Two party leaders, four topics, 45 minutes. To escape the grip of strict television formats with election debates that mainly revolve around snappy one-liners, Pieter Omtzigt and Frans Timmermans decided to organize their own debate. The leaders of two new political parties New Social Contract and GroenLinks-PvdA now wanted to take more time to discuss the substance of their political positions. “Call it new politics,” Timmermans said at the start of a debate that indeed had a different tone than what rival parties normally sound in the House of Representatives. The VVD, which forms the leading group in the most recent polls with GroenLinks-PvdA and NSC, was emphatically not invited to the meeting in Arnhem’s Luxor Live theater. Timmermans: “We really opt for depth, which is lacking in many other parties.”
Treat kitty nicely
Whether it was about the shortage of housing, about a new administrative culture or about social security, the two experienced politicians always tried to be nice to each other. “I completely agree with his list,” said Omtzigt about the broad definition that Timmermans had given about social security. Timmermans had heard Omtzigt speak “compassionate words” about the suffering in Israel and Gaza during an earlier debate. And if Timmermans did not completely agree with the former CDA member, he said it very kindly. “I have no criticism of Mr Omtzigt, but only an addition.”
The debate led by TV journalist Diana Matroos seemed to be a first attempt by the two party leaders to make agreements for the formation of a new cabinet after the November 22 elections. Certainly on the most important theme in the NSC agenda: administrative reforms that must restore citizens’ confidence in the government. Omtzigt presented his usual list of proposals on this point: a constitutional court, regional electoral system, a new whistleblower law, a new government service for top civil servants. Timmermans responded in agreement. “I haven’t been able to find anything that I disagree with. Together we can go a long way with the reforms that are needed.”
But as soon as presenter Matroos asked whether the two had indeed started a public negotiation about a new coalition agreement, Timmermans and Omtzigt did not want to go along with it. That was another example of “old politics that the two want to get rid of.” For the same reason, Omtzigt again withheld the question of whether he wants to become prime minister or not. He had initially rejected it last summer, but recently he suddenly alluded to it again. “I don’t want a discussion about the figures, but about the content.”
Differences between the two
However, during the course of the debate, which lasted fifteen minutes longer than planned, the necessary substantive differences also became clear between Timmermans’ left-wing combination and Omtzigt’s new party. Particularly on climate and nitrogen policy, where GroenLinks-PvdA is considerably more ambitious than NSC. And about migration, where Omtzigt has mentioned a concrete number of 50,000 migrants per year as a “target number” for the net migration – the difference between immigrants and emigrants.
Omtzigt praised Timmermans’ idea to enter into an “alliance between farmers and foresters” regarding the necessary sustainability of agriculture and nature management. And Omtzigt also believes that intensive livestock farming should be restricted, although he does not mention a concrete objective for reducing the livestock herd. And reform of the agricultural sector should not come at the expense of higher food prices. In this part of the debate, Timmermans suddenly made an important concession about the future of agriculture. Nitrogen policy is desperately needed to save nature, Timmermans said, and the Netherlands must adhere to court rulings, but: “we should not fix the nitrogen targets on a year.” Omtzigt did not participate, or did not have the GroenLinks-PvdA election manifesto clearly in mind. It states plainly: “We adhere to the goal of halving nitrogen emissions by 2030.”
Nuclear energy is the biggest point of contention
The biggest point of contention, although the two party leaders kept it neat and civil, is the issue of nuclear energy. GroenLinks-PvdA is adamantly against the construction of new nuclear power stations because it would be “unnecessary and “too expensive. Almost all other (middle) parties believe that the expansion of nuclear energy is necessary to make the energy transition possible. The differences between Omtzigt and Timmermans turned out to be just as stark as in the first major television debate, last week College Tour. The two will not reach an agreement here either. Where Omtzigt accuses the combined left-wing parties that climate policy in the Netherlands is conducted “too religiously”, Timmermans argues exactly that when it comes to nuclear energy.
But to the logical question of whether this is a breaking point in future formation discussions, Timmermans again responded irritated. “We are here to engage in new politics, are you starting to talk about breaking points again,” he snapped at the discussion leader, Matroos.