the only liberal party and because their 'right-wing-ness' describes them best. They're mostly liberal in that they support the free market system. DirkvdM 07:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
VVD is economically liberal and socially conservative. 62.238.92.181 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
There not socially conservative per se. They support toleration of soft drugs and are supportive of gay marriages / adoption by gays. But calling the VVD a free market party still seems dubious to me. You would expect them then to profess more openly for a capitalistic society, as an alternative to a society with a mixed economy. But browsing the foundational programs at [1], the VVD always has preferred a social market economy. Intangible 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"VVD is economically liberal and socially conservative" - That's only if you think that supporting gay marriage, abolishing military conscription, legalising certain drugs and prostitution is considered "socially conservative". I think somebody is spinning things now.--213.243.158.41 06:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
In the US, "liberal" generally means "left-wing". Democrats are generally less pro-capitalism/free market than Republicans. In Europe (or at least the Netherlands), there is not a contrast between conservative and liberal, but rather between socialist and liberal, as we are not as right-wing as you Americans are ;-). Socialist is left-wing, liberal is right-wing. Actually, the SP is much more pro-individual freedom than the VVD (for instance on the softdrugs policy). SalaSkan 19:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideology & Issues[edit]

I've reincluded some information about the older ideological positions of the VVD, not because I think the new information isn't good, but just because I think it is useful to write something about the historical ideology of the VVD. C mon 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it a little bit. The VVD from the start was not committed to laissez-faire policies, thus to classify them as a free-market party would be wrong, although they are more likely than any other party in the Netherlands to support elements of such a market. Intangible 01:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks fine! C mon 11:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberal/Right of Center Liberal[edit]

Now Intangible removed the market, right of center liberal comment intirely. It should be clear, right from the introduction, that the VVD is a right of center liberal party, to distinguish it from D66. If there are no protests, I'm putting it back in. C mon 18:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

D66 is already described as a progressive/social liberal party, so it is already distinct from the VVD, which is neither conservative nor a 'market' party. The qualification liberal is just fine. Intangible 19:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please give me three sources that state that the VVD is not a conservative or free market party. I'll give you four academic sources, italics are my own.
(Andeweg & Irwin Government & Politics in the Netherlands, p. 48): "Although perhaps still inspired by nineteenth century liberal principles of laissez-faire, and still viewed as liberal in many social matters, in twentieth-century economic terms the [VVD] had become the most conservative of the major Dutch parties."
(ibid., pp.48-49): "To do so [D66] has moved from being simply a reform party to one generally described as progressive liberal, in contrast to the VVD which is seen as conservative-liberal"
(Galllagher, Laver, Mair, Representative Government in Modern Europe, p.226): "The CDA was in government continually until 1994, often in coalition with the relatively conservative Liberal Party (VVD) (...)."
(ibid., p.184) "[Its history as a middle class secular party] links the party to the German FDP and sets them apart from the British and Swedish Liberals, both of which originated as moderate middle-class alternatives to secular conservative opponetns, and both of which are still oriented toward more centrist policies." (Implying that the VVD is not centrist in its policies.)
I would love to see your sources, please remember wiki-policy like WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. C mon 07:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
So the authors used the term 'conservative', have they given a definition? About the 'market' party thing, I am not sure how you would define it. The VVD rejected laissez-faire economics from the start, so what would 'market' then mean? About the VVD not being 'centrist' in its policies, what does being 'centrist' in its policies mean? Intangible 15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Three things:
  1. Let's have a constructive debate. If you don't know what free market, right wing or conservative means look it up there. If you think those terms are difficult to define, the term "party" and the term "liberal" are also difficult to define: you would let us end up in something like "The VVD is a dutch organization". Pulling every term in doubt is not very constructive.
  2. Of all the Dutch parties the VVD is the most rightwing when it comes to the economy. See for instance Huib Pellikaan "Kamerleden in de Publieke Ruimte" in Nieuwe Tegensetellingen in de Nederlandse Politiek 1997, where in a survey amongst MPs the VVD was placed on the most rightwing side, when it comes the nivellation of income differences for instance, or the power that workers should have in companies.
  3. Academics have consistently argued that of all the parties in the Netherlands the VVD is most oriented towards the free market, and it is most rightwing ('conservative' if you will) on economic issues. I've given you five academic sources. Please supply me with one academic source that pulls this in doubt!
-- C mon 17:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. The problem is the all too ubiquitous meanings of conservatism. The VVD is not a traditionalist party, not reactionary, nor a Burkean party, so all that remains to be a party of Status Quo, which it might have been depending on the year you are talking about, but nonetheless not very useful in classifying a political party.
  2. If you equate right-of-center with free-markets, you could just as well use the latter term.
  3. Geert Wilders is even less in favour for egalitarian measures, that's why he left the VVD (as Andreas Kinneging did). To then talk about these two parties being in the same category seems only confusing. I agree that the VVD is more than the other (big) parties in favour of a market system, but that does not make them principally so. There have been many party initiatives after the Second World War who were even more determined so, like the Boerenparty. But the VVD is principally a liberal party, not a free-market party. Maybe this article by MP Hans van Baalen is illustrative [2].
Intangible 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
First, please watch out for doing original research, and refer to academic sources (see WP:NOR).
Butm secondly I think we have a clear opening for consensus in calling the VVD a right of center liberal party. Do you agree?
On a side note: I would watch out in calling the VVD a principally liberal party, because liberal has a clear meaning in the American discourse (with the Democrats considered a 'liberal' party, and the Republicans the 'conservatives'), which differs from the Dutch (and European) discourse. I'd certainly not refer to Hans van Baalen as the outstanding liberal, he was accused of having sympathies for extreme right during his student years [3] and certainly was a member of the nationalist Pro Patria, a students para-military association.
-- C mon 21:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I was more concerned with the article itself than with the persona Van Baalen. Especially these snippets are of concern:
  • De overheid heeft de plicht daar op te treden waar de markt en het vrije spel der maatschappelijke krachten onvoldoende recht doen aan de vrije ontwikkeling van het individu. Een effectieve ordening van de markt voorkomt dat monopolies en kartels ontstaan, waarop de individuele burger als marktpartij en als kiezer geen invloed kan uitoefenen. Dat betekent dat de overheid de vrije concurrentie door regelgeving en toezicht moet garanderen.
  • De VVD kent markt-liberalen, rechtsstaat-liberalen, sociaal-liberalen, conservatief-liberalen, rechts-liberalen, links-liberalen, maar zij zijn vooreerst liberalen.
  • Liberalisme belichaamt het politieke emancipatiestreven.
The Republicans in the USA are aligned with the International Democratic Union, of which the VVD is certainly not a member of. But since Rawls came along, the gap between American liberalism and European liberalism has certainly become smaller.
I think we have a clear opening for consensus in calling the VVD a right of center liberal party. Do you agree? If extreme-right means principally laissez-faire, we might, but I think the wikipedia consensus on that one is different. Intangible 21:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem labelling VVD as a liberal party, since its ideological roots are clearly liberal. Its 1980's Liberal Manifesto was even inspired by the ideas of John Rawls. The problem in the Dutch spectrum that there is no conservative party present. Secular conservatives tend to support the VVD. On cultural issues VVD is progressive, on economics market liberal, on rule of law more repressive. I wouldn't mind labelling the party as a right of center liberal party (but I am not objective, since I support the Dutch liberal party D66. BTW, we might wait for the results of the leadership election, since Verdonk and Rutte are representatives of different traditions. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Intangible, could you source that last statement about the extreme right and libertarianism and wikipedia consensus. I'm intrigued.
BTW I don't see the relevance of the first 'snippet' of Hans van Baalens' argument. He basically says: to have functioning market (his goal as free market liberal) we need a state (a means). This would support the thesis that the VVD is free market-liberal party.
and waiting for the outcomes of the leadership election seems logical.
C mon 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. In some contexts — particularly in the United States—the term "far-right" is used to denote supporters of paleoconservatism and isolationism. While it is occasionally applied to the supporters of extreme laissez-faire capitalism such as some libertarians, calling the libertarians "far-right" or even "right" is a matter of controversy. The libertarians consider themselves as the heirs of the classical liberals, the main enemies of the first far-right. In his essay "Left and Right: the Prospects for Liberty" [1] and "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal" [2], Murray Rothbard even put libertarianism on the "left", claiming that conservatives are the right and socialists merely "middle-of-the road".
  2. Van Baalen's political end is a regulated market (a relative free market), not a free market in the absolute sense.
Intangible 21:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The leadership election outcomes made it quite clear that the VVD is in majority (moderate) liberal, but quite divided between conservative and more liberal factions. I'd prefer two changes to the article. First include in the part about the ideology about the VVD some of the discussion here. We could include the Van Baalen quote and maybe a sentence like "often political commentators and political scientist refer to the VVD as a conservative liberal party, in contrast to D66, which is percieved to be a more progressive liberal party", and some comment on how the leadership elections were dominantly interpreted. A reference to this is easily found in the papers of the following day like this volkskrant article. Furthermore I would also prefer a reference to the relativily controversial issue of the VVD's political ideology in the introduction. Some thing like:

"The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) (Dutch: Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) is a Dutch liberal political party. The VVD is a the most vociferous supporter of private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived a centre-right or conservative liberal party, in contrast to the progressive or left-liberal D66. The VVD currently participates in the Second Balkenende cabinet."

If no reply, I'll implement the changes within three days, C mon 08:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that the VVD is the most vociferous supporter of free-market economics in NL. Does the party have any record in anti-cartel policy (necesary for a free market). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're a social liberal, I'm sure you believe that is a correct statement. However, libertarians like myself as well as several 'market liberals' would argue that it's rather the excess of state intervention itself that creates the conditions under which cartels (and monopolies, for that matter) are formed. If you have the time, please read this[4]LibertariaNZgo 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the new intro so its not free market economics, but private enterprise. C mon 18:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Seeing little debate on the subject I have included the changes. -- C mon 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
C mon, I like your changes. I feel the text captures the debate well. Guus 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

libertarians[edit]

This is ridiculous, the VVD has absolutely no libertarian streak. It's a liberal party, and is closer to social liberalism than to classical liberalism. To compare it to a party in the US that has only some elected state officials seems absurd, for the VVD has a long record as governing party in the Netherlands for the last 50 years, with many policies contradicting libertarianism. Intangible 12:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, I'd say it has more in common with the US democratic party than anything else given its views on abortion and welfare. What's considered right wing in Holland resembles the left wing of the USA. --Zero g 00:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

welfare state[edit]

The reference states: "For all its free enterprise preferences and emphasis on individual self-reliance, the liberals [VVD] have in fact consistently contributed to the extension of the Welfare State in the 1960s and 1970s. Whereas the emphasis has now changed to the need to curtail public expenditure, and in general to give preference to the claim of the active working population over those who enjoy social security benefits, actual policies (proposed or adopted) are yet far from drastic when looked at in a comparative European perspective." Intangible 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

ideology[edit]

I've removed both classical liberalism and conservative liberalism from the box. The only reason why people use the latter term is to compare internal factions in the party, or to compare it with D66. There is nothing inherently ideological about the party that is (liberal) conservative. The party was never classical liberal from its beginning. Intangible 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess this will remain an issue between you and me. In Dutch terms indeed the VVD is liberal and D66 is social-liberal. But in American/international terms liberalism would be closer to the policies of D66. To make the ideology of the VVD clear for every one we have to call it conservative liberal.
I also see your point: so I propose putting liberalism first and then conservative liberalism in second possibly between brackets. A compromise. C mon 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. About the international terms, I doubt D66 will ever play a role in Dutch politics again, so I guess that comparison will lose significance in the near future. Even the Belgian VLD calls itself progressive these days, while they used to be even more "liberal" than the VVD. Intangible 13:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually the D66 is polling above the VVD currently. I was kind of surprised when I saw the poll myself: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32915/party_for_freedom_leads_in_the_netherlands. I have no idea what caused the turnaround, but they've gone from utter collapse to riding high. 74.251.15.189 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I first didn't understand your point, I thought you had conceded but when I re-read your arguments they don't make sense at all:
  1. D66 matters now, do you own a crystal ball to tell the future of Dutch politics. I don't.
  2. The VLD is an extremely bad example of your case the VLD is very similar to the VVD, that's why it started to use the term progressive instead of liberal. While in the US these terms are almost synomous. So this merely shows that there is a difference in the meaning of liberal in Europe and the US
  3. The VVD is characterized as conservative liberal by many authors on Dutch politics, not just in comparison to D66, but to explicate the position of the party.
When you write an encyclopedia article you have to consider your audience. On the nl.wikipedia I would use the term liberaal, here you have to realize that people from different backgrounds and with different knowledge read the article. So use terms that are clear to the entire audience and don't focus on the meaning of the terms in your own language. C mon 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But there are many examples (see Google Scholar) where authors just label the VVD as liberal (in international context). There also cases where authors use the label conservative-liberal. The question is why authors would use the latter term. Is it just to differentiate between the VVD and D66? I have found little literature explaining why the term conservative-liberal should be used, and to me the only reasons seems to make that differentiation between D66 and VVD (which is practically gone; D66 has been torn apart by GroenLinks and the VVD). Intangible 16:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You are just waving a stick at me. Please supply proof of your point. A reference, a name, a book, a scholar. Andeweg & Irwin have written the handbook on Dutch politics. They explicitly call the VVD conservative liberal
Although I disagree with your analysis (in my view the PvdA and not the GreenLeft have gained D66's seats), I think it has no sense to debate it: 1) D66 exists now and 2) the term conservative is used to denote the party in international context.
More importantly can you live with the compromise I implemented: liberalism (conservative liberalism)? C mon 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
For example [5], which calls the VVD "The Liberal Party" and D66 social-liberal or left-liberal. Why do Andeweg & Irwin call the VVD conservative liberal? Is this for ideological reasons? Intangible 10:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Andeweg & Irwin describe the VVD
  1. as the most conservative in economic terms (p.48)
  2. as conservative liberal in contrast to D66's progressive liberalism (p.49)
Koole in his Politieke Partijen in Nederland (the standard work on the Dutch party system)
  1. describes the VVD as the merger of the conservative (behoudend) PvdV with the conservative wing of the VDB in the form of Committee Oud (p.290/p.292)
  2. emphasizes that the VVD has becoming a more populist party since the 1970s oriented at the conservative part of the electorate (pp.298-299)
  3. separates conservative from progressive liberal traditions (LU-LSP-PvdV-VVD and RB-VDB-D66) p.278
All in all the term conservative liberal is used to
  1. explain the VVD's position viz. D66 and the historic traditions of liberalism
  2. to characterize its economic program (in relative terms)
  3. to characterize its political course since the 1970s
Three good reasons if you ask me
Finally your personal opinions about the future of D66 are irrelevant, because [is not a crystal ball].
C mon 11:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So we at least know that liberal conservatism is not meant when these authors use the term conservative liberal for the VVD. About the third point "populism," this is related to Wiegel, but Wiegel has been criticized from within his party, like Hirsi Ali who called him a reactionary conservative. So this third point is not valid for the party as a whole. Many saw the leadership race between Rutte and Verdonk as a race between two internal factions in the VVD (see this Van Aartsen letter for example [6]). Intangible 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I only brought up the demise of D66 because it would kind of marginalize the first point of the list. If D66 would cease to exist as a party after the 2006 elections, this point becomes mute, but you are correct, that this is not of concern right now. Intangible 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The VVD is clearly "market liberal", as opposed to the "social liberal" D66. Those are the standard political names. "Conservative-liberal" implies a party that is economically liberal and socially conservative, like the American Republicans and the Australian Liberal Party, which by far isn't the case of VVD (it's a typical Dutch socially ultra-liberal party, and, by world standards, it would be really absurd to call it 'conservative' on social matters). If you insist on making a clear-cut distinction between VVD and D66's policies, then by all means use the internationally recognizable terms "social-liberal" and "market liberal". Basically, this is the way that European liberal parties or parties within the ELDR are classified. For instance, the British LibDems is considered "social liberal" while the German FDP (comparatively) and the Estonian Reform Party are usually classified as "market liberal". As for "liberal conservative" parties, they are usually members of the EPP-ED group, such as Forza Italia, some British Conservatives, Spain's Popular Party, etc. And, clearly, the VVD is much more similar to FDP than, say, the Popular Party. "Conservative liberal" is obviously a gross misnomer here, mixing up disparate ideologies. The party is just "market liberal". Nothing else.Justice III 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any reference for your argument? Conservative liberal is the term which is used in hand books (see above). C mon 11:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Market liberalism does not seem to be used much for the VVD ([7]). I think overall Liberal without any notion of "conservative liberal" is used the most when describing the VVD. Intangible 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
We can debate the nature of the VVD's ideology for ages. Can't we settle for liberalism, explicitated as conservative liberalism. We have done so in the introduction, in the ideology part and it is the status quo for the template. Intangible, can you agree with that? C mon 17:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you add a footnote of a definition of conservative liberalism? Because it is not used much as ideology (if at all). Intangible2.0 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually more interested in how they define conservative liberalism. Do they give one? I don't have the text. Intangible2.0 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Political ideologies can't be defined, f.i. give me a definition of socialism. They refer to a brand of liberalism, that is conservative in its outlook and most of its policies. C mon 16:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pillarization? About which century are we talking![edit]

The part about pillarization around the VVD was probably correct about 40 or 30 years ago. Personal ties between VNO-NCW and VVD can easier be shown for CDA en D66 than for VVD, so I changed this in a reference to MKB Nederland, which has a former VVD minister for chairman. But pillarization in the Netherlands is a thing of the past. My proposal would be to drop the whole paragraph. Of course I would do no such thing without prior discussion. An alternative approach could be to move the paragraph to a history section. Stuart LaJoie overleg 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, I have incorporated the section into the history sections, C mon 09:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: 2006 & 2007 Elections[edit]

I noticed that the national* elections held in late 2006 and provicial* elections of early 2007 are not included yet in this article (* = lower and upper house). -- Livinginabox 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Title[edit]

The VVD itself translates their name with "Party for Freedom and Democracy"[8]. Although that's quite strange ("Volkspartij" = Folks' Party (notice the similarity?) = People's Party) and most organisations translate the party's name with "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy"[9], I think we should use the official translation provided by the party itself. SalaSkan 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The literal translation is of course People's Party. The meaning of this term is explained in the first paragraph of the text at your first link. As far as I know, during and shortly after the Cold War, in many countries 'People's Party' suggested a Communist background. To avoid this wrong impression it became customary to use just 'Party' in the official translations. Maybe it is better to stick to the present name of the article, add a redirect from the official name and give a short explanation in the article itself. It may prove difficult though to find a written source for the explanation. It is quite possible this was an unrecorded pragmatic decision several decades ago, but if there is a source I can probably find it.
Stuart LaJoie talk2me 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Academic standard works like Gallagher, Laver and Mair "Representative Government in Modern Europe", Andeweg and Irwin "Politics and Governance in the Netherlands" all use People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. So I suppose so do we. C mon 23:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A very good idea, Stuart. Of course, People's Party is better, but as the party itself leaves the "people's" bit out, we should provide an explanation in the article. SalaSkan 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Would this do fine? SalaSkan 11:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The People's Party reference is suggestive of the VVD seeking support from all political classes, not just a middle class or a lower class. See also Catholic People's Party. Intangible2.0 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Centre-right[edit]

Conservative liberal parties are usually centre-right parties,becuase on economic issues they are moderate right-wing,while on social issues are centrist.So we can define them like above.Right-wing parties are the conservative ones.I understand the Dutch panorama,but ideology and issues are universal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanesco (talkcontribs) 21:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

These classifications are always very difficult. But an argument like "so and so is always the case" makes little sense, this is an article on a Dutch party, not conservative liberalism as such. So let's look at it scientifically. In 2002 the Chapel Hill Survey was held under European voters. The research has a comparative angle. The researchers asked experts from these countires to place the parties in their country on a single left right scale on basis of their over all ideology. This is a 10 point-scale. They gave the VVD a score of 7.4 (For comparison the CDA was given a score of 6.1 and the LPF a score of 8.4). Here is the tricky part: we want to construct a six point-scale, with Far Left, Left, Centre Left, Centre Right, Right and Far Right. We could say that 0-1.7 is far left, 1.7-3.3 left, 3.3-5 centre left, 5-6.7 centre left, 6.7-8.3 right and 8.3-10 far right. That would place the VVD solidly in the "right" category. This however could be seen as violating the principle of "no original research". The argument you can construct, without problems with this original research principle is that the VVD is not particularly close the centre at all, making your proposal to call it a centre-right party invalid. C mon (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi C mon!Thank you for answering me!Your answer is correct.Only one thing:can you tell me the right link,which states that VVD is 7.4 right?I can't find it! --Itanesco (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll need SPSS to open this .sav file. C mon (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
@C mon and Itanesco: IMO this appears to be a very globalist party, which is weird for a "hard right" party. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Posted on request of IP on blocked proxy[edit]

The international comparison section invites UK readers to bring in their prejudices for or against the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats, DE readers to do the same with their feelings about the FDP, and so on for Danish and American readers. This probably contributes more to the illusion of understanding. As it also appears to be original research, perhaps it ought to go. --216.224.124.124 (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral on whatever this is discussing. Original. fetch·comms 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"conservative liberalism"[edit]

The references cited in the article (No. 1 & 3) cite the VVD party as one of a "conservative liberalism" ideology in their category 'Ideology, Affiliation, Founding'. Mind you, both citations are foreign productions. Things being as they are, there is a high probability that those compiling such English-language descriptions are themselves unable to comprehend the natives' (Dutch) language.

If to be 'liberal', as one would understand from the British tradition, is to be appended to this political grouping, then one would be stretching the meaning somewhat. Primarily, but not essentially, because 'liberal' does not feature in the original native name. Secondly, because it is atypical to what is (generally) conceived overseas (at least, in the Anglo-Saxon tradition) to be just that. Thirdly, if it is to be appended (liberal) to this grouping as a citation entry, then this ought not to take place without the precise description as offered by the (cited) political commentators. In this case, the word 'conservative' is missing from the affiliation being sported in this article; whereas it is clearly present and evident in the sources cited. In a political chart of the Netherlands produced for the elections taking place here, a political scientist of the Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam depicted this political grouping as the farthest to the 'right', outdone therein only by its most infamous former member's one-man-band Political-Foundation, Mister W.

The 'liberal' sentiment, in any, that one could possibly be forgiven for appending to this party's general 'drive and sentiment' (but only forgiven were one a proven illiterate in the local indigents' unique, elusive, Germanic creole-speak) is that of the classical liberalism, in that sense forever associated with the sentiment of Rule Empress-Victoria à la laissez-faire policies dating from c. the mid 1800s: where such sterling statesmen as Sir Robert Peel spring to mind. Rather a look-a-like for the current Leiter. Not that it's a 'rutten' one, mind you.

Mind you too, not that these would-be bobby peeler contemporary Europeans are in any ways for 'leaving-it-alone' (the society and l'politique), for theirs is a modus to do precisely something else, that harks back to the revolutionary days of Peel himself and a "non-role" for HRM government in all the affairs of the people - both rich and (or indeed, especially) the deprived in our society: thereby forcefully excluding Her Royal Majesty from the affairs of the Poor. [As always 'Ours', that is, not yours]. Barentsz (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Barentsz: Well, Dutch politics simply don't translate as easy into British politics linguistically so the term "conservative" might be more understandable for most British & Northern-Irish readers who have no understanding of the wide term "Liberal" in this context, in fact in the Netherlands British "Conservatives" would be considered to be "Liberal" while U.S. American Conservatives as "Confessionalist", while "Liberals" from the U.K. would qualify as "Social-Democrats/Socialists/Communists" to some extend, for this very reason the term "Conservative" to describe the People's Party for Freedom, and Democracy would not be incorrect and many Anglophone newspapers refer to it as such (this qualifies as WP:COMMONNAME to some extend, but if everyone says something incorrect it doesn't make it fact so even this is debatable).
As much as I personally dislike the usage of the term "Conservative" for Dutch political parties as it is clearly an exonym, it's simply not incorrect in the context of British politics and would thus be the best for English readers.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Political position[edit]

The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy is not a centre-right party but a right-wing party.

http://www.artikeltjes.com/artikeltjes/194/1/Is-deze-partij-links-of-rechts/Page1.html http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkspartij_voor_Vrijheid_en_Democratie http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/01/the_rightwing_vvd_were_the_big.php http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/07/farmers_desert_christian_democ.php 81.58.144.30 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)