House Budget: Problem-Solving Continues in Congress

The ‘low -policy’ budget with few surprises ensures this Prinsjesdag that it is hardly about new substantive plans. All political parties agree on one thing: politics must now really hurry with making important decisions.

GroenLinks-PvdA leader Timmermans wants to conclude an agreement with other parties after the elections of 29 October, to change the budget of next year. For example, he wants to accelerate housing. “If you have to wait until there is a new cabinet, it can be a lost year,” he warns.

D66 also wants to move forward in the coming period. “The most important thing is to get the educational cuts off the table, to take more climbing measures and continue with housing,” says party leader Jetten.

SP-foreman Dijk also sees opportunities before the elections are there. “The House of Representatives is not outgoing. So we can still do something, such as cutting back on care and education and removing the shortening of the duration of the unemployment benefit.”

Other political leaders, such as Yesilgöz (VVD) and Dassen (Volt), prefer to see a new cabinet on the landing as quickly as possible after the elections. “As far as I am concerned, for Christmas,” says Dassen. “The most important thing now is that we are conducting a tough election battle, with new ideas.”

Until that new cabinet is on the landing, the remaining coalition parties VVD and BBB (together good for 32 seats) must find majorities in the Lower House for all their plans. Politics had a small position in the speech, with the desire that the parties “continue to take steps forward” and “reach out their hand in an adult way”.

“I felt that everyone felt addressed in the room,” says Yesilgöz, leader of the VVD. “We really have to show that this country is easily controllable, with people who bear responsibility.” She does, however, mainly point to the opposition parties. She hopes “that they will not totally renovate things with a majority.”

BBB leader Van der Plas agrees. “It is important that, in particular the opposition, we let the country continue. You can riot and stop everything, but the Netherlands does not want that.” She also speaks of “a realistic story” and “a healthy-being throne speech”.

Many opposition parties see the (former) government parties as the culprit. “There is a cabinet that has only increased the problems by fighting on social media,” says Esther Ouwehand of the Party for the Animals. She also believes that there was far too little attention for climate and nature in the throne speech.

“A cabinet that constantly stumbles cannot really speed up,” says ChristenUnie leader Bikker. She wants the “crippled cabinet” to work with housing and the structure of defense. “Here is a room of 150 seats that can show what they can do.”

“The king is doing his best, but in the end did not say anything,” says Geert Wilders of the largest room fraction, the PVV. “Almost nothing happens to important topics, such as bringing the asylum intake down.” The two asylum laws, which were partly made by PVV minister Faber, does not think Wilders goes far enough.

CDA leader Bontenbal believes that choices are being pushed forward in the Budget Memorandum. “It is sour that large points are not in this budget. The government is very concerned with the short -term burden, but is investing too little in the earning capacity in the future.”

Joost Eerdmans, foreman of JA21, also sees “some snags under the grass” in the Budget Memorandum. “Positive points, such as the discount on the fuel excise duty, are incidental. And painful measures, such as the flight tax, are structural”.

Chris Stoffer (SGP), on the other hand, missed attention for the family, the Israeli hostages in Gaza and plans for reducing abortions. Forum for Democracy party chairman De Vos would have liked the nitrogen goals to be canceled. Stephan van Baarle (DENK) wants the outgoing cabinet to stop buying Israel and does more poverty.

NSC member Van Hijum, who also discussed the Budget Memorandum a few weeks ago, finds the proposals “also not convincing”. Van Hijum: “There is only one thing to do: see what is needed to make progress with each other.”