They are young and idealistic, but also pragmatic. Michiel Suijker (24), national chairman of the JOVD and board member Bram van Bon (21), together with the Groningen department, will submit a motion on behalf of almost two hundred VVD members on Saturday to support the new asylum law of the cabinet. Yes, something must be done about the influx of asylum seekers, but the asylum seekers who are here must be treated decently and fairly. If municipalities voluntarily do not show solidarity, they must do so by force. The youth branch can still follow that line of Rutte.
But on almost every other front, they are strongly opposed. Under Rutte’s leadership, the VVD has become a party from which optimism has been sucked. The conception of liberalism has been reticent, losing sight of an important basic principle: that everyone should have the same starting position.
Suijker: ‘Young people from a wealthy family have a greater chance of succeeding in life, partly because they receive better education. Wealthy parents can afford tutoring or send their children to a private school such as Luzac College, where you are, as it were, pulled through havo or vwo. And that’s where it starts: the better the education, the greater the chance to succeed in life.’
What do you notice yourself?
Suijker: ‘I have a lot of friends who don’t move into a room because their parents can’t afford it.’
Van Bon: ‘Or they move into a room anyway, but then work thirty hours a week in addition to their studies. Here, too, you see inequality: this group cannot afford a study delay and therefore finds it more difficult to hold a board position or study abroad for six months. They are lagging behind when applying for jobs. ‘
The VVD interpretation of liberalism is: if you work hard, you can spend your money on whatever you want, such as better education for your children.
Van Bon: ‘That interpretation has ensured that your own efforts are no longer decisive for what you can achieve, but your background. The amount of resources you receive from your parents has become very decisive for your chances of success. The liberal promise of the VVD has failed.’
Has liberalism under Mark Rutte taken a wrong turn?
Suijker: ‘I think we can conclude that this is the case, yes.’
Van Bon: ‘In the Netherlands, people are now becoming rich while sleeping and working poor. If you get a return on your capital, for example because you invest in a house, you only pay a low percentage of tax on that income. If you’re a nurse and you work a few hours more, you pay half of it.’
Should wealth tax go up?
Sugar: Yes. This must be at least equal to the tax you pay on income from work. It is also fairer to charge a higher inheritance and gift tax. As far as we’re concerned, it can go to 50 percent.’
You can also say: the future of young people has never looked so good, there is plenty of work.
Van Bon: ‘That’s wonderful, but if you then have such high house prices that you can never buy a house, even if you earn well, that paints a different picture.’
Is a fundamental change of course necessary at the VVD?
Suijker: ‘Yes, I think that realization is slowly sinking in. We are facing an uncertain future, with a somewhat rudderless government. What is our story for the future? We must move towards a party that is concerned with the question: what do we as liberals want and what do we not want? Otherwise you will lose the story and you will become a party that fragments, just like the CDA and the PvdA.’
The previous party chairman Klaas Dijkhoff did make an attempt to start a course discussion.
Van Bon: ‘He came too early, at a time when the VVD had a kind of enforced sociability. A bitterballen culture: we supply the prime minister, so you should be proud.’
Suijker: ‘There has been no real discussion about a vision for a long time.’
Van Bon: ‘We are now paying the price for that. The VVD could really use a Klaas Dijkhoff now.’
Should Rutte be the party leader in the next elections?
Suijker: ‘Yes, the moment he can tell that great visionary story. No, if he can’t.’
Van Bon: ‘The Rutte of recent years cannot lead the next elections.’
You guys miss a big, visionary story?
Sugar: Yes. The party is in such a bad position because voters simply don’t know what the party stands for. Why do we only concentrate on nitrogen?’
Who can tell that visionary story?
Suijker: ‘Someone who knows color very clearly is Edith Schippers, although her story is different from ours. Klaas Dijkhoff really appeals to us. It would be perfect if those two went into battle, because then the side can choose.’
Van Bon: ‘Dijkhoff or another person, it doesn’t matter, but someone who enters into a debate about liberal principles and does not just say what is important for the VVD as a governing party.’
Suijker: ‘I find the boy who spoke about lhbti rights in parliament on behalf of the VVD interesting: Ulysse Ellian. He dares to speak from his heart.’
Van Bon: ‘Dilan Yesilgöz had a good HJ Schoo lecture. I’m curious about more stories.’
Aren’t you afraid you’re throwing away the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Van Bon: ‘We often hear that, but we think that’s naive. Because a people’s party does not depend on one person. We have seen with the CDA that Balkenende sat too long. The PvdA also collapsed after Kok. Those parties have been settled because they no longer had a story to tell.’
Suijker: ‘But I do recognize what you’re saying: if we get a Melkert, that can also happen to us. So I don’t want to participate in the populist sound that Rutte has to go. He has to change.’