Before a debate, it is never entirely certain what the most controversial theme will be, both for the public and for the participating politicians. Also at the RTL election debate on Sunday, where six party leaders debated the themes of healthcare, migration and housing.
Migration has been the most pressing political issue in The Hague for years and dominated the previous elections; according to most voters, housing is the most important issue. But the debate about healthcare still stood out on Sunday.
VVD and D66 were vulnerable, because both parties indicated that they would lock the list of medicines reimbursed by insurance before the Central Planning Bureau would calculate the costs. They do this to pay for rising defense costs. This means that new medicines are by definition not included in the basic package. GroenLinks-PvdA leader Frans Timmermans chose to attack Jetten, who denied that his plans would actually exclude new medicines.
Timmermans: “Mr Jetten is just joking here, you have put a lock on the basic package.” Timmermans pointed out that the CDA had found a way to authorize new medicines. Bontenbal, who did not participate in the health care debate, appeared several times with a satisfied smile.
Own risk
Even after the debate, Timmermans repeats those accusations against Jetten. The two parties partly compete for the same progressive voter group, and Jetten made a jump in the polls last week with about four seats and is catching up with GroenLinks-PvdA.
Jetten, in turn, said that Timmermans will “continue on the path of Wilders”, because he wants to gradually abolish the deductible. “Seems sympathetic,” said Jetten, but he believes it is more effective to do “something targeted for the chronically ill and disabled.”
Jimmy Dijk of the SP had difficulty getting involved during the healthcare debate. He wanted to overtake Timmermans on the left in healthcare. He pointed out that the PvdA had cut back on healthcare during Rutte II, and wondered whether Timmermans could promise that this would not happen again. Timmermans did not want that, in order not to commit himself prior to negotiations.
VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz thought that SP and GroenLinks-PvdA were engaging in “care populism” with their plans for the deductible: “Ultimately the bill will end up at people’s homes.”
During the health care debate, she was sparing in her input. At the VVD they know: viewers find politicians who talk over each other annoying. “In any case, I have to conclude that Mr Wilders is not missed, because no one lets each other talk,” Yesilgöz noted.
Wilders absent
PVV leader Geert Wilders was largely absent from the debate, just like at the first RTL debate a week earlier. He did not participate then for security reasons and this Sunday it is strategic: the party is at the top of the polls and is much discussed.
He must have watched the RTL debate in his safehouse and hoped that he would become a topic of conversation. That was not the case, except that the participants occasionally accused each other of “Wilders-like” plans, not exactly favorable for the PVV leader.
With Wilders not present, Joost Eerdmans of JA21 was the most right-wing politician in the debate. During the debate section on asylum, Eerdmans attacked the VVD, which he said had “never been able to limit the influx” under Rutte.
Yesilgöz said: “What I think is a shame about Mr Eerdmans is that he is cutting back on all possibilities for reception in the region” – a striking statement, because the VVD has been wanting to cut the development aid budget more and more deeply for years.
When CDA leader Henri Bontenbal said that you cannot “magic away” refugees and that therefore “solidarity between municipalities” is needed in the form of the Distribution Act, Eerdmans said: “The dissatisfaction is only increasing.”
Spread law
According to Eerdmans, the Distribution Act is only a “big plaster” for the large number of refugees coming to the Netherlands. “The inflow must go down.” All participating party leaders think so, but Eerdmans could portray himself as the most anti-asylum migration.
When Eerdmans also said that the CDA is looking “with a flashlight” for ways not to solve the asylum problem, Jimmy Dijk jumped into the breach for Bontenbal. “I am not necessarily quick to stand up for another political leader, but I have been watching it over the past two years” – he points to Henri Bontenbal – “and you can say anything about it, but he has at least done his best to participate.”
Bontenbal had previously expressed his appreciation for the SP, with whom he could work well on the Spread Act. Remarkably, Dijk was also able to get that back, from JA21 and VVD. Yesilgöz gave “compliments to the SP”, because that party has been pointing out the problems of labor migration for a long time. Eerdmans also gave the SP a pat on the back.
Debate leader Renze Klamer noted after the debate segment on labor migration: “We agree, that is rare.” In this hot phase of the campaign, that is not necessarily what party leaders are aiming for, because now the differences need to become clear. But in the Netherlands of 2025, voters also want to see more connection.
The party leaders must try to maintain that balance. The participants were aware of this, as it turned out that the party leaders were chatting with each other prior to the debate. “Don’t turn it into an SBS debate,” Yesilgöz had said. That was an exceptionally fierce debate in the previous elections, which Wilders in particular benefited from. That debate will take place again next Thursday, and Geert Wilders will also participate again. The question remains whether there will still be any solidarity to be found.
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.