2010 elections

About 4 years ago this Janslog opinionated about the upcoming 2006 Dutch elections (for parliament, or congress, US-style if you like). I plan to do this a second time for the 2010 elections.

This time the Netherlands (NL for short) face different circumstances. We have seen the financial crisis (or the Incompetency Crisis as I would prefer to call it), we see a receeding economic crisis, we see (in NL) a sudden rise in government debt as a result of the 2 aforementioned crises, we see an upcoming racially-belief-oriented populism on the rise (Geert Wilders), we see an ever (4 times = forever) failing Prime Minister losing votes daily (Jan-Peter Balkenende), we see the son of Croesus (called Mark Rutte, student debate champion leader of the Dutch Liberal Party) as the self-appointed hero of the masses, stating exactly the same as his predecessors did, i.e. 'markets know all, thus follow markets, thus follow me', although we now know that THIS solution has DEFAULT WRITTEN ALL OVER IT, we see a nice but politically incompetent (i.e. not political debate-capable, i.e. eat or be eaten) father of the nation (Job Cohen), who is frequently incapable of repeating details from his political manifesto..... and we see all this in a TV-program called the Prime Minister's debate.

Of course this is all bullshit.

But it is interesting bullshit.

Why?

Because all 4 of the mentioned politicians firmly believes that he (no women around) has the best PM (implicitly: the best plan) NL could hope for. Of course they are all wrong. Not 1 out of the 4 is an able leader.

Why?

Because they lack any glimpse of vision altogether. They lack the feel of the people, they lack economic finesse, they lack common knowledge about what drives people, what the country needs, what can be achieved in a single term of government (4 years in NL). They plan their party's manifesto's success for a period between 20-30 years onwards, where their decision period, their reign, does not extend 4 years.

Why?

Because the really reigning force in NL is the Central Planning Bureau, the CPB, that has an economic planning/forecasting model (that already makes them one of the usual suspects) to calculate their party manifesto's potential successes for the next 40 years (this is unequal to 4).

What is the success rate of this model?

Does any party focus on that (trivial?) piece of importancy? I tell you NO, cause they're all incompetent to see through the model's structure, base, conditions, suppositions, beliefs, hypotheses etcetera. And I tell you: this structure is outdated, completely out of focus, lacking scientific support, lacking empirical support, in short: it should be abandoned.

But it seems to be the common performance standard in political evaluation territory, so the parties all adhere to its conclusions.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

1. When was the CPB right in its conclusions over a period of (the last) 50 years? Not in any 1 year.
2. When did the CPB ever projected economic progress (internet, bio-technology, energy, financial economics, international trade relations, international currency relations) structurally or even incidentally? Never!
3. When did the CPB ever projected economic downfall (internet, financial economics, speculation, financial disaster, international trade relations, international currency relations) structurally or even incidentally? Never!
4. When did the CPB actually predicted economic bankruptcy? Never!
5. When was the CPB awake during the EURO-years (starting at the beginning of this century) in recognising the good, the bad and the ugly countries in Euro-Europe? Never!

So, why is the CPB regarded as the generally accepted evaluator of political (economic) planning (in the short run = 4 years)?

I really do NOT know.

Other question: why do political parties in NL send in their manifesto's to the CPB to be graded as excellent/good/sufficient/bad?

I really do not know.

But I have a guess though.....

NL-political parties have people helping them, so-called professionals, so-called wise economists/advisors. Albeit that these suckers use an already 40 years old -thus outdated- model.

And they say:

Translate your party's ideals within the CPB framework, THE MODEL's framework and all will be well.

And so the parties act.

Every ounce of performance is pre-calculated based on the CPB-model's rules and regulations. If the model says MINUS, then they minimise their party's policy on this item. If the model says PLUS they maximise that policy.

Of course all within party's written declaration of policies.

On the basis of this bullshit, meanwhile realising that 70% of the voters are democratically incompetent (they never read, they THUS never read or intelligently analyse party programs, they are enraged or bewildered or appeased by one-liner statements from their political idols) and 90% of the electorate votes for personal interest and only 10% really known what they're voting for, we are at wit's end in NL. And we vote.....

We are a country that is reigned by compromise government coalitions.

In fact we have a right to this, being the inventor of the POLDER-MODEL.

No 3 party government (on a realistic ex ante prediction) can be formed after the June 9 elections.

Really strong governments (if at all) may only be formed out of a concensus agreement between 4 or more parties.....Imagine that USA, Germany, UK, OK in France and Italy it is the same...

Will be continued, take my word for it.