It seemed like a blessing for the Rutte IV cabinet: enough money, because of the low interest rates. There will be billions of funds for the climate and against nitrogen, there is extra money for defence, education, housing, childcare and infrastructure. But Tuesday, on the first day of the House of Representatives debate on Rutte IV’s government statement, it became increasingly clear: all that money could also become the bane of the coalition of VVD, D66, CDA and ChristenUnie.
Because if there is so much money, why doesn’t the state pension increase along with the planned increase in the minimum wage, just like the social assistance benefit? That would cost 2.4 billion euros. What does that mean if you, as a cabinet, scatter billions? And how do you get it in your head, Jesse Klaver of GroenLinks thought, to cut 500 million euros in youth care now that it is becoming increasingly clear how young people in particular suffer from the corona crisis?
What made the debate even more painful for the government parties were the figures that the National Institute for Budget Information (Nibud) had come up with that morning. Due to the higher energy bill, higher fuel prices and inflation, almost everyone gets tens of euros less per month to spend. Especially the elderly with only an old age pension or a small pension, people on welfare and people with high rents are finding it increasingly difficult, according to Nibud researchers.
‘Outright hell’
The opposition, from left to right, had prepared for it: the governing parties were told that life under Rutte IV will be ‘an outright hell’ for the elderly (Wybren van Haga of the Groep-Van Haga), that the government ‘let it suffocate’ (Joost Eerdmans, JA21) or ‘put it out in the cold’ (Lilian Marijnissen, SP).
The parties of Rutte IV knew that there was no saving it. VVD party leader Sophie Hermans said again and again that it had never been the intention for the elderly to ‘fall through the ice’, that the coalition had agreed that the purchasing power for everyone would be ‘positive and balanced’, and that the cabinet should therefore urgently had to think of something.
The VVD thought of a higher tax deduction for the elderly, or extra income support for poor elderly people. Hermans also said what would in any case not happen: that the state pension would still rise along with the higher minimum wage. She had a complicated explanation for this – about ‘the future’ and ‘a lot of issues’ that the cabinet will have to deal with. The VVD, that was certain, thinks it is too expensive.
Before the debate about Rutte IV’s plans, it revolved for hours on the fierce lashes of PVV leader Geert Wilders towards, among others, MPs with a headscarf, and the cautious, reticent response to this from Speaker of the House of Representatives Vera Bergkamp. Many faction leaders had interfered in this discussion, but in every debate in the House of Representatives the number of times that you can say or ask questions over the interruption microphone is limited – as a result of which Wilders’ actions later in the debate turned out to be beneficial for the group leaders of the coalition parties: the others didn’t have too many interruptions left.
Chamber strongly criticizes chairman: ‘neutral role is no longer sufficient’
By the time ChristenUnie leader Gert-Jan Segers was on Tuesday evening, Bergkamp chaired PvdA member Lilianne Ploumen away from the microphone: she had no more questions. “That is problematic,” said Ploumen.
What they did have left, most opposition parties used for their debate with Sophie Hermans, immediately after Wilders. She now promised that the plans would be adjusted to make the consequences for the elderly less severe, but it was already clear that prices would rise, and how high the energy bill would be?
Hermans often nodded, she always had great understanding for harsh criticism, but hardly admitted anything except for the elderly. She strictly adhered to the intention to describe the cutbacks in youth care as “less than requested” by the municipalities. But after hours behind the podium, she suddenly spoke of a “cutback”. “I can’t call it that, can I,” she said.
Monday meeting canceled
In his government statement, Prime Minister Mark Rutte had again said that the ‘old’ coalition parties in this new cabinet would treat each other differently. The weekly coalition meeting on Monday, where by far the most decisions were made in Rutte III’s time, has been definitively abolished. “Let our message be clear,” he said. “The political debate belongs here.”
The four parties seemed to be practicing a bit on Tuesday. For example, D66 party chairman Jan Paternotte asked VVD member Hermans whether she also thought that “every cubic meter of gas that can remain underground in Groningen, also stays underground there”.
Hermans thought so too. Although she did not want to “promise too much”. That gas production would go to ‘zero’, everything had to be done ‘that is in our power’. She also started about the images of Groningers who were left out in the cold to apply for a subsidy and who often did not even receive them. As a result, confidence in the government had been “repaired”.
CU leader Segers also had a question for coalition party D66. If the cannabis experiments of Rutte IV, which D66 wants so much and the ChristenUnie would rather not, fail, could Jan Paternotte be dissuaded from the idea that cannabis cultivation should be legalized?
Paternotte smiled. “I’m very sure it will be a success.”
And CDA member Pieter Heerma promised the ministers in the cabinet sector, who now and then gave each other a mint: “We say yes, but no amen.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC on the morning of January 19, 2022
#billions #curse #Rutte