Are GroenLinks and PvdA going to join forces? A lot will become clear about that on Saturday

The moment has not been recorded – it is not allowed to take pictures in the Nieuwspoort press center in The Hague – but there they sat together at the beginning of June: GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver and European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, according to many in the PvdA supporters the ideal party leader. They could also have quietly met each other in a dark cafe, they chose a room teeming with journalists. The statement was clear: here they worked fraternally on left-wing cooperation.

Neither of them wanted to say much about it later. And no conclusions at all could be drawn about Timmermans’ availability to lead a possible new merger party. ‘We discussed current affairs and, of course, left-wing cooperation’, explains Klaver. ‘But I have also been in contact with Diederik Samsom, Attje Kuiken and Marjolein Moorman in recent weeks. Much more contact.’

And a conclusion can be drawn from this: never before have the leaders of PvdA and GroenLinks engaged in such intensive discussions about joining forces. The preliminary final of that process is Saturday. The members of the PvdA will vote at their party congress in Nieuwegein on the formation of a joint Senate faction after the Senate elections in May next year. In recent days, GroenLinksers have been allowed to consider the same question in a referendum until this Friday. That result will come on Saturday.

No, it is absolutely not allowed to call it a merger, but the fact that it can lead to a new left-wing party is not contradicted by anyone in the parties. If this goes well, further research will have to be done on how PvdA and GroenLinks can further join forces. The goal: a broad left-progressive movement that wants to take another shot at the Torentje after years of marginalization.

It won’t be up to Timmermans. He sees cooperation as the only way for the left to win elections again. In the Kees Lunshof lecture, which was delivered shortly after his conversation with Klaver, he gave an impassioned speech about the need for ‘green’ and ‘red’ to bridge the substantive differences, insofar as there are any. ‘It is said that we cannot work together because we do not agree on Lelystad Airport. Yes, if that’s the worst. Shouldn’t we be able to get over that?’, said Timmermans.

Fear of the margin

No one has denied it in recent weeks: the plan was largely born of necessity. The left has lost the initiative in the social debate for years and there are no signs of recovery.

Today’s dominant political themes – from the housing crisis and climate policy to inflation and the neglect of the bottom end of the labor market – are ideally suited for progressive parties to turn fierce opposition into seats. However, GroenLinks and the PvdA both continue to fluctuate around 10 seats in the polls. There is no growth in sight. The recent gains of the Social Democratic SPD and the Greens in Germany offer hope that it can still be done, but for now the fear of ending up even further in the margins dominates.

That is certainly not a Dutch problem. In the UK, Labor has been unable to defeat the scandal-ridden Conservatives and win back its lost ranks for 12 years. In recent years, the traditionally red areas where the classical working class voted Social Democratic for decades has faded in color. In France, where a united left-wing alliance will take part in the parliamentary elections on Sunday, the Parti Socialiste is now playing a marginal supporting role.

You should never get used to that, emphasizes Timmermans. ‘We are so happy when we are right that we sometimes forget that we have to be right. Power is not a dirty word: without power there is no politics. Dare to say that. If we, left-wing parties, ever want to exercise power in this country again, we will have to do it together. You can’t do that alone anymore.’

The Samsum scenario

Timmermans is by no means alone. Former PvdA leaders Samsom, Bos and Cohen are also in favour, as are former GroenLinks leaders Van Ojik and Sap. ‘Ideas are beautiful’, they wrote in an open letter signed by a number of party leaders, ‘But even more beautiful if they can be realized. A regrouping can actually promise that to the left-wing, progressive voter in a fragmented political landscape.’

And that potential is certainly there. Peter Kanne, researcher at I&O Research, delved into the opportunities that a left-wing collaboration can bring. ‘PvdA and GroenLinks now together have about 25 seats in our poll, if they go together they will quickly reach 30 seats or more. Then you participate in becoming the largest party.’ According to Kanne, a ‘Samsom scenario’ could then arise in which, just like in 2012, a conflict develops between a left-wing and a right-wing candidate and the left-wing voter rallies behind one progressive leader.

According to Kanne, this is the ideal opportunity for a merging party to win back voters who were lost to parties such as D66, the Party for the Animals and Volt. A new left-wing party could even win in that case. ‘A lot will depend on who will be the party leader.’

The fear of color loss

However, not everyone in the two left-wing constituencies is convinced. At GroenLinks, the opponents fear that the party will compromise on climate and progressive-cultural themes such as racism and discrimination. They regard GroenLinks as an idealistic party that wants to change the system, while the PvdA wants to achieve its goals within the current system. Moreover, there are different views on sustainability and migration.

It’s about more than details. In 2017, Klaver’s attempt to co-government failed when GroenLinks radically opposed the proposal to allow refugees only to apply for asylum outside the EU borders. The plan would build on the Turkey deal, the European refugee plan for which PvdA member Diederik Samsom laid the foundation.

More generally, skeptics foresee problems when it comes to government participation. In the opposition PvdA and GroenLinks are always very similar, the differences only arise when the PvdA enters the government and has to make compromises there. GroenLinks has wanted to rule for years, but ultimately never got around to it. The times that the party did make deals with cabinets from the opposition, there was always a commotion among the supporters.

In a formation with parties such as VVD and CDA, immigration policy is immediately an Achilles’ heel. Former alderman Reshma Roopram therefore believes that her PvdA should dare to enter into a conversation about how the cooperative left wants to deal with the migration issue. ‘The left ignores the problem of asylum seekers from safe countries and does not look back at the traditional supporters in the old working-class neighborhoods where migrant workers cause nuisance’, says Roopram. ‘This often concerns problems in vulnerable neighborhoods where people no longer speak the same language and no longer understand each other. But our people of different origins and religions do live there, who all share the same concerns regarding work, income, safety and housing. Highly educated GroenLinks don’t suffer from this, because they don’t live there.’

That goes to the heart of the doubts that are more widespread in the PvdA: does a merger with GroenLinks not mean that the party is finally saying goodbye to the traditional supporters that drifted adrift twenty years ago after the rise of Pim Fortuyn? ‘Which voters do we want to reach and which voters are we going to lose?’, said Dig Istha, former alderman and once the campaign manager of party leader and the last social democratic prime minister Wim Kok.

‘First a story’

Together with PvdA members such as Hans Spekman, Ruud Vreeman, Lutz Jacobi and John Leerdam, Istha opposes the cooperation plans. At least, at the speed with which they are pushed through from above in their eyes. ‘Without an analysis of why the right is doing well and the left is doing badly, without a clear joint story, it is by no means certain that a merger will result in seat gains,’ Istha thinks. ‘That discussion about what the shared story should be takes time.’

Former party leader Ad Melkert, eyewitness and victim of the Fortuyn revolt, shares that fear.

As far as he is concerned, the PvdA faces the ‘crucial task’ of offering a better alternative to those voters who have lost heart or who have been attracted by the anti-rhetoric of the populists. ‘The voters of GroenLinks have never been and they never will be.’ He estimates the potential of the PvdA still between 25 and 30 seats and that of GroenLinks around 15. The extra voters that a merging party will snatch from other progressive parties do not provide enough seats to become the largest.

Election researcher Peter Kanne maintains that this is too negative a view. According to him, a merger party would mainly target left-progressive voters. ‘The focus will be on the climate crisis and socio-economic themes. The parties certainly have to formulate an answer to migration, but it is not a subject on which the left will win voters.’ According to Kanne, the idea of ​​a broad people’s party is not feasible. ‘With a merger you will also lose voters. But if you want to win elections you have to choose a position, then you can’t keep everyone happy.’

Klaver also mainly sees opportunities for profit. Not because he no longer believes in the potential of GroenLinks, or that of the PvdA, but because it has so often proved insufficient to really seize power.

He is not even thinking about next year’s elections to the Senate, but already further ahead, to the battle for the House of Representatives. ‘The PvdA under Wouter Bos won 42 seats, but did not supply the prime minister. Job Cohen won 38 seats, but did not supply the prime minister. Diederik Samsom won 38 seats, but did not supply the prime minister. It is precisely those few extra seats that determine who will take the lead in the next formation, what will be the policy for the coming years and who will provide the next prime minister.’