D66, VVD and CDA appear to have the least concern about the support of the right-wing radical JA21. Of course, party leader Joost Eerdmans is “disappointed” that his party is not allowed to join the minority cabinet, he said in a radio program on Friday evening. This is the day: “A missed opportunity.” But, he said immediately afterwards, his party is always prepared to make agreements. “If there are plans that we wholeheartedly agree with, we will not opportunistically vote against.” It is a message he has been proclaiming for months: JA21 wants to be “constructive”. Eerdmans also calls this the most important difference between his party and the PVV, which are very similar in terms of content.
On Friday, D66, VVD and CDA announced that the three of them wanted to continue in a new cabinet. Together they have 66 seats, 10 too few for a majority in the House of Representatives. And so they have to look for support from the opposition for every plan and proposal. With JA21’s nine seats, the minority cabinet has come a long way, but is still one seat short. Who supplies it? Next week, all faction leaders will visit informateur Rianne Letschert to tell them whether and how they want to support the minority cabinet.
Also read
D66, VVD and CDA definitively opt for a minority cabinet, and hope that other parties will support it
Finding support becomes difficult
That seems like a difficult exercise in advance. For plans in the areas of migration and security, for example, support from the small Christian parties SGP (three seats) and Christian Union (also three) and newcomer 50Plus (two) are obvious. But it’s not that simple. Just before the Christmas recess, the House approved the expansion of the Embryo Act, with the support of D66, VVD and a large part of the CDA. A VVD motion was previously adopted asking to investigate whether Article 1 (equal treatment) of the Constitution can be placed above Article 23 (freedom of education).
Both proposals have caused bad blood among SGP and Christian Union, where these are extremely sensitive issues. Member of Parliament Diederik van Dijk (SGP) said in a debate in December that it is “risky to […] to push through a number of controversial proposals while being dependent on broad support in the House in the future. We are not going to cooperate positively on files if, for example, classical freedoms or the protection of unborn life are being destroyed by the other hand.”
Group leader Mirjam Bikker (Christian Union) expressed herself in similar terms in that debate. She now says in a response that “that warning was given for a reason, it has not boosted our confidence.” Bikker wants to look constructively at the plans of the minority cabinet, if the three parties “do not always sit at our pain threshold”. In other words: no new proposals in the field of medical ethics or educational freedom.
Cuts to healthcare
50Plus faction chairman Jan Struijs also says that his party is “constructive”, but immediately adds that “everything has a price. When it comes to cutting back on elderly care or taxing the state pension, we are drawing a line in the sand. If that continues, we will have a problem.” His party is in any case against cuts to healthcare and wants to invest. That is difficult for the minority coalition, which seems to want to cut back on health care and social security to pay for other expensive plans, such as investments in Defense.
There will be no support from the PVV anyway, Geert Wilders has already said. Help from the BBB is also difficult. It is true that Caroline van der Plas has let us know at X wanting to take her support “one by one”; At the same time, the nitrogen dossier stands as a major obstacle between her and the new coalition – especially D66.
For example, for measures in the field of climate and energy transition, GroenLinks-PvdA (20 seats) could help the minority coalition gain broad support. But that party is frustrated because it was not invited to the negotiations. And that party, like 50Plus, is also against cuts to healthcare. To date, party leader Jesse Klaver has not responded to the arrival of a minority cabinet. Earlier he called it on BlueSky “a very bad idea”.
The opposition parties therefore seem to be able to make many demands in exchange for their support. Although there is a danger lurking here. After the failure of the Schoof cabinet, many voters want a cabinet that will serve the four-year term and tackle major problems. Opportunistically blocking government proposals can then lead to the accusation that the opposition is only obstructive. The parties themselves know that. “The cynicism on the street about politics is great,” says Bikker of the CU.
Fixed tolerance parties or not?
It is still unclear how the minority cabinet will gain support from the opposition: per issue or with ‘permanent’ supporters who support most plans. Everything will come together in the 2027 budget, for which discussions will start in a few months. Not only are new plans presented, it also becomes clear where the money should come from. This is easier with permanent tolerating partners, because things can then be exchanged.
A small bright spot for the cabinet may be the role of the Senate. Although the minority coalition also has to look for support there (16 seats short), this is not much different than in recent years. Since 2010, cabinets no longer have a majority in the Senate, wrote political scientist Simon Otjes from Leiden University on BlueSky. “Those were de facto minority cabinets business as usual in The Hague.”
The journalistic principles of NRC