Dutch polls: not quite diseased

Just when you thought I had successfully limited my international political obsessions to Malta, Ireland, and New Zealand, I remembered my interest in Dutch politics.

Way back when (by which I mean 2006), I spent six weeks on contract in the Netherlands during the lead-up to the 2006 election, and it was way too cool to see young Socialists proselytizing on the streets of Amsterdam. It was an interesting result, with a breakthrough for both the SP and the xenophobic PVV.

This year’s election – called by VVD Prime Minister Mark Rutte (pictured) after his government lost the PVV’s support – at first glance promises a similar result, according to the latest monthly Ipsos Netherlands polls, namely a surge for the SP and the continued decline of the old-line left and right parties.

According to de Politeke Barometer, June 2, if an election were called today, the result would be:

VVD (Party for Freedom and Democracy, right-wing liberal) 32 seats, +1
SP (Socialist Party, far left) 27, +12
PvdA (Labour Party, centre-left) 24, -6
PVV (Party for Freedom, far right) 22, -2
D’66 (Democrats ’66, social liberal) 15, +5
CDA (Christian Democratic Appeal, centre-right) 14, -7
Others 15, -4

The Dutch use an almost-pure form of proportional representation, which makes government formation messy as hell. The best defense of the Netherlands’ system has to be, “Hey, at least it’s not Belgium.” Since the demise of the “purple” cabinet (PvdA, VVD, D’66) in 2002, Dutch elections have been marked by extreme voter volatility; the outgoing Rutte cabinet (VVD, CDA) only had a minority and relied on the questionable support of Geert Wilders’ PVV. Meanwhile, Labour and the Christian Democrats – formerly the bedrock of all Dutch post-war governments – have been in steady decline.

While the shift to the pro-business, yet nominally liberal VVD seems benign enough, the occasional surges for the SP and especially for anti-immigrant, anti-Islamic parties like the Pim Fortuyn List and now the Party for Freedom are frightening. In ten years there’s been a noticeable erosion of the Dutch consensus on social issues, marked by less benevolence toward multiculturalism, soft drugs, and the gays. Interestingly, there’s also a growing divide between communitarian parties of both the left and right and the more classical liberal, individualist politics of the VVD in particular (hence the PVV’s refusal to back Rutte’s austerity budget).

The recent Ipsos polls point to continued chaos in government formation, since the outgoing government, even with the PVV’s support, would come 8 seats short of a majority. The SP numbers are worrisome, if only because they lack potential coalition partners; Labour isn’t going to back a Socialist Prime Minister, and anyway, no other party except GroenLinks (“GreenLeft”) would sign up for such an arrangement.

The Dutch had a good experience, at least for a few terms, with the Kok cabinets, which seemed to broker the interests of its coalition partners rather well. Is it time for a new purple coalition including the VVD, PvdA, and D’66? Add in GroenLinks (currently projected to win 5 seats) and you’ve got yourself a razor-thin majority for a social liberal/business liberal/social democratic/environmentalist cabinet.

That may well be the most stable, least divisive result, so hey, maybe someday all those backpacking Brit tourists in Amsterdam will once again be able to smoke pot legally while ogling the legal, unionized prostitutes.

Sigh…I miss the old Netherlands.

 

Labour Green Maori NZ First Mana WTF?

I’ve followed New Zealand electoral politics for many years, rather rabidly since the Fifth Labour Government was elected in 1999, and have read the New Zealand Herald online pretty much daily since then.

Based in Auckland, the Herald has NZ’s largest newspaper circulation and a slew of political commentators ranging from former Alliance president Matt McCarten on the left to, say, former Act MP Deborah Coddington on the right.

I appreciate the content, still, reading the Herald is akin to reading the Times for Irish politics – not exactly a progressive editorial voice, but a professional media outlet with a well-organized website and lots of grist for the proverbial mill.

To some extent, the Herald’s political coverage reflects trends in NZ politics over the years – they sway in the breeze a bit, in other words. Certainly the Herald was friendliest to Labour when Helen Clark was PM and the National Party was hapless, while it’s currently, shall we say, well disposed toward the Nats who have governed since 2008 under PM John Key.

I think it’s fair to say that the Herald favours centre-right politics overall, and sometimes the appearance of bias is painfully obvious.

Having led the polls with majority support consistently for months, years even, the National Party dropped to 49.5% in the latest Herald Digipoll. “Poll shock,” the Herald breathlessly reported. Oh my good lord, the Nats have lost support and are now, what, still more popular than any other government in a Westminster democracy? Give me a break.

Suddenly the Herald was chock full of stern articles talking about the “surge” of New Zealand First (wow, what a surge – up to 3.7%!) and the scandalous possibility that the Nats wouldn’t win a majority on their own or with their preferred coalition partners.

The worst of the scaremongering came via David Farrar, who runs NZ’s most popular blog, Kiwiblog, and is described by the Herald as a “centre-right blogger” (translation: has worked for four National Party leaders). No surprise, that, though one wishes Farrar would admit to having an agenda. It’s okay. Most of us do, though few of us write for the country’s leading newspaper.

Farrar’s recent column, “What a Labour-led coalition might look like,” is laughable. Farrar supposes that there is a “small swing” to Labour (which, please note, lost support in that same poll) and makes assumptions that are by no means certain or even plausible: that NZ First reaches the 5% hurdle, that the Green, Maori & Mana parties would back a Labour government, that Peter Dunne loses and John Banks doesn’t take Epsom.

Oh come on.

Granted I’m not a big Winston Peters fan – to my mind New Zealand First represents the worst sort of populism, serving Peters’ egotistical need for attention every three years – but objectively, 3.7% being less than NZ First won in 2008, it will be tough for them to reach the hurdle. Even if they do poll over 5%, Labour didn’t exactly have a fun time when it last let Peters into cabinet and Peters has ruled out working with Labour.

The Greens are always considered to be a natural coalition partner for Labour, especially by the Herald, despite evidence to the contrary: that when Labour won its substantial minorities under Helen Clark, the Greens did not go into coalition with Labour. And it’s silly to suppose that the Maori Party, which currently supports the National government, would suddenly, capriciously, without logic or reason switch to supporting Labour, its major competitor for the Maori electorate seats.

As for the Mana Party, the idea that Hone Harawira can work with his erstwhile Maori Party colleagues – or anyone – is laughable. (Am I the only one out there who thinks Hone is the new Winston Peters of the left?)

Farrar’s highly questionable poll and seat distribution analysis aside, his suppositions about the composition of a Labour-Green-Maori-Mana-NZ First cabinet reaches heights of laughable hysteria. My hands-down favourite paragraph:

Gareth Hughes could become the Climate Change Minister entrusted with making sure New Zealand is the world leader on reducing climate emissions. Greenpeace’s target of a 40% reduction by 2020 would need around one third of the dairy herd to be euthanized over the next nine years.

Oh. My. God. If you vote anything but National (or United Future or Act), the Greens are gonna KILL ALL THE COWS!

I suspect Farrar of having another purpose in envisioning this nightmare coalition scenario, snuck into in the column’s last paragraph:

So as we head into the final fortnight before the election, a Labour-Green-NZ First-Maori-Mana Government may become a viable alternative to National winning the election. It will be MMP politics at its best. The more parties you need to agree to govern, the more consensus you get – right?

This election, Kiwis are also voting in a referendum to keep or ditch their country’s Mixed Member Proportional electoral system that has been in place since 1996, and despite polls showing majority support for retaining MMP, Farrar is, in a roundabout way, bricking us over the head with the notion that first-past-the-post would prevent all those pesky five-party leftist coalition governments (that exist only in Farrar’s imagination).

How wonderful it would be for Farrar and his ilk to have first-past-the-post back with a twenty-point spread between National and Labour. Canadians may recall the result of the 1984 federal election when the Tories won 50% of the vote and 75% of the seats, and because of its smaller size, NZ’s first-past-the-post results were once even more lopsided – that’s why voters opted for MMP in the first place.

I’m in favour of keeping MMP in New Zealand, though I prefer a ranked ballot – less kind to smaller parties, but helps to prevent wasted votes and avoids splitting MPs into two groups, electorate and list, along with it the perception that list MPs are beholden to their parties, not the voters.

I really don’t like the MMP exception that allows a party to gain list seats without reaching the 5% hurdle if it elects a single MP in an electorate. Why? It makes no sense to me. A party that fails to reach the hurdle yet elects a single MP should have, well, one MP. In 2008, Act won list seats with fewer votes that New Zealand First because of Rodney Hide’s win in Epsom – not that I was upset to see NZ First out of parliament. Still, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and all that.

Farrar’s scaremongering seems even more inappropriate when one considers that John Key and the National Party aren’t indulging in the same rhetoric. Key is a reasonable man, for a Nat, and has done the expected in having a cuppa with John Banks to indicate his tacit support for Banks to win Epsom, thereby bringing Act (and former National) leader Don Brash into the legislature as well – working the system to produce the most stable result for a continuing National-led administration.

It’s not the result I’d prefer but I respect Key for being calm, cool, and collected, and for not insulting our intelligence like certain centre-right bloggers out there.

I can’t be dead certain, but I’m pretty sure John Key has avoided, at least, spurious claims that the Greens take their marching orders from Greenpeace HQ or that the Greens are gonna KILL ALL THE COWS.

Whatever. I’m not that fond of cattle anyway.

A Tory for Speaker? (plus an Ireland mini-update)

I decided against blogging last week about the new Ontario cabinet in part because it wasn’t very exciting news – no defectors à la Belinda to give the Libs a majority, no new names in cabinet – and also because three (posts), as they say, is the magic number.

Had I written the aforementioned would-be post, I would have included a second viable option: encouraging a member of the opposition to run for Speaker, sort of like, well, this news item on Frank Klees (Progressive Conservative, Newmarket-Aurora), a member of the opposition who’s decided to run for Speaker.

I would have preferred a defection because that would have been much more fun. My favourite candidate (everyone else’s too, I’d guess) was Elizabeth Witmer, because I think she’s the last Red Tory left in Ontario and she must cringe every time she thinks, “I serve in caucus with Randy Hillier,” but alas, no, Witmer stays in as Tory health critic.

What irks me is that some news outlets are reporting that, should Klees become Speaker, the OLP would have a majority. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s not accurate. Should Klees win, there would be a 53-53 tie in the Ontario legislature; however, as we saw when federal Speaker Peter Milliken voted in favour of the Paul Martin minority government, it is an established principle that the Speaker always votes for continuance of the legislature.

So, as I see it, Klees as Speaker would be obliged to vote in favour of the government on a tie vote on matters of confidence and supply, but would be free to oppose other government legislation, the defeat of which would not cause the government to fall. In other words, it’s still a minority of one, only one Tory sits on his hands for money bills like the budget, confidence motions, etc.

It’s partly true that I like this idea because of its inherent Machiavellian appeal – Klees refused the shadow cabinet jobs he was offered, which seems to signal internal PC dissent – but our previous era of CPC minority rule federally suggests defensible reasons for the Ontario Liberal MPPs to stand aside in favour of Klees.

First, Ontario has voted three times in a year (municipal, federal, provincial in that order). Enough already. Give us a few years of stability. The electorate is annoyed. Turnout is down. Party workers are exhausted and some of us are trying to rehabilitate our reputations, thank you very much.

Second, during its half-decade as a minority government, the federal Tories rarely sought consensus. Instead Harper and crew practised political brinkmanship by gambling that one or another of the opposition parties, usually the Liberals, would so not want an election as to give them a free pass. That’s not leadership – it’s playing games.

Speaking of, both Hudak and Horwath demonstrated ably why they lost the provincial election by their antics after E-Day. It didn’t matter what approaches McGuinty made to the two other party leaders; it would never be enough for a meaningful agreement. Contrast to Peterson and Rae after the 1985 vote. Whether or not he actually wants to work with the opposition leaders, McGuinty seemed to do what’s right in opening up a discussion that Hudak and Horwath dismissed out of hand.

Look, I opposed the McGuinty government openly on a few issues in its second term, but really, the PC and NDP campaigns were crappy. Somehow the NDP managed to lose a quarter of Jack’s Ontario supporters between May and October while Hudak pulled a John Tory and, instead of letting McGuinty’s OLP defeat itself, the PCPO came out of the gate offending many with all that “foreign workers” gabble.

The PC campaign was truly an example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and I’m slightly amazed that Hudak still has a job. My point is, neither opposition party has a mandate for bringing down the government right now.

Oh yes, I know that the Liberals won a very narrow plurality of the popular vote, but the federal Tories have drummed into us for years their mantra that if you come first, you’ve won, no matter what the numbers, so the PCPO can’t really fall back on the minority argument and it’s not like they could feasibly form a coalition with the New Democrats. (Anyway, remember what Harper taught us: coalitions are evil.)

But I’m not giving the government a free pass either: my fear is that McGuinty will use those Harper-ish brinkmanship tactics in seeking to prevent his government’s fall, rather than a more positive goal of seeking consensus in a minority parliament. The PCs are intransigent as always but I still want to believe that Grits and Dippers can get along if they try.

Anyway, if I were Premier McGuinty I’d three-line-whip my members into not standing for Speaker. The previous (and rather good) Speaker, Steve Peters, retired at the last election, so it’s not as if this would kick a standing Speaker out of his chair. Besides, renegade Tories sometimes make excellent Speakers and, uh, future Liberals (Gary Carr, I’m looking at you).

***

In all the excitement (it isn’t really that exciting) surrounding the race for important post of President of the Republic of Ireland (it isn’t really that important), I totally forgot about the by-election in Dublin West to be held on the same day, October 27.

The by-election was caused by the sudden death of former minister and deputy leader of Fianna Fáil, Brian Lenihan, Jnr. Lenihan was last elected back in February on the fifth count without reaching the quota and until his death was Fianna Fáil’s last surviving Dublin TD.

Nominally the seat should be Labour’s to lose, according to the general election results, as Joan Burton was elected on the first count with her running mate Patrick Nulty – Labour’s candidate in the by-election – losing to Lenihan on the last count.

Back in the day, Dublin West reliably voted in two Fianna Fáil TDs but of course this is a by-election, so Ireland’s single transferable vote system operates like an Australian alternative vote instead, and anyway, all those old rules and assumptions were thrown out the window with FF’s decimation, right? (But if that’s the case, why does Seán Gallagher look dead certain to win the bloody presidency?)

Dublin West’s other TDs are the Socialist Party leader, Joe Higgins, and Fine Gael minister Leo Varadkar. It would be a blow to the coalition government if anyone other than Ethne Loftus (FG) or Nulty should end up winning the by-election.

I suppose it’s possible that sympathy for Lenihan might boost Fianna Fáil’s vote, but I doubt it, and it’s not like when Lenihan himself ran to succeed his deceased father – the Lenihan family was approached but declined to run one of their own to replace Brian Jnr.

If there is a substantial increase in the FF vote, I’m blaming it on Gallagher’s Trojan Horse run, but my money’s still on Labour to win despite a few bad poll results, with an outside change that Socialist Ruth Coppinger takes it based on recent polls showing smaller parties (including the United Left Alliance, of which the SP is key part) on a whopping 22%.