Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

I disagree on two points.
1) Dutch PBS _does_ mistreat Wilders. Not as fanatical as they did to Fortuyn, but they do. "2 Vandaag" for example, started by making the 50% reduction of civil servants ridiculous by saying to two _working_ civil servants "which one of you is useless". "Balanced" is not the word.
A good reason why other politicians can't attack him in the vicious ways they did to Fortuyn (comparing him to Hitler, Himmler, etc) is that they should have noticed when Wilders was sitting right next to them. Wilders is not a complete outsider like Fortuyn was.

2) Compared to the so-called "liberal" (in the European, classical sense) VVD, he really _is_ liberal, even leaning to libertarianism. There was no such party (actually, there is a Dutch Libertarian Party, but it's not active) and there is huge room for that.

50% less civil servants should be no problem and saves enough money for all and more of his proposals. Counting policemen and teachers, almost one in three working people is working for the government. I wonder how The Netherlands managed 40/50 years ago, when that was may be one in ten. There are literally thousands and thousands of people working as "beleidsmedewerker" (I wouldn't even know of an English translation that grasps the uselessness of this function complelety). The city of Amsterdam alone employs more than one hundred people (they aren't even exactly sure) responsible for "contacts with the press". He also proposes to abolish the Ministry of Education. If that had been done 30 years ago not only billions would have been saved, we also wouldn't have to undo all "reforms" that the completely failed educational system had to endure. Replacing the Euro with the Guilder is a fantastic idea that would make our currency more stable than it is now. Getting out of the EU is also a good idea. Switserland isn't doing that bad without the regulations and without the Euro.

joep (ip:80.89.236.78) 16 March 2005 - 0:13 uur

Excuse me: I'm off topic. But... what's about the President John Jaakke? The Ajax soccer is from now politically correct?

Paolo di Lautreamont (ip:80.116.41.105) 16 March 2005 - 0:14 uur

I know nothing about politics in the Netherlands except Fortuyn and Wilders. But anybody who is an implacable enemy of Islamic immigration is a hero to me.

I'd like to comment though, if I may, on the tax cut proposal. I assume Wilders is talking about the tax RATE, not the tax REVENUE. They are not the same. Tax rates are one tool for controlling growth and expansion. Reduce them and there is economic expansion, incrase them and there is contraction. This is on the National level, not local or municipal. Tax rate reduction often produces, paradoxically, increased tax revenues. At least that is the theory. The principles of a nations economics are not the same as one's personal finances. An individual cannot print money, for example, or raise or lower interst rates. Completely different animal. I'd say to look more closely at what the man is proposing.

ttonn (ip:69.168.240.231) 16 March 2005 - 4:36 uur

Events in the Middle East may have some influence on your Muslim population at home. They may see how glad their compatriots of old are to be free of the restrictions of fundamentalism and rethink their position. But it doesn't help having those fiery fundamentalist imams preaching fire and brimestone and "Kill Kufrs" from the pulpits of their mosques every Friday night in the cities and towns across the EU. They must be ruthlessly weeded out, root and branch and deported! After that, the rest of the population should be made to understand that they're welcome if they make an effort to integrate, otherwise they should plan to relocate within twelve months.

foreign devil (ip:69.192.73.15) 16 March 2005 - 6:03 uur

Tton: unknowingly you point out what the main problem is with Wilders' proposal: he doesn't offer many details. He just wants to lower tax rates, which in itself is possible (the VVD has recently proposed a so-called 'flat rate tax'), but he is (for example) not willing to abolish the tax deductability of mortgage interest. Why not? Because it would antagonize voters. If he were a libertarian, he wouldn't need a second to consider this. But Mr. Wilders is a populist. The tax deductability of mortgage interest, by the way, costs the Dutch government a *lot* of money as it dramatically reduces revenue. Plus, it artificially inflates prices on the housing market, since people can afford more expensive homes in a country with a shortage of them.

And Joep, 2Vandaag are a bunch of lefties, what do you expect? One joke doesn't equal the systematic villification Mr. Fortuyn was subjected to. They didn't even have the courage to target Mr. Wilders directly, which illustrates how careful (or cowardly) they've become.

The main problem I have with Mr. Wilders' proposals is that too often, he doesn't point out how and why something might work. How are we going to get that 50 percent reduction in civil servants? Which people are now doing nothing or superfluous work? The entire ministry of Education? So we kick all of them out, create massive unemployment at least for a while, and then what? How are we going to organise the education of our children after that ministry is gone? Mr. Wilders is making the case: he and he alone should provide the proof. If only his love for being thorough was as big as his love for hyperbole.

And about the EU: that's another contradictory point in Wilders' proposals. He wants to get out of the EU (hey, I feel that way some days), but at the same time he has said to call for a 'no vote' at the upcoming referendum about the European constitution.

Now let me be clear about that constitution. It's a dreadful piece of work and I will vote against it. But as far as Mr. Wilders' 'escape plans' are concerned: the Netherlands are legally not allowed to get out of the European Union - unless we adopt that miserable excuse for a constitution!

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 16 March 2005 - 8:57 uur

Arjan,

it's true that the EU "constitution" contains official ways to leave the EU, but that's not the only way. The EU is nothing but a lot of treaties which can be stopped anytime as we see fit. Voting against the constitution is not an implicit wish to stay in the EU.

The Ministry of Education _is_ superfluous. All schools need is money. For a couple of thousand schools you need maybe 5 people to arrange for that. They should work at the Min. of Finance. Teachers know perfectly well how to educate children because that is their job. School will let their children have tests, probably by the (private institution!) Cito. Now there is one civil servant (who studied, for example, Political Science) for each three teachers telling them what to do!
Btw, the Ministry of Education sends out a lot less directives to existing private schools. I've never heard they did such a bad job at teaching. Actually, they advertise with "We Do Not Implement the 'House Of Studies' ('Studiehuis')".

We don't have a Ministry of Retail sending out weekly letters where the milk should be and what the best opening hours are either and there are no problems, no waiting lists, no "black shops", etc problems in the retail business.

The fact that a lot of former civil servant will be unemployed is true. So what? Before they did no productive work (work that someone would voluntary pay for, that is) either. Being unemployed, they might actually -being educated as they are- get a real job. Production rises, and so does our national income. Each year half a million people loose their jobs. That doesn't mean there are half a million people extra unemployed each year, it just means that people didn't like their job, or where not productive enough, and that 99% of them works somewhere else within a few years.

Yes, keeping tax deductability of mortgage interest is a bad idea. There are a few others. But most of his ideas are libertarian. For the libertarian view on Wilders, see http://www.vrijspreker.nl/blog/?itemid=1972

joep (ip:82.157.150.39) 16 March 2005 - 13:14 uur

Joep: I think you're understating the importance of the ministry of Education. Regulating all schools and universities with five people is hyperbole (and yes, I do think we should regulate education up to a point). But even if we abolished the entire ministry, we are nowhere near 50 percent of all civil servants.

Also, I never said that voting against the EU constitution is tantamount to an implicit wish to stay in the union - I said it's the wrong way to go about if you want to leave it. There's a difference, as I suspect very few Dutch voters know about the contents of the constitution.

Finally, the negative points on the url you are providing may be relatively few in number, but they are not encouraging at all: 'The Netherlands, a police state?', 'No more freedom to found a school', 'No freedom to choose a foreign partner in marriage even if you pay for them', 'Shows a very limited perspective on European matters', 'Weak on personal freedoms'.

The biggest problem however is that you are offering arguments Wilders should - but hasn't. Wilders should make clear what is behind his ideas, and how he is going to bring them about as well as pay for them. I want facts, figures, debatable calculations rather than contradictory catch phrases. Right now he doesn't come through. That makes his 'declaration' a (badly wrought) pamphlet, rather than a solid foundation of a political party.

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 16 March 2005 - 14:16 uur

Arjan,

I don't need the argumentation, I want the policies. As there is only one Wilders, living in a cell, it's not fair to blame him for not giving the arguments. Let's just assume he has the same arguments I used but didn't have time to write them down.

We can leave the real contradictory catch phrases "social security", "responsible government", "organised solidarity", "free healthcare", etc, etc. to the left, including the VVD.

joep (ip:80.89.236.78) 16 March 2005 - 14:38 uur

This has nothing to do with what's fair, it's about who we want to lead the country. I feel real sorry about him having to stay in a prison camp, but if Mr. Wilders can't get a proper document finished under these circumstances, he should have waited longer to release it. If he can't even write a decent party program, how on earth is he ever going to lead?

Also, I feel policy should be grounded in arguments - not the other way around. I can't fathom how you could write such a document, and not have the arguments available, unless catch phrases is all you have.

I can empathize with your sneering at other political parties, but this entry was about Mr. Wilders. The fact that other parties often screw up, does not automatically make Mr. Wilders a better choice. Nor does it mean he should be held to a lesser standard. On the contrary. I'd be extra careful not to embrace an alternative just because it seems to be. It may just turn out that Mr. Wilders doesn't have more on offer than any existing parties, other than being more vocal about it.

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 16 March 2005 - 14:58 uur

“Wilders doesn’t get nearly the same kind of nasty as Fortuyn”

I guess if you mean locking up in a jail is not nasty. At least Fortuyn could move around the country and the news did not tell us that everybody who joins his party has a risk of being murdered.

“Fortuyn was called dangerous almost every time”

Fortuyn showed, that that kind of direct demonization, did not really work is it? But what about declaring populism the biggest danger, as many do? Who do you think they mean by that?

“If you hear people blabber on about how 'the Main Stream Media' (MSM) mistreat Mr. Wilders, they are simply plain wrong.”

Did you say the same thing when Fortuyn just started? Because Wilders is just starting you know. He does not even have a started his political party yet. Which is kind of difficult if the state keeps you in prison, for his own protection of course.

“most MSM don't take such an agressive approach towards politically incorrect ideas anymore. Not because they've suddenly become enlightened about their intellectual blackspots, but because they're also commercial enterprises”

You must be joking! Nearly all, political news comes from the government subsidized channels! PC talk is everywhere. Also in commercial circles, Dutch government is the biggest spender of commercials.

You accuse him of inconsistency because he want the government to take more anti terror measures but at the same time increasing civil liberties. You think those two don’t match, but that is because you don’t understand how the US state is organized. The US has a strong state but a limited one (See: Fukuyama – State building). That is the concept in Wilders his program.

But what should I think of this when you write:

“He also wants to dismiss 50 percent of all civil servants, but increase the amount of funding for police departments and nursing homes, presumably to hire more people.”

But that is just silly, he wants to fire 250.000 civil servants and you blame him to hire 250.000 policeman and nurses? Please come up with some serious criticism, because this is just silly.

If you fire 250.000 and hire a few people, you can actually safe a whole lot of money! Not to mention that lowering taxes is the ONLY way to shrink a government.

“Oh yeah, I forgot: bring back the guilder, our former currency. Now that will help stabilize our economy!”

So what kind of wonderful things did the Euro bring us, except higher prices? What stability are you implying? The stability pact? Or do you mean that we finance the budget deficits of France and Germany?

People who want to judge for them selves, can read Wilders proposal in English here:

http://dutchreport.blogspot.com/2005/03/dutch-declaration-of-independence.html

Didn’t you saw it on my blog, zachtei?

DutchReporter (ip:62.194.144.8) 16 March 2005 - 23:32 uur

"I guess if you mean locking up in a jail is not nasty. At least Fortuyn could move around the country and the news did not tell us that everybody who joins his party has a risk of being murdered."

As you probably did not derive from the context, I was talking about his treatment in the media. You're shifting the topic.

I haven't got enough information to draw any conclusions about the reasons for Mr. Wilders' stay at Camp Zeist - so I didn't.

"Fortuyn showed, that that kind of direct demonization, did not really work is it? But what about declaring populism the biggest danger, as many do? Who do you think they mean by that?"

No, the demonization of Mr. Fortuyn didn't work at all. That's why we didn't have to cremate a colleague.

"Did you say the same thing when Fortuyn just started? Because Wilders is just starting you know. He does not even have a started his political party yet. Which is kind of difficult if the state keeps you in prison, for his own protection of course."

You're asking a question which seems to me to be more suggestive than inquisitive.

"You must be joking! Nearly all, political news comes from the government subsidized channels! PC talk is everywhere. Also in commercial circles, Dutch government is the biggest spender of commercials."

The political news bit simply isn't true. The commercial RTL network broadcasts more information programs than Dutch PBS. Those figures were released last week or so by Fons van Westerloo, who got them from the Commissariaat voor de Media (an agency which regulates the media). The part about government advertising is also bull. In 2003, the Dutch government spent 7.2 million euros on 'Postbus 51' ads. That's only a fraction of total tv ad revenue. According to www.spot.nl, in 2003 733 million euros were spent on tv ads. Now I hate those Postbus 51 ads too, but with 1 percent, the Dutch government is not that important to tv stations. The biggest advertiser is Unilever, spending 83.3 million euros in 2003 (source: www.bbc-adex.nl). In 2003, you needed to spend at least 35.5 million euros to enter the top 10 of biggest tv ad buyers. (I took 2003 because those figures are comparable, not all figures about 2004 are available yet, but those that are appear to be quite similar.)

And yes, Dutch PBS is much like a commercial enterprise. They earn massive amounts from commercials (see above). Plus, their ratings are as important to them as to the commercial broadcasters, if only because they may be alloted less air time when their charters come up for renewal. So (1) they earn money with commercials, (2) customer appreciation is important to them. Sounds rather commercial to me. Only recently, the TROS (a section of Dutch PBS) wanted to go commercial officialy - but didn't, when they found out they couldn't take the money with them they had made over the years.

"You accuse him of inconsistency because he want the government to take more anti terror measures but at the same time increasing civil liberties. You think those two don’t match, but that is because you don’t understand how the US state is organized. The US has a strong state but a limited one (See: Fukuyama – State building). That is the concept in Wilders his program."

The US has a limited state? Er... No, I am not even going to get into that.
And again you're distorting what I said. I wasn't talking about anti-terrorism measures. I was talking about expanding 'preventative frisking', which has nothing to do with terrorism. In cases where possible terrorism (or any other crime) is suspected, police can already act. Hence the name 'preventative'.

"But that is just silly, he wants to fire 250.000 civil servants and you blame him to hire 250.000 policeman and nurses? Please come up with some serious criticism, because this is just silly."

Ad hominem isn't beyond you, is it?

"If you fire 250.000 and hire a few people, you can actually safe a whole lot of money! Not to mention that lowering taxes is the ONLY way to shrink a government."

So you lower taxes in order to have more money to hire extra police and nurses within a shrinking government. Now I get it. Silly me, indeed.

"So what kind of wonderful things did the Euro bring us, except higher prices? What stability are you implying? The stability pact? Or do you mean that we finance the budget deficits of France and Germany?"

Shifting ye olde topic again. You are responding to something I never commented on. I didn't address what the euro is doing for (or to the detriment of, if you like) our economy. I criticized the proposal to bring back the guilder.

"Didn’t you saw it on my blog, zachtei?"

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this statement, other than disregard for a rather fundamental grammar rule, but at any rate insinuations never merit a reply.

Arjan Dasselaar (ip:82.161.93.35) 16 March 2005 - 0:54 uur

Comment