News Archieven | Page 10 of 14

Concerns about healthcare under a new cabinet

21 July 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

After a turbulent political year, the summer and formation recess has really begun. In the past year, no sector has been in the news as much as the health sector. Whether it was combating the COVID-19 crisis, rising staff shortages, the ageing population, increasing medicine shortages or restrictions on access to new innovations and specialist care.

The relative calm of the summer offers the perfect opportunity to look ahead to the new political year. The formation of a new cabinet and the accompanying coalition agreement are eagerly awaited. In this blog, Mitchell van Bekkum & Maaike van Vliet describe what we can already expect from future healthcare policy.

Requests from the field

The coalition formation has been simmering for several months. Organisations try in various ways to influence what will eventually end up in the coalition agreement. Particularly in the healthcare sector, which faces major challenges, there are many parties that have an opinion on healthcare policy. Since the formation of the coalition agreement started, many letters to the formateur, studies, opinion articles and stakeholder coalitions have been published to draw attention to their solutions to these challenges. Although every organisation has a different solution, we can roughly identify three trends:

The importance of prevention is underlined by (almost) all healthcare stakeholders. However, they do not always mean the same thing. Some organisations are in favour of a sugar tax or want to stimulate a healthy lifestyle by means of lifestyle interventions. Other parties attach more importance to the development or stimulation of medical interventions that lead to health gains. The question is therefore not if, but what about prevention will be included in the coalition agreement.
Much attention is paid to the position and appreciation of the healthcare professional. It is important for medical specialists, nurses and other healthcare employees to have more of a say in the development of healthcare policy. Furthermore, an attractive working environment must be created in which the financial appreciation of employees is improved and lifelong learning is possible. The question is how to finance these wishes.
The desire to stimulate innovations and apply them more often is frequently expressed. This concerns more far-reaching digitalisation, such as the transition to hybrid care, the application of eHealth and a secure national system for electronic data exchange. Innovative medicines and aids can also be admitted to the health care package more quickly.

Political plans

It is still unclear which parties will actually take their places at the formation table. Yet, based on the programmes of the possible coalition parties VVD (Conservative Liberals), D66 (Liberal Democrats), CDA (Christian Democrats), CU (Social Christian party), PvdA (Labour Party) and/or GroenLinks (Green Party), a cautious prediction can already be made. Do the above wishes correspond to their election programmes?

Prevention is found in every election programme, especially when it comes to stimulating a healthy lifestyle. Various parties such as the VVD, D66, CDA, CU and PvdA see a role for health insurers. They can make preventive interventions more attractive by investing or including interventions in the package. VVD and D66 want to remove wrong production incentives in healthcare, taking into account the outcome for the patient. D66, CU, PvdA and GroenLinks support a sugar tax.
The possible coalition parties express their appreciation for healthcare employees in their programmes and want to make working in healthcare more attractive by means of more autonomy and opportunities for advancement. Whereas the VVD wants to improve the financial position of healthcare employees by reducing income tax, all other parties want more money for this group on a structural basis.
Investment in (digital) innovations is seen by the political parties as a means of supporting healthcare professionals and making healthcare more affordable and efficient. They want to invest in eHealth applications, apps and remote care. D66, CU and GroenLinks aspire to spend 3 per cent of the national income on research and innovations. The VVD, D66 and CDA emphasise the importance of innovative ecosystems and the development of key technologies. The VVD and CU also mention the importance of reliable and safe digital data exchange.

The major challenges in healthcare demand an active attitude from politicians and the healthcare field. It is therefore questionable whether a outline coalition agreement will benefit healthcare. There is a danger that a new cabinet will continue to do the poldering for the next four years, while the willingness of (care) parties can be used to arrive at decisive solutions together.

Wondering how your organisation can take advantage of the opportunities and threats of this formation period? Please contact us. We would be happy to think along with you.

Photo by Tara Winstead via Pexels

A new European tech tax – why, how, when?

18 June 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

In a month’s time, on 9 July, the G20 summit will take place in Venice, where among other things the world’s major economies will discuss a global upgrade of tax rules, with one sector in particular in mind: the tech sector.

In the summer of 2020, EU Member States saw that the economies within the European Single Market would be facing a very difficult time. The COVID pandemic significantly reduced earning capacity, making a comprehensive European recovery plan necessary. To generate the financial resources for this, the Member States decided to call on the European Commission to come up with a plan for a ‘digital levy’. Almost a year later, on 14 July, the Commission intends to publish a proposal: a levy on digital services, which will serve to help getting the Europe’s economies back on their feet. This is a big ambition coming from the Council and the Commission, but how realistic is it? What will such a levy look like, which companies and services will be affected, and how does it relate to the ongoing G20/OECD negotiations that should come to a climax in early July?

Scan

As for the exact form of the levy, the Commission is keeping its cards close to its chest. Directorate General TAXUD – responsible for direct taxation – is currently working with preparatory consultations and impact studies. The latest plans show that the Commission is exploring three options:

an increase in the corporate tax rate for all companies carrying out certain digital activities in the EU;
a tax on revenues from certain digital activities in the EU
and/or a tax on digital transactions between companies within the EU.

The first option thus focuses on companies themselves, as regards to the the second it is not clear which digital activities are involved, and the last option would come close to a so-called ‘digital services tax’ (‘DST’): a tax on digital services similar to the ones levied at national level in e.g. France, Italy and Spain.

Judging from the many position papers submitted on this subject, the current patchwork of national variants of a DST is criticised by most companies. Besides the administrative burden, national DSTs still pose the threat of trade tensions (e.g. retaliatory import tariffs from the US). European harmonisation of such taxes can replace the patchwork. However, the majority of the business community would prefer the Commission to abandon its own initiative and focus entirely on a global solution. A European levy is seen as an extra tax anyway, and smaller tech companies fear that the big tech players will pass a European digital levy on to them.

A solution at a global level? The plans for this have been under negotiation at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) for some time.

What will the OECD do?

In a nutshell, the OECD has a plan with two pillars. Pillar 1 consists of new rules on where to pay tax and a fundamentally new way of sharing tax rights between countries. The goal is ‘that digitally-oriented and consumer-focused multinationals pay tax where they operate sustainably and significantly, even if they don’t have a physical presence in a country.’ In other words, even if a tech company does not have a physical presence in a country, it should pay tax in the country where consumers (e.g. app users) are located. The second pillar provides for the introduction of a global minimum tax. The first pillar really addresses the big tech companies: the new method allows governments to also tax the sale/trade of data (e.g. from consumers).

The OECD negotiations have been going on for years, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Since January, the Biden administration, through Janet Yellen, US treasury, has been hinting time and again that the US is willing to abandon Trump’s hard line on this issue. The price Europe might pay for this is a deal that it not only taxes the Silicon Valley giants but also European ‘champions’ like Volkswagen.

A preliminary agreement was already reached at the G7 in early June. The focus of the first pillar should be on large multinationals with a profit margin of 10 per cent or more. Those companies would have to pay tax on 20 per cent of the profits they make above the 10 per cent threshold in the countries where they generate the income. This proposal would replace the OECD scope that included only “automated digital services” and “consumer facing businesses” as mentioned above. The thresholds for determining businesses that are the largest and most profitable are not clear yet. The second pillar is the 15 per cent corporate tax rate.

The G20 summit in July must agree to the plans. Countries such as India and China must also agree to the plans. The European Commission said in January that its initiative should not interfere with the G20/OECD negotiations. Benjamin Angel, director of direct taxation at DG TAXUD, stressed that the Commission’s proposal has a “different narrative” from the OECD negotiations, and the Commission maintains that a tax can be designed to be compatible with any outcome of the OECD negotiations.

So a European tax would have to run parallel to the OECD outcome, and see what happens if it is up to the Commission. The Berlaymont sees a window of opportunity….

Momentum

The European Parliament is also feeling momentum. An earlier Commission proposal in 2018 was shot down by member states in the Council, to the dismay of an increasingly ambitious Parliament. The need for economic recovery, as well as an increasingly vocal call to crack down on tax havens, gives the Parliament the necessary leeway to push its agenda. The Parliamentary Committee on Fiscal Affairs (FISC), established in 2020 and led by MEP Paul Tang (PvdA/S&D), also took a position on a possible digital tax last April. Rapporteurs Andreas Schwab (CDU/EPP, and also rapporteur for the Digital Markets Act) and Martin Hlavácek (Czech Republic/Renew) wrote in this position that if there is no G20/OECD agreement’, the EU should indeed take the initiative itself. MEP Tang went even further by stating that ‘if not a European digital tax, it should be a variety of national digital taxes. This is the way to put pressure on the international negotiation”.

The theme is also gaining attention in The Hague. Before the general election, the House of Representatives adopted the motion by MP Paternotte, which called on the government to work on a digital services tax at the European level. The election programmes of GroenLinks and PvdA even expressed the wish to introduce a national DST for the Netherlands. For the time being, there is no majority for this.

Consequences

The characteristics and preconditions of a digital tax are institutional food for thought for EU junkies: the competence for taxation lies entirely with the Member States themselves – not in Brussels. Any proposal on taxation would therefore requir a unanimous vote in the Council, and it is still unclear whether countries such as Ireland and Luxembourg – which is home to many tech giants with tax breaks – will agree.

The consequences of any European levy will have a significant impact on companies in the tech sector, which are, almost without exception, international players. Regardless of the outcome of the G20, policymakers in Brussels, The Hague and other European capitals will be gearing up for tough political and technical negotiations, and it will become increasingly important for many companies to make themselves heard.

Public Matters advises companies and other organisations that are active in the tech sector, or which are indirectly / directly impacted by a digital tax. Please visit this page for more information.

Photo by panumas nikhomkhai via Pexels

Talking about lobbying means talking about more than just regulation

21 May 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

After a long time, the discussion on lobbying regulations is back on the agenda. The reason for this is the publication and presentation of the OECD report Lobbying in the 21st century (20 May), which was also covered by de Volkskrant in the Netherlands (21 May). That is good news. Unfortunately, the discussion is once again conducted along the lines of ingrained stereotypes.

One such stereotype is embedded in the way the alleged influence of lobbyists is viewed. Angel Gurria, Secretary-General of the OECD, did the same by stating that this influence is “still underestimated”. Without further substantiating very concretely why this is the case. Another stereotype is that only companies and consultants do the lobbying. While NGOs also lobby intensively and professionally. And the number of government lobbyists has increased enormously in recent years.

This discussion should not be based on these stereotypes, but rather on the way in which lobbyists aim to improve policymaking in an appropriate and transparent way. This should also include how the recipients of lobbying – including politicians and civil servants – deal with this themselves and have their own responsibility. As well as how the media report on this. Unfortunately, the discussion about the regulation of lobbying is not sufficiently focused on this.

This is also reflected in the OECD report mentioned above. It compares lobbying laws and regulations in 41 countries. The result is a report full of ‘apples and oranges’. These incomparable quantities stem from the lack of an unambiguous description or definition of what lobbying is. And if you don’t know what you are investigating, you get impure comparisons. Take for example the “lobby register” in the Dutch parliament. If you look closely at the criteria of registration, the way you get in the ‘register’ and the list itself, it becomes clear that this is not a register. It is more like a “database of external Chamber pass holders”. Totally incomparable with a register in Brussels or Washington DC.

Nevertheless, the report also offers useful suggestions that we in the Netherlands should keep in mind. For example, in the area of rules for revolving door politicians. In the Netherlands, a rule (now expired) was once promulgated in which a cooling-off period was stipulated. But there is no sanction for violation. And there are no rules at all for MPs. Not if they become lobbyists themselves or if they have rules for the access privilege that they have as former members. Let alone that we have an organisation in the Netherlands that supervises all this.

Typical in this context is the response in the OECD report to the question of whether tightening lobbying regulations affects the transparency and integrity of public administration. It is precisely the lobbyists who see an improvement with stricter regulations, while about 50% of the politicians surveyed do not.

In short: it is time that we in the Netherlands have a discussion and come up with rules, self-regulation or legislation. These should certainly apply to lobbyists working for companies, governments, NGOs, as consultants and other organisations. Unambiguous rules should also be introduced for (former) politicians, civil servants and journalists. And with that, I hope that this topic will stay on the agenda a bit longer and we can have a fundamental discussion about it. For example, by talking about the value of lobbying for the quality of policymaking, by talking about rules that are understandable, workable and enforceable, and by clearly delineating what it is not about. It is high time to make progress and to arrive at such a discussion without immediately shooting in the instrumental solutions. It is better to have this discussion now than to wait for an incident that will stir up this discussion, with all the consequences this will have for the transparent democracy in which we all want to continue to represent our interests.

Time to split the Ministry of Finance?

20 May 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

Author: Peter van Keulen. This article appeared on Montesquieu Instituut on 19 May 2021.

There is a new housing shortage in the Netherlands. More houses need to be built and one of the problems is the lack of building sites. Municipalities are economising on their internal organisation – including spatial planning officials – and are subordinating the social problem of the housing shortage to their own (political) considerations. The savings made by the municipality of Amsterdam are an example of this. Remarkably, the 11 secretaries-general (SGs) did exactly the same in the lobbying letter they recently sent to the then informateur Herman Tjeenk Willink i. The SGs argue that departmental reorganisations are not the solution for solving social issues because civil servants “already work in teams across the boundaries of their own departments”.

The secretaries-general conveniently forget that the organisation of central government is a crucial factor in the attention given to a social issue. Spatial planning and housing production, for example, have fallen further out of the picture since they were brought under the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK). A new Ministry of Spatial Planning and Housing with its own Minister and State Secretary will accelerate housing construction, but also the energy transition that requires space. Such a new ministry also prevents internal discussions at the Ministry of the Interior from having to balance spatial planning and housing construction with other Ministry dossiers.

The fact that secretaries-general state that they are “used to working in teams across departmental boundaries” is not borne out by the example described: the benefits affair. It is precisely this affair that shows how no cooperation took place. Let alone “across borders”. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, and the Ministry of Finance operated independently of each other while the Tax and Customs Administration had repeatedly pointed out the undesirable results of the harsh policy. It is a regrettable example that cooperation is not the norm in the compartmentalised work within and between the ministries. This does not seem to be recognised by the secretaries-general.

This is also the case at the Ministry of Finance, where the mismatch between social reality on the one hand and implementation logic on the other has become apparent. The Tax and Customs Administration has been in trouble for 15 years. This has to do with the way the Ministry of Finance manages the Tax Authority. It is impossible for a public organisation to have been in trouble for 15 years without the context and preconditions being the cause of it. Among other things, the inability to repair the problems with Toeslagen shows that the Ministry of Finance is not capable of changing this. It is precisely here that a departmental reorganisation could help: set up a Ministry of Taxation and Fiscal Affairs such as exists in many neighbouring countries. This new ministry would give taxation in the Netherlands the attention it needs to put its services in order. The remaining parts of the Ministry of Finance can then be transformed into a Ministry of National Budget and Financial Markets. Without creating compartmentalisation. As a consequence, the income side of the national budget (taxes) and expenditure side (departmental budgets) will be separated. This will benefit decision-making and political support: separate decision-making on the income and expenditure sides will give the States-General the opportunity to decide on the Tax Plan without time pressure. And not under high time pressure at the end of the year, as is currently the case. This also benefits the support base among businesses and citizens who, in the current situation, do not know until 1 January what their tax obligations will be in the new year. Incidentally, the Ministry of Finance is the only Hague ministry whose organisation and structure has never really changed since it was established in 1789.

It is a good thing that the administrative leadership of ministries openly intervenes in the administrative organisation of the country. However, their own internal concerns must be made subordinate to the social problems that must be tackled. So departmental reorganisations should not be ruled out at the outset: after all, the civil service organisation must adapt to the social issues and not the other way round.

Picture by Ivo N via Pexels

What is Accountability Day and what opportunities does it bring?

20 May 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

Public Matters Trainee Tessel Schouwink spoke with former Member of Parliament Pieter Duisenberg to answer these questions.

On the third Wednesday of May few people will be watching the television. Yet this day, also called Accountability Day, deserves more attention. It is the counterpart of Prinsjesdag (Little Prince Day), when politics does not look forward but back. Although this parliamentary moment has little flair, no golden carriages or throne speeches, in essence it is more important than Prinsjesdag. After all, what use are beautiful plans if the execution is not good?

First of all, it is important to outline what exactly happens on this day. On Accountability Day (this year on 19 May), the Minister of Finance presents the annual financial report of the State to the Lower House. Comparable to Prinsjesdag, this is done in a special case. In addition, the annual reports for each ministry are presented. These show what the government and the ministries have achieved, what they have done to achieve it and, finally, what it has cost. It is in fact a review of the past year.

“Accountability Day completes the circle of national policy”.

The annual reports are audited by the Court of Audit. The following questions are answered: have the desired policy goals been achieved? And: has the government complied with the legal rules? But the review also continues after Accountability Day. In mid-June, the House of Representatives will continue to debate the annual reports and the accompanying report by the Court of Audit. The result? The government can adjust or change its policy where necessary. And this comes up again on Prinsjesdag. This completes the circle of national policy.

Accountability is also political

As is often the case in the Lower House, it is not only about the annual accounts themselves. Current events, for example, also play a major role. For example, the debate on accountability in 2018 was mainly about the dividend tax. And so on Wednesday 19 May this year, it will largely be about the corona pandemic; what has the pandemic done to the figures? The Accountability Debate, following the annual financial statements, is therefore an opportunity for politicians to make their political points. For companies and organisations, it offers opportunities to bring forward important issues in their contacts with MPs, which can be reflected in the debate with the Minister of Finance.

We have to keep going

Politicians love to look ahead. From city council meetings to election campaigns, politics is largely about future policy. After all, a politician likes plans and outlooks. This can also explain the popularity of Budget Day compared to Accountability Day. Accountability Day, however, is a necessary step in learning from mistakes – in order to draw up the best possible new policy. This realisation is increasingly being felt in The Hague.

Duisenberg Method

Various politicians have tried to draw more attention to the ‘counterpart’ of Prinsjesdag. Former VVD (Conservative-Liberals) Member of Parliament Pieter Duisenberg plays an important role here. Together with Paul van Meenen (D66, Liberal-Democrats), he devised the so-called ‘Duisenberg method’, in which a standard method for monitoring the government was developed. According to Duisenberg, this is indispensable. “It ensures consistency in the constitutional task of Parliament, namely: to control the government.” He also points out the need for the inclusion of the method in the Rules of Procedure in the House of Representatives. “Accountability Day is not a sexy topic with which you as a member of parliament can get into the newspapers. In this way, a number of MPs are designated to be ‘obliged’ to carry out the method that year.”

“During Accountability Day, the constitutional task of the House of Representatives, to monitor the government, is greatly magnified.”

Not only has Duisenberg made a major impact in terms of content, he has also worked to give the day itself more cachet. For example, Accountability Day begins with what is known as an ‘accountability breakfast’, where politicians come together to discuss accountability. Every year, a speaker is also invited. In 2017, for example, Prince Constantijn spoke about accountability in start-ups. Duisenberg emphasises: “Accountability Day is not intended to drag the government through the mud. It is more intended as a great learning lesson: what can we learn from the past year?”

“Auditing is not meant to drag the government through the mud. It is more intended as a great learning lesson: what can we learn from the past year?”

In addition, Duisenberg introduced the ‘V100′, whereby citizens have the opportunity to ask critical questions about the annual reports. According to Duisenberg, this gives more nuance to the figures. For: “citizens’ experiences provide more insight into ‘how our country is really doing’. The Duisenberg method and the v100 therefore provide more factual insights into the state of the country. Something that he considers indispensable in his current position as chairman of VSNU (Association of Universities). “Discussions about, for example, money and services for certain sectors are becoming less of a yes/no debate based on a newspaper article. The debates are more evidence-based; we see better what sectors need.”

The latter is essential for your advocacy. After all, on the basis of hard figures, it is possible to see where additional resources are needed and whether money is being spent efficiently. It is therefore of great importance for companies and organisations to keep a close eye on the accounting documents. Of course Public Matters also scrutinises these documents extensively, and we can advise our clients about the content and the follow-up steps required on the basis of these documents.

Although Accountability Day does not (yet) have the grandeur of Prinsjesdag, in terms of its importance it is hardly inferior to the well-known third Tuesday in September.

Picture: Rijkoverheid via Flickr

Sector organizations: are they making a comeback?

10 May 2021/in News, Opinion /by Mike de Wit

It seemed that many branches were slowly but surely losing relevance, members, and the mandate to engage with policymakers from a common standpoint. A lack of decisiveness and a stuffy image led, according to many, to an inevitable end of the trade association. As an industry representative, but also as a member of an industry association, it is useful to reflect on the positioning of associations, and to look for new ways of representation and positioning.

In this article, I provide an analysis of the resurgence of collective advocacy, self-reflection and innovation in trade associations, and offer advice on the added value of branches in the future.

The revival of the trade association

It is, of course, tempting (and easy) to explain the revival of trade associations solely on the basis of the coronacrisis: after all, a trade can bail its members out, and with a good lobby can mean the difference between forced closure and opening the store or the terrace. However, developments prior to the corona crisis are also important for the following reasons:

First, there are more and more advocates in political The Hague and Brussels. This while policymakers prefer to engage with a sector: after all, this gives an overall picture of the solutions needed for problems in business, and it also saves a lot of time. This requires that the sector acts as a reliable partner, and is willing to compromise. In order for a company to influence choices that are made about/for you, good advocacy is a must, and a sector with which the government can make agreements can help in this.

In addition, industry associations themselves have for some time now been focusing on added value for members. One sector does this by offering member services, and another has been lobbying the government for some time. A resounding example of this is VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland with ‘a new (European) course’. This shows that these industry associations are committed to refreshment: an inclusive story in which sustainability, entrepreneurs, and inclusiveness are central.

What the corona crisis did unleash was further internal change at a number of trade associations. Whereas members often cannot agree on what a trade association can and cannot speak about to the outside world, there was broad agreement from the beginning of the corona crisis that the trade association could negotiate on behalf of its members on support measures, industry opening, and other issues. This gave many industries in, for example, retail, construction, and hospitality the broad mandate to engage and negotiate with ministries and politicians. For the government, there was also a one-stop shop where the conversation could be started with an entire sector. Many companies found out very quickly last year that the Ministry of Economic Affairs was willing to meet with sector directors on a weekly basis and not with individual companies. Although a trade association often takes the golden mean, membership opens many doors, and can therefore be interesting to join.

The future of the industry association

Trade associations will continue to be important in the future, provided they can demonstrate to (potential) members what the added value is, and position themselves as a reliable interlocutor on behalf of a sector.

For companies that are already members of a trade association or are hesitating to become a member, the following advice applies: membership implicitly includes a responsibility, become active and ask yourself what you want to get out of membership. Membership of a trade association can offer clear benefits, but active involvement is necessary.

How can your branch seek out and represent the common interest of members? Or do you want to establish a trade association? We like to think along with you! Please feel free to contact us for an introductory meeting.

Photo by fauxels via Pexels

Public Matters joins the Alliance for Climate Action and commits to reducing CO2 emissions by 40%

14 April 2021/in News /by Bas Batelaan

Public Matters has joined the Alliance for Climate Action, an initiative supporting organizations to contibute to realizing the climate goals of the Netherlands (55% CO2 reduction by 2030). Organizations that participate in the Alliance are working towards an intermediate target of reducing their own CO2 footprint by 40% within five years, mainly by saving energy and other measures.

Bas Batelaan (Managing Partner): “By joining the Climate Action Alliance, Public Matters is commited to the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition, it’s in line with our corporate social responsibility principles, as the consequences of global warming are visible and are already affecting our future. ”

Practical help with CO2 reduction

Participants of the Climate Action Alliance start with a baseline measurement of their own CO2 footprint. Making use of an online plan to CO2-neutral entrepreneurship, the handbook “CO2-neutral entrepreneurship – How to do it!” and many practical tips and examples, the participants are supported to achieve their objectives.

Click here for more information about the Allance Climate Action (in Dutch).

Public Matters welcomes new colleagues and trainees

24 March 2021/in News /by Mike de Wit

In the first quarter of 2021 Public Matters welcomed several new colleagues. Evi Sonnemans and Mike de Wit started as Junior Consultants and Nathalie Schouten strengthens the agency as HR Advisor. In addition, Sieme Gewald, Minne Kransen and Tessel Schouwink will join Public Matters as Trainee in the coming six months.

About Evi, Mike and Nathalie

Evi Sonnemans focused during her studies and career on national and international politics and gained experience in the field of public affairs in various positions. She obtained her Master’s degree in International Relations: European Studies at Leiden University. At Public Matters she will support clients in various sectors, with a focus on the healthcare sector.

Mike de Wit has a broad academic background and obtained his master’s degree in Public Administration: Economics & Governance at the University of Leiden. During his studies he was active in, amongst others, representative councils and gained experience in interest representation at Public Matters as a Trainee. At Public Matters he will support various clients in a wide range of sectors.

Nathalie Schouten will join the team as HR Advisor, working on the organisational development and development of our employees. Nathalie has gained a lot of experience in the HR field and has been working as a consultant for various organisations since 2012.

About Sieme, Minne and Tessel

Sieme Gewald has a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and a minor in Conflict Studies from the University of Amsterdam. She was also a board member at the United Nations Students Conference Amsterdam (UNISCA) and active as a student consultant at SOLVE Consulting. At Public Matters, Sieme will primarily focus on supporting clients in the areas of energy and climate.

Minne Kransen has a bachelor’s degree in International Relations & International Organization and a minor in Politics & Governance from the University of Groningen. She also did a minor abroad in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Minne supports Public Matters mainly in the tech sector, developments in Brussels and the Public Matters initiative ”Tech Against Corona”.

Tessel Schouwink is currently following the masters Political Communication and Text & Communication at the University of Amsterdam. She also did a minor in Journalism during her bachelor Dutch Language and Culture. She was furthermore a Junior Policy Officer at ”Tech Against Corona”, a co-initiative of Public Matters. Tessel will mainly be involved in supporting various clients within the domain of the Ministry of Interior & Kingdom Relations.

Of course we are very happy with these reinforcements and we wish the new colleagues lots of success in their new positions!

Recap Campaign Leaders’ Debate Machiavelli Foundation

18 March 2021/in News /by Mike de Wit

Traditionally, the morning after the elections, the campaign leaders’ debate of the Machiavelli Foundation took place in Press Center Nieuwspoort. This time we looked back at the parliamentary elections of 2021, without an audience, but with a livestream via our own website and NPO Politics. After what was perhaps the most extraordinary election in decades, there was plenty to discuss. This time without suffering from “small eyes,” as debate leader and Machiavelli board member Remco Meijer (Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant) noted at the beginning of the debate. COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, after all, made grand result nights and subsequent celebrations impossible. Some suffered only from a politically tinged hangover.

Present were Sophie Hermans (VVD/Conservative Liberals), Raymond Knops (CDA/Christian Democrats), Sjoerd Sjoerdsma (D66/Liberal Democrats), Maarten Hijink (SP/Socialist Party), Nelleke Vedelaar (PvdA/Social Democrats) and Wijnand Duyvendak (GroenLinks/Green Party). It was clear that the parties had deployed political heavyweights and experienced campaigners to make the campaign a success.

“COVID-19” campaign

During the discussion, all campaign leaders indicated that they had run into the limitations of the COVID-19 pandemic. The SP was particularly bothered by the fact that they could no longer “go into the neighborhood.”

GroenLinks missed the 2017 meet-ups, and alternative meetings were also ultimately too risky due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Duyvendak, this did not give the GroenLinks campaign the momentum it needed to solidify its historic victory in the previous election and further expand its seat count. As campaign leader, he felt “caged” by the pandemic.

Sjoerdsma also indicated that Sigrid Kaag might have reached even more voters under different circumstances. In short, physical meetings and human contact were – not surprisingly – missed in this campaign.

Change of guard

The CDA and the PvdA had to deal with a turbulent start to the election campaign. Both parties changed party leaders at an awkward moment, to say the least. The expectations of the CDA were high beforehand. After a number of incidents, however, there was a downward flow. The fact that there were de facto four list leaders at the CDA (De Jonge, Omtzigt, Grapperhaus and Hoekstra) did not hinder the campaign, according to Knops.

For the PvdA, the late change of party leader was not ideal, according to Vedelaar. Although Ploumen has according to her “made the best of it”.

Trustworthy government

“Trustworthy government” as a theme did not gain traction until the elections. According to Knops, this is due to the resignation of the Cabinet. According to him the CDA has also not been able to benefit from the decisive action of running mate Omtzigt in the child care benefits scandal.

When asked whether it was the intention to deploy Leijten in the final phase of the campaign, Hijink replied that this had been the intention from the start. However, the child care benefits scandal did not become dominant in the debate. In the end it was mainly about the COVID-19 pandemic and the leadership that goes along with it. Support for the government’s COVID-19 policy made visibility difficult for the party: the SP’s issues were not put on the agenda.

Stable leadership

Extended congratulations were given to the only two contestants who managed to win: VVD and D66. The image of Kaag dancing on the table was recalled by many as something they would naturally have preferred to see with their own party leader. Duyvendak indicated that the clever thing about the winners’ campaigns was that the emphasis on stable leadership stuck well with voters. The leadership story was decisive. D66 managed to offer a credible alternative to Rutte. Other parties were unable to do so.

The VVD succeeded particularly well in using Rutte’s position as prime minister and ignoring other parties during debates and television moments, Sjoerdsma said. Thus the VVD eliminated the competition by not attacking them at all. A defensive campaign, is the conclusion. According to Hermans, the “sophisticated” campaign of the VVD is mainly focused on what the voter now cares about: the COVID-19 pandemic. An offensive one simply does not fit with that.

Duyvendak argued that the party has succeeded in pursuing an apolitical strategy. Something that got in the way of GroenLinks, but that worked very well for the VVD. Knops agrees. By campaigning “not at all” Rutte has been able to make the most of his position as prime minister. Thanks to this strategy, he may become the longest-serving Dutch prime minister in post-war history during the coming cabinet period.

Want to know more about the Machiavelli Foundation or watch the campaign debate? Then go to www.stichtingmachiavelli.nl.

UPDATE DUTCH POLITICS General elections 2021: Mark Rutte did it again!

18 March 2021/in News /by Bas Batelaan

The election results in this article are based on the 17 March exit polls. The updated results can be found here.

Highlights:

Mark Rutte’s VVD (Conservative Liberals) is the big winner.
Other winners are D66 (Liberal Democrats) and eurosceptic Forum for Democracy.
Traditional left-wing parties all lose: PvdA (Social Democrats, party of Commissioner Timmermans), GroenLinks (Greens) and SP (Socialists).
VVD, D66 & CDA (Christian Democrats) are the most likely coalition partners.

The “day after” election day (March 18, 2021) it’s safe to expect that Mark Rutte, the current Prime Minister, is one step closer to fulfilling his ambition of being the longest serving Prime Minister of The Netherlands in history. His conservative-liberal party (VVD) won convincingly as expected, with remarkable big wins for FvD (Eurosceptic) and D66 (Liberal Democrats). This being the first general elections in an EU Member State under COVID-19, the voter turn-out of 79,3% is higher than expected. The definitive result is expected Friday next week.

Today at 14.00 party leaders will meet for the first time in the House, to decide on the very first steps of the complex Cabinet formation process. In 2017 this formation process lasted over 225 days. On March 31, the new MPs will be inaugurated. Please find an overview of the election results at the bottom of this update.

Election results: a win for the right

Leading up to the general elections, the polls already predicted a shift to the right. Mark Rutte’s popularity, strengthened by his role as ‘crisis manager’ of the COVID-19 pandemic, and despite the fact that he is heading a care-taker Cabinet, resulted in the expected win for his VVD (+3 seats, 36 total). The second largest party in parliament is now D66 led by Sigrid Kaag, who performed remarkably well during the election campaign and secured an additional 5 seats, putting them at 24 total, followed by Freedom Party (Right-wing) leader Geert Wilders (-3 seats, 17 total).

Leader of the CDA (Christian Demcorats) and current finance minister Wopke Hoekstra did not live up to expectations, and lost 4 seats, putting them at 15 total. Earlier in the campaign he, like many other party leaders, attempted to position himself as Rutte’s rival for Prime Minister – but he ended up in fourth place. Right-wing eurosceptic party Forum for Democracy (FvD) led by Thierry Baudet, on the other hand, did very well despite the implosion his party suffered starting in fall 2020, when party dissidents split off and continued their campaign under ‘JA21’. FvD gained 6 seats and ends at 8 – as it stands they are the party to gain the most seats in these elections.

The entrance of three political parties is remarkable: Volt (pan-European, 3 seats), JA21 (Conservative Liberals, 4 seats) and BBB (Farmer’s party, 1 seat) will make it into the House of Representatives. The parties on the left of the political spectrum were, as expected, not able to position themselves as a potential threat to the power of the VVD and other right-wing oriented parties during these first COVID-19 dominated general elections. For example, the GroenLinks (Greens) lost 7 seats, the SP (Socialist Party) 5 seats. Overall, most political parties – including the VVD – have positioned themselves more to the political left.

International Impact – more Rutte!

With Angela Merkel on her way out, following Rutte’s win, he is now officially the EU’s second longest-serving leader (following Orban). And Rutte has done much for the positioning of the Netherlands in the EU. Vacating the empty space left by the UK, Rutte has managed to expand Dutch influence on EU budgets and fiscal issues. Rutte has increasingly been found at odds with his French and German counterparts, for example on the common borrowing scheme for COVID-recovery.

In general, the Dutch like to think of Rutte as a manager. And it is precisely his managing abilities which influence the way the Dutch look at international cooperation. While in Brussels Rutte is known to (at least attempt to) appear constructive towards the EU – it is hardly a policy point for Rutte back home. The only real way Rutte emphasizes the need for European cooperation in his home country is in immigration policies. Pro-EU sentiments are the terrain of Liberal Democrats D66 and political newcomer Volt – not Mark Rutte’s VVD.

Whether or not current Finance Minister Hoekstra returns to the international stage depends largely on whether his CDA will take part in the next coalition government. In 2020 Hoekstra became unpopular among member states requesting the Commission to investigate southern European economies, and why they lacked fiscal leeway to respond to the COVID-pandemic adequately.

What’s next: the formation of a new Cabinet

Now that the new members of the House of Representatives have been elected, the formation of a new Cabinet starts. This year no less than 16 political parties secured a seat in the House (total: 150 seats). The previous Cabinet, Rutte III, was formed by four parties VVD, CDA, D66, and Christian Union.

The House will first designate ‘Envoys’, who will examine which parties are ready to form a coalition and which obstacles must be overcome. Following this, an ‘Informer’ is asked to explore and negotiate with potential coalition parties about the common goals and the key policy themes of the future Cabinet. After this phase, the Coalition Agreement between the new coalition parties forms the basis for the Cabinet’s policy measures for up to four years (until a next general election is held).

VVD is in the lead for this formation process, and D66 is a likely coalition partner, especially after this huge win. Wopke Hoekstra’s CDA is likely as well, despite their slightly disappointing election result. This means we are looking at a Cabinet much like the previous one – possibly without the need for the Christian Union’s 5 seats this time around. These three parties have a slight majority which would make them a solid first attempt at a coalition, and the most likely combination to succeed.

Election Results