Dutch election: lessons for Britain?
Thursday 13 September 2012
 The election in the Netherlands, it says, was a mass exodus to the centre - "a clear vote for democracy and Europe, against populism and unpredictable firebrands like Geert Wilders". Part of the reason for his electoral disaster is attributed to his action in triggering the election in the first place. As a result, it says, the Dutch have turned away from political extremes and "fled to the middle". They were fed up, we are told, of wobbly governments, erratic, flamboyant politicians and unsustainable promises. They no longer wanted the cabinet to be dependent on an unpredictable firebrand, with the government collapsing again after a few months. However, a strong element of wishful thinking may be evident here, as the biggest hit proportionately was taken by the pro-Europe Green Party (results listed here). It lost seven of its ten seats, while a number of tiny parties gained seats. Some of Wilder's grief, therefore, may be self-inflicted, resulting from his aggressive campaigning style combined with an almost complete absence of substance. And, although he chose to fight on an anti-EU ticket, his hostile rhetoric, directed mainly at Spain and Greece, was not matched by a sensible alternative to EU membership. In displaying these failings, there are some parallels with UKIP, which is also dominated by a headstrong, flamboyant figure, in Mr Farage. It relies on aggressive rants from its leader, lacks policy depth and has consistently failed to come up with a sensible alternative to EU membership, which reflects reality rather than wishful thinking. We know that, at a latter stage of his campaign, Geert Wilders was seeking to formulate an EU exit plan, but he had left it too late to embark on such a substantial task. At least, though, he recognised the need – which is more than UKIP has ever done. Thus, if there are any lessons to be learned from the Dutch experience, it was not that – as the pundits would have you believe – a rush to the centre is inevitable. Campaigning style does have an effect, as does any perceived or actual lack of substance. People in democracies around the world, it seems, have a perverse habit of casting their votes first and foremost for parties which project confidence in their abilities to govern. The "cheeky chappie" approach may be fine for a protest vote, when the result doesn't matter (such as in the euro elections), but when people are electing a government, they tend to take it seriously. That much we are seeing in the UK, with the classic two-party squeeze emerging. The next election is shaping up to be a Tory-Labour contest and, if the result looks close, the other parties won't get a look in. Here is possibly the real lesson. The European Movement engineered the biggest revolution in politics since the war, without ever fighting an election, or winning any seats in its name in any parliament. One wonders, therefore, whether fighting elections is the best way of changing public sentiment and achieving political change. There are other ways. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/09/2012 |
Defence: BAE Systems-EADS merger
Thursday 13 September 2012
 And now they get this - the surprise merger talks between aerospace and defence giants, BAE Systems and EADS. In separate press releases, the two companies declare that the potential merger would "create a leading international company in the fields of aerospace, defense and security with material production and technology capacity in France, Germany, Spain, the UK and the US". But none will be more delighted than the "colleagues" who see the integration of defence contractors as central to underpinning their European Defence Industrial Policy, creating a truly Europeandefence giant, to match the power of the US. A European defence identity is still very much a priority in the EU. We saw this yesterday in the Barroso speech, where he happily declared that "the world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions to help stabilise the situation in crisis areas". Thus, he stated, "We need to launch a comprehensive review of European capabilities and begin truly collective defence planning". Detaching the major equipment suppliers from their national anchors, taking the "British" out of BAE Systems, is a very good start. The Emperor Barroso must have gone to work with a song in his heart this morning. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/09/2012 |
Dutch election: holding onto nurse
Thursday 13 September 2012
When you are a small country with a relatively large population, and your economy is dominated by your much larger neighbour, it is very hard to take a truly independent political line.
Such is the fate of Holland, invaded and occupied in the last century and still dominated by Germany, albeit mainly economically, it has remained a staunch, if sometimes not wholly enthusiastic European partner.However, when in the Spring, prime minister Mark Rutte (VVD) tendered his Liberal government's resignation after Geert Wilders' Freedom Party (PVV) blocked talks aimed at cutting €16 billion from the budget, there was some thought that, in the subsequent general election, the Freedom Party would do quite well. Furthermore, there was some good sense in thinking this might happen. The budget crisis had, after all, been triggered by a decision in 2011 that all EU member states should present their preliminary budget plans for 2012 to the EU Commission before the end of April. This was supposedly to prevent a repeat of the "situation in Greece", made worse by a provision that the commission could recommend "adjustments" to the plans announced by states, if it thought the budgets too lax. But, in fact, Wilders was only the proximate cause of the government collapse. Even without his intervention, the ruling coalition in the Netherlands no longer had a parliamentary majority and there had been some real "show stoppers" on the table that had already threatened the bring the coalition down. One was the long-disputed issue of tax deductability on mortgage interest where, on the one hand, everyone was sick of the system being abused by the "rich", while on the other hand many middle and low income earners would face severe financial problems if it was removed. And all of this was in the face of a slowly collapsing house market, where prices have fallen in some areas by as much as seven percent in two years. Anyhow, despite media appeals to press ahead, the government lacked a mandate to produce a budget, and its collapse brought us to the current situation where, yesterday, a general election was held, the dead hand of the EU being, to an extent, responsible - but only to an extent. For other reasons too numerous to mention, the population had other reasons to be unhappy, but not a little of that unhappiness was also directed at the EU, making "Europe" an electoral issue – not a major one but enough for a popularist opportunist like Wilders to exploit. Wilders might have felt he was helped by the leading parties losing popularity. Not least, the PvdA (labour party), under Diederik Samsom, haemorrhaged support by embracing mass immigration and multiculturalism, the resultant very large Turkish and Moroccan populations giving rise to an increasing sense of unease. This sentiment was certainly giving Wilders a considerable boost. However, under its charismatic leader, Emile Roemer, the Socialist Party (SP) had been storming ahead as well. A likeable, teddy bear of a man with a big smile, he had offered middle-of-the-road socialist policies, giving socialism an acceptable face. On the day, though, caution seems to have won through. Early polls, on a mere 48 percent turnout,indicated that the Dutch had stayed with their mainstream parties. The fight remained with Mark Rutte's Liberals and the centre-left Labour Party of Diederik Samsom. The Socialists came a poor third and the Freedom Party had faded to a poor fourth. Rutte, with the strongest international profile and the most seats, will doubtless remain premier. Handelsblatt, which also sells in Holland, triumphantly proclaims the "good news" that "clumsy Euro-bashing does not pay". Even the socialist Emile Roemer, who was a few weeks ago seen as a potential winner, fell back in the polls to third place after a dismal showing in televised debates. But, says the paper, he had also called the Maastricht stability criteria "idiotic" and had asserted that the Netherlands would give fines to Brussels for deficit breaches "over my dead body". But the real loser seems to be Wilder. He had led a "radical anti-European campaign" with the slogan "Your Brussels, our Netherlands", apparently alienating many party members. He called for complete withdrawal from the EU and even called back the "Dutch" star on the EU flag.  But what Handelsblatt calls "political stunts" has seen Wilders' party drop to 12.3 percent of the vote, 3.2 percent less than in the previous election. The party was expected to lose nearly half its seats, dropping from 24 to just 15. Its participation in a new government seems unlikely. "Dear, what a weird night", says Wilders. With the "eurosceptics" out in the cold, Rutte's party is expected to gain 41 seats, with Labour on 39. Despite having only 40 percent of policies in common, the two together command a "pro-european" majority in the 150-seat parliament, and will meet later today to discuss forming a government. A famous victory seems to have been won by the political élites. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 13/09/2012 |
Posts
