A kind of political boxing ring and 2,300 cheering students: EenVandaag debate was fierce and bitter

Two days away from election day, the EenVandaag debate was one of the last opportunities for the party leaders of the six largest parties to show voters how politics in The Hague works. Because the debates of recent weeks often had two faces: sometimes fierce, but more often than expected connecting and substantive. This Monday evening in Ahoy Rotterdam – on a stage that was mainly reminiscent of a boxing ring – there was no such two-sidedness: the party leaders wanted to clash with each other. It resulted in a fierce and messy debate, in which politicians did not let each other finish.

One of the points of contention was the revelation of de Volkskrant that two PVV MPs had created incendiary AI images of GroenLinks-PvdA leader Frans Timmermans and distributed them via Facebook. According to reports, death wishes were made against Timmermans.

Wilders apologized earlier on Monday via X and distanced himself from what the MPs did, but refuses to punish them. Timmermans wants both of them to no longer come to Parliament on behalf of the PVV, because they would run “a kind of hate factory”. Wilders then found Timmermans “duplicitous”, because party pushers from GroenLinks-Pvda were previously affiliated with an organization that prints posters on which Wilders and VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz, among others, are accused of ‘choosing genocide in Gaza’.

Arena

It was striking that Yesilgöz frequently equated both situations, even after the debate. According to her, Timmermans and Wilders act as “mirrors” of each other. The VVD leader concluded that she cannot work with both Wilders and Timmermans. This position was met with roars from the audience: Yesilgöz – whose campaign strategy excludes parties – was laughed at.

D66 leader Rob Jetten said afterwards that the fierce exchanges may have had to do with the “roaring arena” in which the politicians debated. The audience consisted of 2,300 Rotterdam students who received witty comments from the candidates with applause, laughter and cheering.

Over the last twenty years, a pall of negativity has fallen over this country

Perhaps under the influence of that atmosphere, Jetten was extra offensive during the debate. He specifically targeted Wilders. When he said that the Dutch identity is under pressure, Jetten quickly said: “Yes, and that is Wilders’ fault.” While the crowd cheered, Wilders raised his arms in the air and walked towards Jetten. He shook Wilders’ hand, but Jetten’s attack was not over yet: “A veil of negativity has come over this country over the last twenty years.” It became one of the many tirades that Jetten delivered about Wilders. These admonitions were enthusiastically received by the public.

Sorry, we can’t play the video.

Try reloading the page

or try again later.

Jetten proved that a stimulating audience can also encourage mistakes. While talking about conscription, he joked that “a number of guys here in the room” would “feel like” training with Crown Princess Amalia (who is training to become a reservist). The statement “may have been a bit too rude,” Jetten said afterwards. He also said that “when I become Prime Minister” he will be more pro-monarchy. A sensitive statement for a D66 member: the party has traditional republican tendencies.

Sorry, we can’t play the video.

Try reloading the page

or try again later.

Row

Henri Bontenbal of the CDA, a Rotterdammer, played a home match in Ahoy. Yet he was quite invisible. VVD leader Yesilgöz opened the attack on Bontenbal because of his comments on Article 23 of the Constitution, which stipulates the freedom of education. The CDA leader attended last week News hour said that this freedom takes precedence over the freedom of homosexual young people, which means that reformed schools are allowed to criticize homosexuality.

Since then, Bontenbal has said several times that he had expressed himself unhappily, but nevertheless he fell in the polls: middle voters turned away from him. When he says that he finds gay acceptance very important, Wilders quickly says: “Isn’t it?”

Zoom in

Yesilgöz wanted to know whether Bontenbal is prepared to “modernize” Article 23 – with this she hoped to bring the liberal voters who leaned towards the CDA back to the VVD. Bontenbal said that all schools must promote the emancipation of homosexual students. „[Maar] there is no need to abolish Article 23. We can better equip the Education Inspectorate.”

You have a VVD before and a VVD after the elections

JA21 leader Joost Eerdmans, also from Rotterdam, was more in his element. There were regular clashes with the competitors of PVV and VVD. When the debate degenerated into an argument about polarization, Eerdmans said: “Ms Yesilgöz also participated in that,” which was followed by applause. He suggested that the colleagues fight out their conflict behind the scenes. He also said about the VVD’s economic promises that the party would not keep them: “You have a VVD before and a VVD after the elections.”

The fact that other parties see Eerdmans – who is consistently getting more than ten seats in the polls – as a threat was also evident from the attacks from the right. Wilders criticized his healthcare plans – JA21 wants to make major cuts in healthcare – and wondered what Eerdmans has against the elderly.

Yesilgöz said that Eerdmans wants to raise money “from people’s homes” with new tax measures. The calculation by the Central Planning Bureau shows that the JA21 plans lead to lower pressure on families and companies.

The party leaders have one debate left, the NOS final debate on Tuesday. It remains to be seen whether this will be as dogged and disorderly as in Rotterdam. The audience did not seem affected by the atmosphere: between parts of the debates and afterwards, many students wanted to have their picture taken with the party leaders.

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor