Snooping with Floris through the election manifestos of D66, SP and GroenLinks
12 November 2020
Written by Floris Drent
Introduction
Wednesday 17 March 2021 sees the next elections to the House of Representatives coming up. New elections therefore also mean new election programmes. Like the biography on Tinder profiles, election programmes remain too much unread anyway. I myself find it very fascinating to browse through programmes. At the time of writing, three draft election programmes are known; those of GroenLinks, D66 and the SP. They are still drafts. This means that they are not yet set in stone and so can still change if they are heavily criticised. In this article, I summarise the three draft programmes with the differences and similarities between them. I do have two caveats upfront. First, it is a summary for what I think is important. Of course, this doesn't have to match what you think is important. So this will cause details to be missed. Secondly, I do hint at my opinion sometimes, so this piece is not very impartial....
Overview
The first thing that stands out is the amount of pages of each programme. The SP has 22 pages of content, GL 78 pages and D66 as many as 203 pages full of positions. GL follows its name and starts its programme with the topic of climate. D66 again profiles itself as an education party and starts with education, while the SP wants to show itself as a party against the elite by starting on justice. D66 is sometimes seen as a GL-light. In this, GL is seen as D66, but a step greener and more left-wing. After reading the programmes, I can confirm that. The SP's programme, on the other hand, is a lot different from those of D66 and GL. That in itself is not surprising, but in the main, the three parties agree on a lot. For instance, all three parties want to put more money into public affairs, think care, education, poverty reduction and so on. Moreover, they agree that there should be more taxes on large assets and companies. However, smaller issues such as legalising soft drugs are also in all programmes.
Groningen
Of course, nothing beats Groningen. So I would first like to see if the parties have something in planning specifically for our region.
CTRL+F: Groningen:
In the D66‘s programme, Groningen appears nine times, in GL's four times and the SP's programme mentions Groningen twice. Both D66 and GL want to turn Groningen into the centre for green hydrogen production and research. The SP only mentions that it wants to establish a so-called ’Delta Fund' for housing repair and development of the region.
All three also mention wanting to keep facilities present for shrinkage areas. This of course includes mentions of a better train connection between Groningen and the rest of the world. All three programmes mention that they want to invest more in trains, however, only D66 and GL mention that they want to look at a better train connection between Groningen and the Randstad. On top of that, D66 explicitly mentions the infamous Lelylijn as an option.
Students & Education
On education, the three parties broadly agree. All three want to close the pay gap between types of teachers, the return of a scholarship and smaller classes. Improving MBO also features in all programmes. Of course, this is the low-hanging fruit.
D66 comes as a self-proclaimed education party with a piece more details and positions compared to the SP and GL. D66 begins the issue with the rich school day. An ambitious plan to greatly expand the amount of facilities a school can offer. Think school lunches, youth services and tutoring. In general, D66 wants school to become more than just a place where some lessons are taken, giving parents more time as well. Both GL and D66 also specifically state that they want to combat segregation, for instance by different secondary school levels having more classes together. D66 and the SP want to amend Article 23 of the constitution, freedom of education. With this amendment, schools will not be allowed to refuse pupils on the basis of religion. GL wants to completely abolish the difference between special and public education.
For students, D66 wants a scholarship from the redeemable tax credit, I'll tell more about that later. According to the programme, that will mean €300 a month for most students. GL wants a scholarship depending on parental income, up to a level of €400 a month. This is on top of the notorious 10,000,- starting capital for young people. The SP only mentions that it wants to provide students with a scholarship, with, like D66, a supplementary grant for students from low-income families. The SP does mention only that it wants to set a cap on the registration fee for MBO, HBO and WO.
Other interesting points include; D66 wants to relax the BSA including a 40-point limit. GL wants a minimum number of internships for large organisations and the SP has significantly increasing the amount of sports at school on its wish list.
Climate & Environment
The three parties agree on a number of measures for a greener world. Less flying, extending deposit money, driving circular use of raw materials and making agriculture more sustainable. Unfortunately, the climate chapter is very short in the SP's programme; there are no concrete plans for reducing nitrogen and CO2 emissions, for instance, compared to the other programmes. In contrast, D66 and GL's climate plans are very similar.
Plans that are both in D66 and GL's programmes include: CO2 taxation and reduction, North Sea windmills, more expensive meat, strict environmental requirements for government procurement and introducing citizens' councils for climate measures.
However, GL is often a lot stricter in views. For example, the party is not afraid to ban certain plastic products. GL's plans for reducing CO2 emissions, planting trees, building offshore wind turbines and reducing flying are just a notch higher compared to D66. There are two more differences that stand out in this regard. First, D66 states that Lelystad Airport is a possibility under strict conditions. For GL, that is a very clear no. Second, GL says it wants to encourage seed breeding, while D66 wants to make genetic modification of seeds a possibility for use.
Care
On the surface, the three parties all want pretty much the same thing: hiring more healthcare staff, higher wages for healthcare providers, salaried specialists and a greater focus on prevention. However, legalising and possibly medical use of soft drugs are also on the three wish lists. Furthermore, there is additional focus on both youth and mental health care in all three programmes.
However, when it comes to healthcare system and funding, the differences emerge. D66 does want to adjust a deductible in favour of lower incomes, but still sticks to the current system while retaining the financial incentive of the deductible. GL and SP, on the other hand, go further. GL wants to transform health insurers into regional health funds with a reduction of the deductible and health premium. The SP wants a single national healthcare fund with no excess.
The smaller differences among the parties are: the SP explicitly mentions wanting dentist and physiotherapist in the national healthcare package. GL wants to stop European spending on care to municipalities and D66 devotes another chapter to liberalising medical-ethical issues. Consider, for instance, gene therapy, embryo selection and research and preconception screening.
Society
Again, all three parties write that discrimination should be actively fought. For example, the view that the government should no longer tender to companies that discriminate is shared by all three parties. However, D66 and GL make much more and more concrete steps in fighting discrimination. For instance, both parties want the Netherlands to explicitly apologise for its slavery past. If it were up to the two parties, there would be a National Anti-Discrimination Coordinator. On top of that, a stack of anti-discrimination measures including adding the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation to article 1 of the Constitution.
Both GL and D66 want the eventual abolition of the Senate and guaranteed seats within the water boards. GL wants the mayor to be elected by the municipal council, while D66 wants the mayor to be directly elected by the residents of the municipality. GL also has a particularly concrete and strict stance against lobbyists that is sadly missing from the other two parties.
As an even more interesting point; both the SP and GL explicitly seek a republic while D66 sticks to reducing the royal house to a ceremonial institution.
Cents
That tax collection in the Netherlands needs a shake-up is clear among all three parties. The similarities are a higher tax on large wealth, wealth transfers and tech companies, along with a stronger crackdown on tax evasion. Unfortunately, compared to D66 and GL, the SP leaves out many details. Both D66 and GL indicate that there should also be more taxes on pollution, high inheritances and unhealthy products, such as sugary soft drinks and tobacco. Interestingly, D66 is now also joining the trend of shifting taxes from work to wealth and consumption.
The three parties also want to nullify the system of allowances. The SP says it wants to do this by simply making housing, childcare and care as cheap as possible. Both D66 and GL want to replace surcharges with a so-called redeemable tax credit. Also known as a negative income tax. This is a top-up of income if it is below a certain level. Of course, added to this is the view that GL wants to give every 18-year-old an initial capital of 10,000 euros.
Another interesting and very left-wing report: both the SP and GL want workers at companies of certain sizes to have compulsory representation. The idea here is to allow workers to elect half the commissioners of their company board. This would allow workers to stop decisions by shareholders that are harmful to the company's workers.
Europe & Co.
Unsurprisingly, again, D66's and GL's views are very similar compared to the SP's. Both D66 and GL are known as the europhile parties of the Netherlands while the SP has a lot less on the EU. The SP has a short but clear list of views regarding the EU and Europe. The SP does favour cooperation on climate, refugees and crime. However, the SP also wants an entirely new European treaty, to abolish the European Commission and to split the Euro.
Both D66 and GL are in favour of; allowing the European Parliament to make its own laws, abolishing the right of veto, tougher action against member states that act undemocratically/incorrectly and allowing the EU to tax with a minimum profit tax included. So again, the core is very similar, but there are a few minor differences. GL also mentions as a position to strengthen the rights of European workers. D66, on the other hand, has as positions that the president of the European Commission should be directly elected by the European people and that the electoral lists for European elections should actually be European. That means voting for everyone instead of just Dutch people.
Conclusion
As I had written earlier, the programmes of D66 and GL are quite similar. However, GL does dare to go a step further on some issues, mainly those related to climate and environment. On the other hand, D66 does have the genetic issues such as embryo selection and seed breeding in its programme and I think these are courageous positions. On the other hand, the SP's programme is relatively short and not at all concrete compared to the other two. This is also because the SP is then also a lot more radical and wants to make much bigger changes in the Netherlands. As a result, you understandably don't want to drown yourself in details as a party. Still, it would be nicer if it took a position beyond ‘This is a problem and we want to tackle it’.
If you want to browse through the programmes yourself, you can find them here:
