Peter Noordhoek: What’s gotten into you Mr. Cameron? My Dutch despair at Britain vetoing the EU treaty

Peter Noordhoek is a member of the Dutch Christian-Democratic Party (CDA).

We are natural allies. When push comes to shove, the Dutch and their governments have almost always preferred the alliance with the British above one with either the Germans or the French. It is less than two weeks that we saw a great photograph of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Rutte, our Prime Minister, talking with each other on board of a train and in complete accord with each other.

Last Friday Mr. Rutte emerged from the Europe top looking cool and collected. Asked about the English position, he simply said: ‘They asked too much’. And just like that, the alliance was over. And not just with the Dutch. Even the Hungarians did not go with you in the end. If there has been one country in favour of a large EU, it has been Britain. You pushed for it, even though many would have preferred a slower integration. With 27 countries, you probably thought that would dilute the power of the other big countries. And now you are the country outside the group. Who do you think to impress with that? What are you doing it for?

In the press, the reason that was mentioned most was the way London as a financial centre was threatened by extra oversight measures. Cameron came as the champion of the City. Really? If so, that starts of as a public relations disaster. All too obvious in the eyes of the European audience the City has not mended its way since the banking crisis of 2008. The champagne started flowing again, bonuses were given, many of them earned with betting against Greece and other weak countries. Even if, like me, you recognise the need for a well-functioning open market for financial services, the City still seems a place that has not learned its lessons. And on behalf of that City Mr. Cameron comes riding into Brussels? I am really, really worried that it will turn out to be more than a public relations disaster. Early Friday morning I tweeted that ‘if I were a banker I would start making my career in Frankfurt instead of London.’ Immediately I got an affirmative response. Reading the media over the weekend, I am worried that the move by Britain’s government will in the end have more impact than Black Monday had. Britain can do without the Pound; London cannot do without a City.

Peter Noordhoek: Set a high standard for the European Parliament

Peter Noordhoek, a member of the Christian Democratic Party in the Netherlands, makes the case for a more positive approach to Brussels.

With much interest I read the article of Dr Charles Tannock MEP on ‘Why we need to take the European Parliament more seriously’ and the subsequent comments on it. It led me to write this Dutch perspective on the issue. Not, however, to say anything about the selection of candidates itself. I have neither the position, wish, nor knowledge to do so. It is because I might have something to add when it comes to the importance of the position of an MEP, here, in Holland and elsewhere in Europe. Reading the many comments on the article, and having spent quite a few conversations on this topic with people in your country, I hope my comment will add some fresh insights into the hot debate on Europe in Britain. 

And how hot it is. Many people in the Netherlands, including those who are critical of the EU, do not realise how high the temperatures can rise in Britain. The number of people in Holland that are critical of the EU is considerable, enough to vote no on our referendum on the EU-treaty. Even so, most of them would not understand the radicalism with which many Britons approach the subject. For the Dutch, leaving the EU is no option, improving it is a must. For many Britons, including a great many Tories, leaving the EU is a must, improving it an option. Even if I were to agree with that sentiment, which I do not, I do not think it makes sense. For one thing, it may lead to an inaccurate assessment of the importance of your representatives in Europe for your country and party.

To be sure; you are more than entitled to have this critical view on Europe, to plead for a referendum, even to plead for a withdrawal from the EU and to highlight every folly coming from Brussels. It might actually help to bring some democratic sense to Europe’s bureaucrats. But please, do not stop thinking about what is in your and our common interest. When a longing for splendid isolation becomes a magnificent folly, it is not only you that will get hurt.

Peter Noordhoek: To row or not to row

Peter Noordhoek, a member of the Dutch Christian-Democratic Party (CDA), looks at some of the lessons to be learnt about policy co-ordination from the grammar schools debate and his experience in the Netherlands.

It had been a few weeks since the last time I visited ConservativeHome. Here in the Netherlands I had been occupied by the election for our new Party Chairman (always interesting to have two candidates fighting for the soul of the party, especially if your own candidate comes through on top). Coming back to my favourite British site, I had some problems adjusting this time. Something big had obviously happened, but what was it all about? Grammar Schools? It was hot in Holland too, but does this mean that the silly season had already arrived in Britain?

After some reconsideration, it seems to me that there is a good reason why so many are so serious about it. Somehow you like to see it as some test of David Cameron’s ability to lead his party in a new direction. How this row can be mentioned by some in the same breath as the Clause IV action by Tony Blair is still beyond me, but then of course I have never been subject to the British school system.

Peter Noordhoek: Last week's election results from French and Dutch perspectives

Peter Noordhoek is a member of the Dutch Christian-Democratic Party (CDA).

Congratulations with the results the Conservatives got on the 3rd of May! I do not really know how far the Conservatives are when it comes to giving local government more responsibilities, but the locals certainly want more conservatives. Again, congratulations, this time from someone in the Netherlands who may be forgiven for feeling more connected to this result than otherwise. A weekend before the elections I went along canvassing with Greg Clark MP and some other wonderful people from Tunbridge Wells on a beautiful Saturday in April. Democracy in action, truly.

A month back I wrote about the danger of fragmentation. Our electorate has split in the Netherlands, with the extremes of the left and right winning the elections and losing them at the same time because of internal divisions. This might happen to you as well, I wrote. However, some of you rightfully pointed out that the French electorate seemed to be doing the opposite, having thrown their votes to either Ségolène Royal or Sarkozy, the final winner. So what is the correct analysis?

Let me first presume that I was wrong and that the British electorate, as much as the French, wants to go for a clear-cut choice between a left and a right wing candidate. Let me also presume that 85% of the British population will vote and that 58% of them will vote for the right wing candidate, Cameron. Does this sound true? Well, the LibDems certainly were pushed out of the equation on May the 3rd, and in fact you can only see one real colour in England and it is blue. So not much evidence of fragmentation there. Moreover; it seems likely the media will be absolutely focussed on the contest between Brown and Cameron in the run up to the national election, leaving no room for other parties. But having said all that, does this mean the British electorate will ignore the alternatives and like their choice? To me, it does not sound like the right analysis.

Peter Noordhoek: A message of fragmentation from the Dutch voters to Britain

Peter Noordhoek is runs a consultancy and training firm and is a member of the Christian Democratic Party in the Netherlands. This article had to be republished.

In advance of a visit I will pay to your country this month, it seems like a good idea to sum up a few developments in my country, the Netherlands. The correspondent of the Financial Times recently said that when it comes to politics, the developments in our country foreshadow that in Britain. In a literal sense this is not true, as it would be foolish to underestimate the differences between our two countries, and because your electoral system ultimately disguises many of the changes we see in ours. Still, it does seem to be worthwhile to compare the developments in both countries. I do so as someone who is active for the CDA, the Christian Democratic Party, and who has been paying visits to your country and the Conservative Party for many a year. The history of the CDA and the Christian Democratic Party is alike in the sense that we went into the political wilderness around the same time, after having been in power for a long time. Though it looks like we used our time in the wilderness better, having returned to power in 2001, there is one thing we should both be very much aware of: you cannot take anything for granted.

After my last visit to you in April 2006, I wrote in conservativehome.com about the way we used our years in the electoral wilderness to develop a consistent policy framework. Here I would like to say something more on our electoral strategies. Just a year ago, I must admit I had to be properly modest about our perspectives as a party. In March 2006 we suffered an enormous loss in the local elections. It was by far the biggest defeat since coming back to power. The reason for that was clear: the government, led by our party, had initiated a number of strong reforms in for instance the heath care and tax system and we did so during a recession. Most of the people felt they were worse off than before or thought that the government should have done a better job in protecting people against the changes. Labour, led by a bright and charismatic young leader, Wouter Bos – a new kind of Blair - seemed destined to win the national elections. When I was with you the polls promised 60 seats out of 150 for Labour and less than 30 for the CDA. It promised to be a rout.

Peter Noordhoek: Reflections on the Dutch election result

Peter Noordhoek reflects on the Dutch election results (BBC).

In Dutch politics the die has been cast. And the result is truly disturbing. The electoral stalemate I predicted in my last report has come about.

Personally, I guess I should be pleased. My Christian-democratic party, the CDA, remains the largest party in the Netherlands. In 2003 we won 44 seats out of a 150. After the drastic measures we introduced to change the economy, the electorate was less than grateful and we plummeted in the polls to 30 seats last April. The Labour party polled 60 seats at that time. A lot can happen in half a year. We now have 41 seats. And Labour? 36 seats. So we remain more or less constant, while Labour crashed. They crashed because of our effective campaign and because of the upsurge of the more militant Socialistic Party. This was not an election for parties in the middle.

But neither was it a campaign for parties on the right. The conservative party, the VVD, crashed too, getting just 22 seats. The remains of the party of Pim Fortuyn were wiped out, but there were an equal number of 9 seats for a purely rightwing party led by the Mozart look-alike Geert Wilders. I believe there is a lesson for the British conservative party in both the demise of the VVD and the staying power of the CDA.

The VVD came with an approach that was not unlike the losing campaigns of the Conservative party in the recent past. If I may make a caricature: behind the media imagery, the voter got a mixed bag of messages that were either conflicting or unrealistic. A bit of market ideology, a promise of less taxes, some words about social inclusion – and harsh measures against illegal immigrants. And behind it all the image of bruising leadership contests. Small wonder the Dutch voters did not appreciate such a campaign.

The voters took a different view of the performance of the CDA, even though you could rightly say that CDA and VVD had steered the same course in the Cabinet. Why the difference? In a word: stability. Stability in leadership and stability in message. Using our time in opposition to get back to the sources of Christian-democratic thinking and working consistently to flesh out a number of relevant themes, we were ready for government and have stayed the course ever since. Investing in an authentic message pays off.

Truth be told: it remains to be seen if we can stay on course for the coming parliamentary period. The outcome of the election is impossible. The only combination is a Cabinet that consists of CDA and Labour, the two biggest adversaries, of which one of them is severally wounded. Just before the election only 11% of the electorate thought this to be an attractive combination. I must admit; this is one of those moments I envy the British ‘first past the post’ system of appointing a winner. Come next March I have another election to run, this time for the provincial authority. The likelihood exists that we will still not have a new cabinet by then. A horrible thought. I hope we can keep our strong showing and that the VVD regains it strength. It is not least because of this that I am interested in The Great David Cameron Experiment.

By the way, poverty was a real issue in this campaign. And our side did not have new ideas to offer than the old platitude of ‘making money before spending it’. The voters were hungry for something more. If only for this I really like the way Greg Clark and Peter Franklin approach the issue. Those who reacted negatively to David Cameron’s endorsement of it should think again. The Conservatives need the long tail of a new approach.

Peter Noordhoek: From Burqa to a pardon - In Dutch politics the integration debate rages on

Last week the Dutch cabinet approved a proposal to ban the wearing of the Muslim burqa in public places.  Here, Peter Noordhoek, member of the Dutch Christian Democratic Party discusses the ban.  A ban he supports, not for security reasons, but because he does not want to live in a society "where eyes cannot meet".

In politics, timing is everything. Jack Straw’s remarks about the wearing of the Burqa were somehow spot on time. In the Netherlands a proposal was launched this month to ban the Burqa and the Niqab, a similar garment. This drew considerable attention abroad, today even leading to a protest by the 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference. But the attention abroad was not reflected in the Netherlands itself.  Here it seems like the end of a discussion, not the beginning of it. There have been earlier attempts to ban the Burqa in Holland. Proposals were launched by major politicians even before the murder on Theo van Gogh. However, they ran into legal problems, so nothing came of it. The new element is that lawyers connected to the Ministry of Justice seem to have found a way around the legal objections, based on security considerations and a new law against terrorism. Considering the fact that there is a parliamentary majority for banning or limiting the use of ‘face-covering clothes’, the passage of a law has come into sight.

Has it really? It is election time in the Netherlands. Ms. Rita Verdonk, the Minister for Integration and a Thatcher-like figure in Dutch politics, is the source of the new initiative and everything coming from her has an edge to it. She is not afraid of using drastic measures, nor is she afraid of breaking an egg in the process, as was evident when she denied Ayaan Hirshi Ali Dutch citizenship, leading to the fall of the Cabinet. The reflex is to put everything she does in a rightwing perspective and in the perspective of the infighting that is going on in her party, the VVD. She, her party's number two, is steering a course that is much more far right than her leader, Mark Rutte. Her initiative concerning the Burqa, though backed by the Cabinet, is seen as another campaign non-event produced by the disunited VVD.

More significance should be put on the debate about a ‘general pardon’. A few years back an action was taken by the now defunct Cabinet to oust 26,000 people who were living here without an official status. Many of them had been living here for years and were quite integrated into society. Their children were born here and went to Dutch schools. The removal of these people proved to be both very painful and very visual. Of the 26,000, most have left the country or have been given Dutch nationality because of ‘extreme circumstances’, but many thousands are still in the country, awaiting a decision. This has caused such an alarm, not least within the rank-and-file of the leading Christian-democratic party, the CDA, that a proposal for a ‘general pardon’ has been launched. So far, the CDA has been against this pardon. The election that is now taking place is mostly a contest between the CDA and the Labour party.

Because the VVD is destroying itself in the struggle between Ms Verdonk and the old leaders of that party, it looks likely that the two main adversaries will also have to form the next government. Labour has now put the knife in by stating that a general pardon is a pre-condition for any future Cabinet that includes the Labour party. As a result it is the ‘general pardon’ and its claim for a softer integration policy that has now taking centre stage in Dutch politics and not the dark veil of the Burqa. The most likely result is a deadlock in Dutch politics.

Related link: Paul Goodman's Islamism and the 'deep, deep sleep of England'

Peter Noordhoek: Building on solid foundations - a Dutch perspective

Peter Noordhoek is a member of the Dutch Christian-democratic party (CDA). He is a member of the board of the scientific institute of the party and has several other functions within the party to keep the information flowing. At the moment he is preparing for the next campaign.  Here he reflects on a recent visit to Britain and recommends that Conservatives embrace a serious programme of decentralisation.

Recently I had the privilege of leading a small delegation of the Dutch Christian Democratic Party (CDA) to Britain. Our purpose was to visit a number of Conservative MPs and compare notes on policy. Now I know these sort of visits take place all the time, but perhaps some feedback would be worthwhile.

As a party we had a journey through the desert of opposition from 1994 to 2001, made a spectacular comeback, and are now in the painful process of discovering that not everyone is welcoming the change agenda that got us elected. After a number of great results, we just lost our local elections and will have to work hard to win the next general election. I have seen you struggle during all those years and it is wonderful to see that you finally have got it right. In the conversations we had with your MPs and some other Conservatives, I sort of heard a constant 'click', 'click' sound. It all came together. Well, almost. Very different personalities told us the same kind of things. There were also the little tell-tale signs of people speaking with confidence in the future. Of course there will be all kind of difficulties to overcome. Still, I trust that you will enjoy the success that is coming your way.

To get there, it may help to learn from the things we did right and avoid the mistakes we have been making. I believe you still have some homework to do and better be aware of certain pitfalls and blind spots.

As far as homework is concerned, it seems to me that you have got one half of the equation about right: the way you are re-inventing yourself. You are getting back to your roots and discovering new things about your own message. For us, getting back to our roots was the first step back to recovery. There is no way that an outside think-tank, let alone an advertising agency, can do this for you. Your homework is obvious: turning the rebranding into something more than a new image. It has to be a true story that is appealing to an audience of one and many. I recommend (re)reading Peter Franklin’s comment on the ‘and-theory’. You must find in your message that which appeals both to the young single City-analyst and the Northern family man.  The one thing I think you cannot afford is the feeling that this is just some small band of Londoners talking, while the rest of the party is going its usual way. Therefore I compliment you on the way your policy groups are set up, and the fact that they do not necessarily include only party members. We have been doing that too, and are still doing that (up to the point that the committee that writes the first draft of our electoral platform includes someone from abroad). As much as I like the way David Cameron is operating; he should not be the only one sending out a message of change.