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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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. DirkvdM11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.DirkvdM11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. DirkvdM19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). Arnoutf19:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). 84.246.50.15009:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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... Arnoutf23:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 mon10:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Arnoutf20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good! Three notes though:
The axis should have names in the figure
Use colours!
To avoid NOR issues, make it clear that it is a representation of the Kieskompas, and not something we thought up ourselves.
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)" Arnoutf08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DirkvdM18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Arnoutf18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). Intangible18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 mon20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DirkvdM14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. :) DirkvdM14:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? DirkvdM14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf14:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 mon23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DirkvdM13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? DirkvdM07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. DirkvdM18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ;-) Arnoutf11:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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......... Arnoutf17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. V8rik13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). Arnoutf21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with this article in a months time??
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??)--Dengo13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Peterbr18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Arnoutf18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 mon22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinets never get parliamentary approval. There is no investiture vote or anything. We are waiting for royal appointment. C mon12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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).Arnoutf13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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!
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!
In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-05-26 02:34:50, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-06-15 00:51:58, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
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}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
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.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
The redirect 2006 Dutch cabinet formation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § 2006 Dutch cabinet formation until a consensus is reached. Dajasj (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)