Dutch cabinet dissolves over Afghanistan debate

[Themightytom]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02 ... tml?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- The Dutch government collapsed early Saturday over disagreement on its involvement in Afghanistan, the prime minister's office said.

After several days of marathon discussions, Labor Party members quit the coalition government.

News of the Cabinet dissolving followed speculation that the political squabble over Afghanistan could not be settled.

The Netherlands has roughly 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan's Oruzgan province as part of NATO's International Security and Assistance Force. The Dutch government extended the military mission by two years back in 2007.

Deputy Prime Minister Wouter Bos, leader of the Labour Party, opposed fulfilling NATO's request to extend the mission again.

Bos said that the current Afghanistan policy was not sustainable, according to the official ANP news agency.

The Christian Democratic Alliance, Labour Party and Christian Union entered into a coalition agreement in 2007 but have disagreed on several issues including Afghanistan.

[ShadowDragon8685]

What does it generally entail when a Eruoprean parliament 'dissolves' like this, anyway?

Are the houses of legislature empty? Is there no-one steering the ship of state? Does it mean a sudden call to new elections?

I'm not entirely versed, but as I understand it, the ruling 'party' - with the majority - was a combination of three with grevious internal differences. But why did this happen - if the Republican party, for example, gets suddenyl divided by a gigantic schism, they don't immediately get booted out of office, the seated legislators remain where they were until the next election cycle. Obviously the Dutch parliament doesn't operate this way.

And what happened to the opposition, presuming there was one. Are they all being booted in preperation for a clean sweep, too?

[Teebs]

What does it generally entail when a Eruoprean parliament 'dissolves' like this, anyway?

Are the houses of legislature empty? Is there no-one steering the ship of state? Does it mean a sudden call to new elections?

I'm not entirely versed, but as I understand it, the ruling 'party' - with the majority - was a combination of three with grevious internal differences. But why did this happen - if the Republican party, for example, gets suddenyl divided by a gigantic schism, they don't immediately get booted out of office, the seated legislators remain where they were until the next election cycle. Obviously the Dutch parliament doesn't operate this way.

And what happened to the opposition, presuming there was one. Are they all being booted in preperation for a clean sweep, too?

You're confusing the cabinet and the legislature. In a parliamentary system of government the head of government comes from the legislature and generally cabinet members do too (it depends on the particular system). A government comes into power after legislative elections by being able to command a majority vote (or a sufficiently large minority with enough abstentions) in the legislature.

The Dutch system uses a very proportional electoral system and so has a large number of parties represented in its legislature (an over-simplification but an ok one to make I think). This means that parties have to form coalitions to put a government together. Often these parties disagree and if those disagreements are sufficiently strong the coalition collapses. This then means the government falls. The legislature is still there though, MPs still sit etc. Depending on the system they would either try to form a new government through some other combination of parties or hold new elections. But, just because the government falls doesn't mean that the legislature somehow disappears.

Edit: To elaborate, the current government would probably stay in place until a new one is formed, but it wouldn't really be able to make any major decisions. When I wrote about governments falling I mean the top political bit, obviously the bureaucracy and all that remains intact and functioning.

Also, you need to bear in mind that European government systems do vary. It's hard to point to a single European model and many systems allow for early elections (I can't remember whether the Dutch one does).

[Siege]

Are the houses of legislature empty? Is there no-one steering the ship of state? Does it mean a sudden call to new elections?

In order: no, no, and most likely yes.

I'm not entirely versed, but as I understand it, the ruling 'party' - with the majority - was a combination of three with grevious internal differences. But why did this happen - if the Republican party, for example, gets suddenyl divided by a gigantic schism, they don't immediately get booted out of office, the seated legislators remain where they were until the next election cycle. Obviously the Dutch parliament doesn't operate this way.

And what happened to the opposition, presuming there was one. Are they all being booted in preperation for a clean sweep, too?

All right, let's see. In the USA either the Democrats or the Republicans win the general elections, and whoever does gets to implement their agenda by virtue of having a majority in Congress/the Senate. Not so in The Netherlands: we have I believe 11 different parties in Parliament right now. After the elections these parties have to form a coalition with a majority of the seats in the lower house of the States-General, or parliament, in order to be able to form a functioning government.

Since all parties involved in such a coalition will have different goals and ideals they hope to achieve and realize by becoming part of the government, there's an inherent element of compromise involved. Whilst this generally works out pretty well for everybody (because no single party gets to implement its crazy ideas if others object to it), a downside is that there's a possibility the coalition stumbles across a matter the ruling parties simply cannot agree upon. As it turns out, the current mission in Afghanistan is such a stumbling block. The current coalition consisted of three parties: CDA (centrist Christian democrats), ChristenUnie (ever so slightly left-leaning Christian democrats) and PvdA (Labour); both Christian democrat parties wanted to extend the military mission in the Uruzgan province (this would be I believe the third time we'd do so), Labour on the other hand wanted to pull out, since the coalition more or less promised they'd do exactly that.

What followed was a lot of finger-pointing, followed by a crisis, followed by deliberations deep into the night, and as it turned out the differences were irreconcilable, which means the Labour ministers tendered their resignation and their party withdrew its support from the coalition. The next step was that the Prime Minister offered the resignations of the Labour ministers and secretaries to the Queen. Amusingly, the Queen is on holiday right now, but apparently such things can be done by phone these days. She'll most likely accept the resignations, which means the cabinet loses its majority in parliament.

At this point two things can happen: either the Christian democrats appoint their own to the Labour seats in the cabinet and attempt to continue as a minority government, but facing a hostile parliament that means they won't get anything done until the general elections next year and it will probably get them electorally crucified when the time comes. Alternatively they can just give up and call for early elections, which at this point seems the most likely course. This means that the current government will remain sitting until elections are held, but because they are 'demissionair', i.e. they don't have the backing of a majority of parliament, they won't be making any important decisions. This to ensure that there's at least someone in charge to take care of the day-to-day running of the state.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Now that was illuminating, Siege, Teebs.

I presume that the Cabinet has more or less the same meaning there as here - the bunch of legislators that the functioning executive (PM, I guess,) keeps close-by for consulting? So, what did the sitting MPs unilaterally quit - did they simply say 'we're not sitting on the same cabinet as these guys, and we're resigning from the legislature just as soon as her majest gives us leave'?

Whne you said

She'll most likely accept the resignations, which means the cabinet loses its majority in parliament.

Do I take this to mean that Cabinet members can only be drawn from the majority party/coalition? Cabinet members here serve 'at the pleasure of the President' and are picked by the Prez. Since they're his advisors, they fall under the executive branch, and they could be from the minority party, a whacky third party, or no party whatsoever; granted that they have to pass Congress' approval, but under norma operating conditions you wouldn't be an idiot enough to try and block a Cabinet appointment unless he did something really off the hook and tried to appoint the sociology prof from BumFuck Community College to the position of Attourney-General. I'm guessing that in the parliamentary system employed by the Netherlands, though, the ruling coalition decides who makes up the cabinet?

Could she refuse to accept the resignations and tell them all to stuff it in and find some way of compromising? I mean, I'm sure that nominally she has that power, but more realistically is it something she could do, or would it be unthinkable?


I'm given to understand that the Parliament that had the majority last time was three out of eleven parties. Even with the Christian groups having royally pissed off Labour by reneging on their promise to pull the Afghanistan mission, do they still have the option of trying to pull together a hasty alliance with other groups - such as, say, anyone deeply opposed to Labour - to scrape up a majority government again, basically taking a third option from 'continue with a hostile majority' and 'call for new elections'.


Sorry if I'm being a pest, systems of governance are a fascinating thing to me.

[Teebs]

Now that was illuminating, Siege, Teebs.

I presume that the Cabinet has more or less the same meaning there as here - the bunch of legislators that the functioning executive (PM, I guess,) keeps close-by for consulting? So, what did the sitting MPs unilaterally quit - did they simply say 'we're not sitting on the same cabinet as these guys, and we're resigning from the legislature just as soon as her majest gives us leave'?

No, not really. Like in the US Cabinet members are the political department heads. However, unlike in the US in a parliamentary system they will tend to have their own power base and powers. The exact relationship between the PM and the cabinet varies within governments and between countries but in general a parliamentary systems' cabinet members will be far more powerful than those of a presidential system. I don't know enough about the Dutch system to talk specifically, but in general there will be at least one or two powerful figures in the cabinet other than the PM that simply could not be removed because of their strength within their party, even though the PM might in theory have choice over appointments. Generally parliamentary cabinets are expected to present decisions as a unified body too, rather than the PM handing down orders from above as happens with the US cabinet (of course the reality varies).

In the Dutch case, coalition governments mean that the cabinet also contains ministers from parties other than the PM's and in these cases he has no power over the ministers beyond that given to him by mutual self-interest and/or any coalition agreements.

Cabinets in parliamentary systems are basically a whole different world to those in the US and other presidential ones.

Whne you said

She'll most likely accept the resignations, which means the cabinet loses its majority in parliament.

Do I take this to mean that Cabinet members can only be drawn from the majority party/coalition? Cabinet members here serve 'at the pleasure of the President' and are picked by the Prez. Since they're his advisors, they fall under the executive branch, and they could be from the minority party, a whacky third party, or no party whatsoever; granted that they have to pass Congress' approval, but under norma operating conditions you wouldn't be an idiot enough to try and block a Cabinet appointment unless he did something really off the hook and tried to appoint the sociology prof from BumFuck Community College to the position of Attourney-General. I'm guessing that in the parliamentary system employed by the Netherlands, though, the ruling coalition decides who makes up the cabinet?

The systems vary by country, but I think generally cabinet members in parliamentary systems would be expected to come from the parliament. In theory the PM normally has absolute choice over appointments within that rule, but in practice the PM is, unlike a president, dependent on support from parliament and this means that the political considerations on his appointments are far stronger. Coalition partners expect to be able to appoint their own members and factions within the PM's parliamentary party (i.e. MPs from his party) will need to be represented too if he wants to keep his position. On the other hand, I don't know of any European parliamentary systems where the parliament can *formally* veto individual appointments to the cabinet - it's either bring down the whole government or let it stand (obviously informal pressure still applies and is a massive constraint).

Could she refuse to accept the resignations and tell them all to stuff it in and find some way of compromising? I mean, I'm sure that nominally she has that power, but more realistically is it something she could do, or would it be unthinkable?

In a word, no.

I'm given to understand that the Parliament that had the majority last time was three out of eleven parties. Even with the Christian groups having royally pissed off Labour by reneging on their promise to pull the Afghanistan mission, do they still have the option of trying to pull together a hasty alliance with other groups - such as, say, anyone deeply opposed to Labour - to scrape up a majority government again, basically taking a third option from 'continue with a hostile majority' and 'call for new elections'.

Yes, they can. In practice this would be very difficult because generally the parties that aren't in the coalition would be the ones with the larger ideological differences to the governing parties. Also opposition parties after the collapse of a government are probably more likely to view it as in their interests to have another election and capitalise on ill will over the government's failure.

Sorry if I'm being a pest, systems of governance are a fascinating thing to me.

No worries, I'm generally happy to explain politics since I studied it for undergraduate (along with economics and a smigeon of philosophy).

[Atlan]

Now that was illuminating, Siege, Teebs.

I presume that the Cabinet has more or less the same meaning there as here - the bunch of legislators that the functioning executive (PM, I guess,) keeps close-by for consulting? So, what did the sitting MPs unilaterally quit - did they simply say 'we're not sitting on the same cabinet as these guys, and we're resigning from the legislature just as soon as her majest gives us leave'?

Cabinet is the group of ministers and secretaries running the country. In effect almost half of the ministers and secretaries resigned their posts.

Whne you said

She'll most likely accept the resignations, which means the cabinet loses its majority in parliament.

The parliament is seperate from cabinet. Ministers are drawn FROM the parliament, into the cabinet.
But any descision made by the cabinet has to be ratified by parliament, which is basically all the MPs. When one part of a coalition leaves, it almost automatically means that you lose a lot of ministers and secretaries from the cabinet, but you also lose a voting majority in the parliament.

Do I take this to mean that Cabinet members can only be drawn from the majority party/coalition?

Not specifically, but IIRC a cabinet has never been formed with members NOT part of the coalition/majority party. It would be a bit silly...

Cabinet members here serve 'at the pleasure of the President' and are picked by the Prez. Since they're his advisors, they fall under the executive branch, and they could be from the minority party, a whacky third party, or no party whatsoever; granted that they have to pass Congress' approval, but under norma operating conditions you wouldn't be an idiot enough to try and block a Cabinet appointment unless he did something really off the hook and tried to appoint the sociology prof from BumFuck Community College to the position of Attourney-General. I'm guessing that in the parliamentary system employed by the Netherlands, though, the ruling coalition decides who makes up the cabinet?

Correct.

Could she refuse to accept the resignations and tell them all to stuff it in and find some way of compromising? I mean, I'm sure that nominally she has that power, but more realistically is it something she could do, or would it be unthinkable?

Nominally she could do that, but it would probably mean the end of her reign as monarch. The Monarch is a figurehead more than anything, and basically is required to rubberstamp descisions made by the governent.
That is not to say that she doesn't wield power, but it's more an indirect power, advisory, and very much behind the scenes. The monarchy has very little power actual over here.

I'm given to understand that the Parliament that had the majority last time was three out of eleven parties. Even with the Christian groups having royally pissed off Labour by reneging on their promise to pull the Afghanistan mission, do they still have the option of trying to pull together a hasty alliance with other groups - such as, say, anyone deeply opposed to Labour - to scrape up a majority government again, basically taking a third option from 'continue with a hostile majority' and 'call for new elections'.

No.
You CAN continue to function as a minority alliance, but you're at the beck and call of an opposition which, to be honest, is fucking sick and tired of you. You will not get ANYTHING done, and are at risk of the opposition running the country if THEY can scrape together enough consent for law proposals in parliament. Not to mention that you're pissing off the man in the street too, because he'll KNOW that you are just continuing out of spite now.
The only reasonable option at this moment is to call elections.

[Shroom Man 777]

It would be really shit if Osama bin Laden gloats about this in his next State of Terror address.

[Netko]

On the other hand, I don't know of any European parliamentary systems where the parliament can *formally* veto individual appointments to the cabinet - it's either bring down the whole government or let it stand (obviously informal pressure still applies and is a massive constraint).

There are some. The Slovenian parliament was recently considering a no-confidence vote for a specific minister (link), only to drop the measure when the minister in question resigned do to it becoming obvious that he would lose the vote. However, obviously, it can happen only extremely rarely, and only in situations where the minister already essentially doesn't enjoy the support of the PM.

Yes, they can. In practice this would be very difficult because generally the parties that aren't in the coalition would be the ones with the larger ideological differences to the governing parties. Also opposition parties after the collapse of a government are probably more likely to view it as in their interests to have another election and capitalise on ill will over the government's failure.

Correct. Sometimes, however, a split can happen in the party considering leaving the government where some MPs support the government and some don't. This usually leads to a formal split of the party in question (that carries less consequences in a proportional system then in a first-pass-the-post one). This happened in Croatia in 2001 when the HSLS (centrist liberals) split into Libra (left-leaning liberals who supported the then centre-left government) and the HSLS remnant (right-leaning liberals who stopped supporting the government over its Hague policy). What stops those splits most of the time is that usually both parties take a hit compared to their combined potential in the following elections - HSLS today is a barely parliamentary (ie. has seats in parliament) party owning its seats to pre-election coalition (ie. it and its coalition partners offered combined candidates in elections), while Libra has been absorbed by the leftist HNS (basically, urban liberals). Pre-split, HSLS was alternately the second or third most powerful party in the country.

[Twigler]

It would be really shit if Osama bin Laden gloats about this in his next State of Terror address.

Chances are that he will be able to gloat; the current polls predict huge wins for Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid in Dutch) which is against the Afghanistan operations. In case you wonder, the guy running that party is the same guy who was temporarily banned from entering the UK because his views on Islam were considered too extreme. Oh joy...

[Atlan]

On the other hand, I don't know of any European parliamentary systems where the parliament can *formally* veto individual appointments to the cabinet - it's either bring down the whole government or let it stand (obviously informal pressure still applies and is a massive constraint).

There are some. The Slovenian parliament was recently considering a no-confidence vote for a specific minister (link), only to drop the measure when the minister in question resigned do to it becoming obvious that he would lose the vote. However, obviously, it can happen only extremely rarely, and only in situations where the minister already essentially doesn't enjoy the support of the PM.

The same thing can happen in the Netherlands. Obviously for a Parliament to pass a no-confidence vote on a sitting member of cabinet would normally require at least some votes from PMs from the ruling coalition. If this happens then you've REALLY fucked up.

[Siege]

EDIT: Well, it appears Atlan beat me to the punch. Oh well, no harm in doing things twice I guess .

I presume that the Cabinet has more or less the same meaning there as here - the bunch of legislators that the functioning executive (PM, I guess,) keeps close-by for consulting?

Yes, the cabinet is the head of goverment and the executive branch, i.e. the Prime Minister and the other ministers and state secretaries (junior ministers).

So, what did the sitting MPs unilaterally quit - did they simply say 'we're not sitting on the same cabinet as these guys, and we're resigning from the legislature just as soon as her majest gives us leave'?

First off, members of the cabinet are not MPs: the Dutch governmental system works on the principle of dualism, members of the executive branch do not sit in parliament (which is the legislative branch) and vice versa. They used to, but that was changed sometime in the '90s.

Anyway, yeah, the cabinet always has to speak with one voice (wouldn't be much of a government if it didn't), so the three parties that are a part of it always have to reach a sort of consensus on all matters of state. What happened here was that the Labour ministers said that the differences in opinion on the Afghanistan mission were so great that common ground could not be found, drew their conclusions, and quit.

But even though this means the government has effectively fallen, it doesn't have an immediate impact on the legislative branch; members of parliament are always free to agree or disagree with any proposal the government introduces, although obviously MPs who are members of coalition parties tend to vote for such proposals. There won't be a change in the legislative branch until elections are held and a number of the 150 seats change hands.

Whne you said

She'll most likely accept the resignations, which means the cabinet loses its majority in parliament.

Do I take this to mean that Cabinet members can only be drawn from the majority party/coalition?

I don't think they have to be, technically they can be members of opposition parties or independent outsiders... But I don't think it's actually ever happened that a cabinet-level position was taken up by someone who didn't at least make a show of being a member of a coalition party.

Cabinet members here serve 'at the pleasure of the President' and are picked by the Prez. Since they're his advisors, they fall under the executive branch, and they could be from the minority party, a whacky third party, or no party whatsoever; granted that they have to pass Congress' approval, but under norma operating conditions you wouldn't be an idiot enough to try and block a Cabinet appointment unless he did something really off the hook and tried to appoint the sociology prof from BumFuck Community College to the position of Attourney-General. I'm guessing that in the parliamentary system employed by the Netherlands, though, the ruling coalition decides who makes up the cabinet?

Pretty much, yes. A big difference with the presidential system as employed in the USA is that the Prime Minister, who is the head of government in the Netherlands, isn't elected. Instead, the PM is typically the leader of the biggest coalition party. Right now the PM is Jan Peter Balkenende, the leader of the CDA (Christian Democrat Alliance), who with 41 seats in parliament outstrip both other coalition parties (Christen Unie with 6 seats, and PvdA with 33, for a total of 80 seats, which would be a majority of the 150 total seats available).

Could she refuse to accept the resignations and tell them all to stuff it in and find some way of compromising? I mean, I'm sure that nominally she has that power, but more realistically is it something she could do, or would it be unthinkable?

The Queen definitely can do so, but it's not a realistic option in this case. I wouldn't expect her to get that involved in government unless the country was facing a major crisis and really couldn't afford to be left more or less leaderless for an extended period of time.

I'm given to understand that the Parliament that had the majority last time was three out of eleven parties. Even with the Christian groups having royally pissed off Labour by reneging on their promise to pull the Afghanistan mission, do they still have the option of trying to pull together a hasty alliance with other groups - such as, say, anyone deeply opposed to Labour - to scrape up a majority government again, basically taking a third option from 'continue with a hostile majority' and 'call for new elections'.

Theoretically they could go on as a minority government with an implicit understanding with one or more opposition parties, but it would be highly unusual for anyone to do so. Moreover, if you look at the current distribution of seats in parliament:



You'll see that there's currently no party with enough seats to replace Labour (the red slice) and still reach a majority. Even worse, the one that's closest is the SP (Socialist Party), a vocal opponent of the coalition and the Afghanistan mission both. They are infinitely more likely to side with Labour right now than with the remainder of the coalition. And finally, even if the cabinet hadn't fallen there's only one year left until the next general elections so even if there was a party large enough to fill Labour's shoes, they would have only one year to get its agenda enacted, which means they probably wouldn't have.

And finally, the cabinet has been losing support among the electorate for some time. The opposition parties know this, and they have been baying for blood for months. For them, the fall of the government is like Christmas came early this year. They're practically smelling their electoral victory already, and they're not going to spoil that by getting associated with a lame duck government whose image is in tatters.

Sorry if I'm being a pest, systems of governance are a fascinating thing to me.

That's quite all right, it's fun to explain to an outsider.

[Netko]

Not specifically, but IIRC a cabinet has never been formed with members NOT part of the coalition/majority party. It would be a bit silly...

This might be the case in the Netherlands, but since we've moved the discussion more towards parliamentary systems in general - yes, this occasionally happens. It happens relatively rarely since it is, in practice, an admission that the party(ies) in power doesn't have amongst its members someone of sufficient quality and relevant experience to take the post. In those cases though (and usually it happens after the political minister originally appointed has resigned, usually do to incompetence of one sort or another), its usually someone very well known and respected publicly from a relevant field who is not a party member of any party (university professor, respected economist, police commissioner, general, that sort of thing) , but ideologically aligned with the ruling party. Such a person is known as a technical minister, as he is a professional in the field, and not a politician. At the end of their term, they either go back to their field or join the party and essentially become a politician (since that usually carries with it a prominent spot as the party's candidate for MP). Its almost unheard of that a technical minister would remain for more then one term.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I think I'm starting to get the picture.

Apparently, the word 'cabinet' came pre-loaded with a lot of conclusions for me that misled me.

It now seems to me to be the case that the Cabinet are the actual guys in charge, rather than the PM - nominally I presume it's not so, but that without the Cabinet - who wield great informal power over the PM, instead of the PM wielding total authority over them - nothing gets done...

Basically, the way I'm understanding things now is that the Cabinet is basically an inner circle of legislature, with the PM standing as the guy at the middle of the circle. No one or two of the Cabinet could really go against the PM, but if a sizable minority of them speak up he'd best find some way to reconcile. Nominally he's in charge of them, but in practice they tell him which way to steer the ship of state, and if they dissolve or fracture, nothing can be taken to Parliament from them, and it's somewhat like attempting to steer the ship of state without a navigator?

Sorry if I tortured that analogy. I'm just not entirely sure on the practical authority of the Cabinet here.

[Netko]

In a coalition government its usually the presidents of the parties in question who ultimately wield the power. Usually, the president of the largest coalition partner becomes PM, while ministerial (cabinet) posts are divided between coalition partners. The specific posts are filled by the party to whom the post is assigned, with limited or no input from the others. So the primary loyalty of any cabinet member is his party (in the form of the party president). Their individual power base is limited and, again, tied to internal party politics of their party (since, ultimately, it is the party's support in parliament that matters to the PM and government as a whole). Structurally, they are (in the most common case of ministers drawn from parliament members) limited to basically their seat in parliament, which, if the majority's margin is not razor thin, is relatively unimportant on its own.

So the PM is ultimately controlled by the leaders of other coalition parties and his internal party support (there have been more then one PM ousted by internal party disagreement - ie. by MPs of the government party voting for a no-confidence vote for the PM), while cabinet members are ultimately accountable to their party leaders who are accountable to their MPs (seats in parliament are tied to persons, so if the party's MPs defect the party directly proportionally loses power which tends to make them important, while at the same time reliant on the party for their candidacy for MP in the next elections). The MPs are, of course, ultimately accountable to the voting public.

[Atlan]

I think I'm starting to get the picture.

Apparently, the word 'cabinet' came pre-loaded with a lot of conclusions for me that misled me.

It now seems to me to be the case that the Cabinet are the actual guys in charge, rather than the PM - nominally I presume it's not so, but that without the Cabinet - who wield great informal power over the PM, instead of the PM wielding total authority over them - nothing gets done...

It's different than that.
The PM is in charge. But before everyone sits down on their appointed spot there have been a LOT of negotiations behind closed doors regarding which policies this new cabinet will implement. Obviously even in a coalition not every party sees exactly the same way, and so compromises are sought. Once this is decided, and the appointments have been hammered out, the PM is nominally in charge of the cabinet. When he speaks it's considered VERY bad form to disagree with him in public.
Behind closed doors differences can be and are talked about, and often resolved. What happened here was that the differences became too great, and people started disagreeing with the PM in public concerning some fairly important stuff. When this happens in the Netherlands it's a sure sign that a cabinet is about to fail. And it did.

Basically, the way I'm understanding things now is that the Cabinet is basically an inner circle of legislature, with the PM standing as the guy at the middle of the circle. No one or two of the Cabinet could really go against the PM, but if a sizable minority of them speak up he'd best find some way to reconcile. Nominally he's in charge of them, but in practice they tell him which way to steer the ship of state, and if they dissolve or fracture, nothing can be taken to Parliament from them, and it's somewhat like attempting to steer the ship of state without a navigator?

Sorry if I tortured that analogy. I'm just not entirely sure on the practical authority of the Cabinet here.

As explained above, the PM's in charge, but some serious agreements are hammered out beforehand about WHAT he is in charge of. Overall direction is decided upon before a cabinet is formed, with each part of the coalition taking and giving away a part of the pie which is the overall direction to be implemented by cabinet.
And yes, when there is disagreement everyone had better find a way to reconcile. But it's not just the members of cabinet. Overall the political parties which form the coalition have to remain on speaking terms, as it is they who support their members in cabinet. If the disagreements outside of cabinet, in parliament, become too great, a coalition can fall too. Often this is foreshadowed by one or more ministers deviating from the official direction dictated by cabinet.

For the most part this system works well enough. It encourages the art of negotiation, and compromise. No one enters coalition negotiations with the illusion that all of their talking points will stay intact. More cabinets fullfill their term than fail, unlike, say, Italy, where you have elections almost every year.

Edit: Also, what Netko says.

[[R_H]]

It would be really shit if Osama bin Laden gloats about this in his next State of Terror address.

Chances are that he will be able to gloat; the current polls predict huge wins for Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid in Dutch) which is against the Afghanistan operations. In case you wonder, the guy running that party is the same guy who was temporarily banned from entering the UK because his views on Islam were considered too extreme. Oh joy...

Why is he against the Afghanistan mission?

[Siege]

Why is he against the Afghanistan mission?

As far as I've been able to determine, he feels the mission in Afghanistan is a form of expensive humanitarian aid we ought to cut, and thinks those soldiers would be better put to use making the streets at home safer.

Yeah, seriously.

[Atlan]

Why is he against the Afghanistan mission?

As far as I've been able to determine, he feels the mission in Afghanistan is a form of expensive humanitarian aid we ought to cut, and thinks those soldiers would be better put to use making the streets at home safer.

Yeah, seriously.

Pretty much. I agree with him in that it's humanitarian aid (our mandate there is foremost to help build up the country), but it's a NEEDED form of humanitarian aid, and likely money better spend than the average aid program our government pumps money in.

Of course, being aid, we should have part of it come out of the coffers of our Ministry of Developmental Aid, and not just out of the coffers of the Military. The MDA does not agree, of course. God forbid they should be accountable for something like a military mission.
But that's really a different discussion.

[[R_H]]

Why is he against the Afghanistan mission?

As far as I've been able to determine, he feels the mission in Afghanistan is a form of expensive humanitarian aid we ought to cut, and thinks those soldiers would be better put to use making the streets at home safer.

Yeah, seriously.

Oh, that's just a bit ridiculous. Then again, a bunch of politicians here had a bitch fit yowling about Swiss neutrality being violated because, horrors of horrors, Switzerland is providing the ANA and the ANP with medical supplies.

[Twigler]

Why is he against the Afghanistan mission?

As far as I've been able to determine, he feels the mission in Afghanistan is a form of expensive humanitarian aid we ought to cut, and thinks those soldiers would be better put to use making the streets at home safer.

Yeah, seriously.

Oh, that's just a bit ridiculous. Then again, a bunch of politicians here had a bitch fit yowling about Swiss neutrality being violated because, horrors of horrors, Switzerland is providing the ANA and the ANP with medical supplies.

I'm sure one of the people still living in the Netherlands can back me up (or correct me), but from what I've read about him and his party, he's good at spouting the usual populist crap that gets the votes of the type of people who like things black and white. Protect our culture against foreign influences (i.e. Islam), anti-immigration, anti-EU expansion (read against allowing Turkey in), teach our out-of-control teenagers some discipline; that sort of stuff.

[Valk]

Why is he [Geert Wilders of the Freedom Party] against the Afghanistan mission?

He is not against the Afghanistan mission, just against further dutch participation. He says, same as the left-wing parties, that the Netherlands have internationally already contributed enough and more than their fair share, and should therefore withdraw. A very small majority, 76 of 150 members of parliament, wants to leave Afghanistan.

The former Chief of Defence, and the military Unions strongly disagree. Many also fear consequences, often referring to Obama inviting the Netherlands to the last G20 summit.

[Siege]

I'm sure one of the people still living in the Netherlands can back me up (or correct me), but from what I've read about him and his party, he's good at spouting the usual populist crap that gets the votes of the type of people who like things black and white. Protect our culture against foreign influences (i.e. Islam), anti-immigration, anti-EU expansion (read against allowing Turkey in), teach our out-of-control teenagers some discipline; that sort of stuff.

Pretty much, yes. Although this isn't exactly an objective observation (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a member of the Labour party, and I agree with them on most issues including the withdrawal from Uruzgan), I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish. Geert Wilders seems to be using the sort of agitprop usually reserved for Republicans in order to garner votes, and even though he seems set to gain a fair number of seats in parliament come the next elections... I can't help but conclude that there's just no conceivable way he's ever going to convince anyone to form a coalition with his right-wing outfit.

Even assuming polls are to be believed and Mr. Wilders is going to gain a sizeable chunk of parliament, the left-leaning parties are never going to want to co-operate with someone like him. The right-leaning parties meanwhile will be hesitant to cooperate with him because if they do, he'll most likely out-right-wing them, which will cost them votes either in this election or the next. His views, whilst not entirely crazy, are still for a large part unpalatable to the established right-wing parties, who as a result are most likely to want to cooperate with 'traditional' parties. So even if (and that's a pretty big if) we get a right-leaning government after the next elections I very much doubt Wilders' PVV are going to be part of it. It's probably going to be a bunch of the established parties, with the PVV as a large-ish opposition party for a few years, before they disintegrate back into obscurity like every other far-right fringe yokel party so far.

[Valk]

Pretty much, yes. Although this isn't exactly an objective observation (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a member of the Labour party, and I agree with them on most issues including the withdrawal from Uruzgan), I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish. Geert Wilders seems to be using the sort of agitprop usually reserved for Republicans in order to garner votes, and even though he seems set to gain a fair number of seats in parliament come the next elections... I can't help but conclude that there's just no conceivable way he's ever going to convince anyone to form a coalition with his right-wing outfit.

Even assuming polls are to be believed and Mr. Wilders is going to gain a sizeable chunk of parliament, the left-leaning parties are never going to want to co-operate with someone like him. The right-leaning parties meanwhile will be hesitant to cooperate with him because if they do, he'll most likely out-right-wing them, which will cost them votes either in this election or the next. His views, whilst not entirely crazy, are still for a large part unpalatable to the established right-wing parties, who as a result are most likely to want to cooperate with 'traditional' parties. So even if (and that's a pretty big if) we get a right-leaning government after the next elections I very much doubt Wilders' PVV are going to be part of it. It's probably going to be a bunch of the established parties, with the PVV as a large-ish opposition party for a few years, before they disintegrate back into obscurity like every other far-right fringe yokel party so far.

Just stating the facts here:
- Only the left-wing parties have stated they don't want a coalition with hem.
- Much of his appeal is the way he does things differently from 'the establishment'.
- Mark Rutte of the VVD (conservative liberal party) has repeatedly said they can form a coalition with anyone.

[Siege]

Just stating the facts here:
- Only the left-wing parties have stated they don't want a coalition with hem.
- Much of his appeal is the way he does things differently from 'the establishment'.
- Mark Rutte of the VVD (conservative liberal party) has repeatedly said they can form a coalition with anyone.

I know these things, but if Wilders' PVV gains a sizeable chunk of parliament it's a fair bet at least some of those seats were previously occupied by the VVD. Unless he scores an absolutely crushing electoral victory, which I doubt, he'll still need a third party to form a coalition. And despite claims that they're up to forming a coalition with anyone the CDA doesn't really want to rule with Wilders -- their solid, Christian image can't very well afford a fringe-right coalition, and I bet Maxime Verhagen and other party strategists vividly remember what a disaster it was when they formed a coalition with the LPF a few years back. The PVV is just a rebranded LPF with more fringe-right buzzwords; they even target the same demographic with their "we'll do things differently" silliness.

Even so PVV/CDA/VVD is the most likely option; it at least stands a chance of working for a while. PvdA and SP won't work with him, so there's nobody else to form a majority coalition with. And if, by miracle, Wilders nevertheless can get that majority going for him, his party will have to massively cut down its rhetoric... So that, when after a few years the Balkenende V cabinet falls, the people who voted for the PVV be just as disillusioned with him as they were with the LPF after they made a mess of things.