Talk:2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation

message: I started writing the coalitions section and my intention was to do this structurally, starting with the simplest, two parties - not possible. Then tree parties - few options. Then four, etc. Alas I didn't do that too well and now it's been re-arranged and nothing is left of that structure. Any thoughts of rewriting it again, in this fashion? Btw, in the history section only the first line is about history, so that doesn't make sense. I added this as a starting point, to put it in historic perspective (especially concerning how many parties a cabinet is likely to have). But now it's at the end, which doesn't make sense either. DirkvdM 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overall structure 

message: Has there ever been a minority cabinet in a new formation? The table at the bottom of Elections in the Netherlands only shows three, including the present one and all the result of a fallen cabinet.
At the other end there is the possibility of a cabinet that has more parties in it than strictly necessary. And this has happened several times; Drees I through IV, den Uyl, van Agt II and Kok II. The article should at least mention that. Whether the present situation makes it unlikely or actually desirable, I can't tell.DirkvdM 11:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minority and large majority

message: The ChristianUnion is open to all party coalitions at this point in time . Intangible 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I haven't seen any CDA statements lately about possible coalitions... Intangible 14:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually Terpsta and Ruding were in Buitenhof this morning. Terpstra sees CDA-PvdA-GL as most likely, while Ruding favours CDA-PvdA-CU; both think the other option CDA-PvdA-SP will not work out. Zalm even announced he would not be surprised that no coalition can be formed and there will be elections again. Arnoutf 17:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CU open  

message: Where does the notion of a 'Grand Coalition' come from? This title is given to CDA-PvdA-VVD, but CDA-PvdA-SP is 'grander' in that it has more seats. I'd say the title would be more appropriate for CDA-PvdA-SP-VVD. That would be truly grand, with 121 seats. It would be unique, but it would be more balanced than any combination of three of the big four, in which one would be too much a minority. In this grand coalition each would have a partner. And it would be more democratic. And given the difficulties of finding other workable solutions, it might jsut be considered. But that's just my analysis. Is there a source for calling CDA-PvdA-VVD a grand coalition? Or is that also just someone's personal idea? DirkvdM 14:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my edit, it was originallly listed as large coalition, which I changed because (indeed) CDA-PvdA-SP is larger. I though of the Grand name - as it reflect the broader representation (Christian left and rightwing). Another term would be fine with me, couldn't think of one. Arnoutf 14:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Coalition 

message: In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency party colour coding

message: I had deleted a considerable amount of text about the possibility of resignation of Verdonk. This clearly falls under Wikipedia:NOT. We are not here to discuss the effects of hypothetical motions on constitutional law, because these are not facts, but just theory. Independent of the NOS or Plasterk is a reliable source, they have another role here: they can speculate about the theory of constitutional law, while we, encyclopedists, have to stick to facts, not fiction. C mon 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit was really about two things, which was indeed a bit confusing. The part you focused on is the effect on the coalition and that indeed belongs further down, where you put it. But it started as an explanation of how the situation had changed after first there came a minority cabinet and then the new parliament was sworn in, which created a situation in which the cabinet had an even smaller minority in parliament. It was intended as a story on the legal complications (alas, 'staatkundig' translates as 'political;, which doesn't help). I will put back a shorter version in the intro. DirkvdM 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, it was not a 'crystal ball' text. It was based on what I read in the NRC, but that's a bit hard to link to. :) DirkvdM 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

message: In NRC of last friday it says that CDA and PvdA are one seat short of a coalition. But a coalition requires 76 seats to make sure a coalition can always implements its policies (as long as the ranks remain closed), right? DirkvdM 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 76 is right 1/2+1. C mon 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exacly. I sort of rely on NRC not making any mistakes, but I suppose every now and then some slip through the mazes of the net of scrutiny. DirkvdM 18:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps confusion between minority (1/2-1=74) and majority (1/2+1=76); so it takes two seats from minority to majority. A tweede kamer of 149 seats would make the maths much simpler ;-) Arnoutf 11:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And would help to avoid chaos like the one Czechia currently has to endure... —Nightstallion (?) 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  75 seats for a coalition? 

message: I just created Dutch provincial elections, 2007; should any relevant information turn up, you know where to put it.  —Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related article 

message: Is there a deadline for a cabinet to be formed?  68.41.174.194 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it has to be formed within 4 years after the election, because there would be new elections and a new formation. In practice the longest formation lasted almost 8 months (that would be late June early July in the current time scheme). However, with the upcoming provincial (and subsequent indirect eerste kamer) election on March 7 all involved parties have announced they want to present a new cabinet before then. Thus March 7 is a self-imposed, un-official deadline. Arnoutf 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadline? 

message: It still baffles me that the CDA proposes a ban on Burqas and other face covering clothing. If this comes in effect we have to call the police when we see a circus clown or a carnaval parade as well......... Arnoutf 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Face covers forbidden

message: I removed the crime numbers from the agreement for several reasons.
First of all, these numbers were made public after the coalition agreement was reached. There has been no reference that these figures have influenced the negotiations in any way; therefore this implied causality constitutes of original research, and thus these figures are not to be mentioned, and not relevant.
Secondly, all other parts of the coalition agreement were presented neutrally (sometimes with a reference to the party preference), this would be the only one with a content based comment; which introduces a editor POV into these decisions. Arnoutf 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree - C mon 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not that simple, your reasoning is spurious; there is no evidence these specific figures were connected with the decisions. (Example of spurious reasoning - Consider: Fact: Storks (ooievaar) don't breed in areas with a lot of polution. Fact: In heavily poluted areas relatively fewer healthy kids are born. Conclusion -> Storks are involved in the delivery of healthy babies). Arnoutf 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crime numbers?

message: This is a nice and very extensive article. However, once we have a Fourth Balkenende Cabinet (probably towards 23 February), what do we do with all that info. It doesn't really fit in the template of earlier Dutch cabinets. These should give a short background (elections, formation process) and then move on to incidents, members of the cabinet etc. This long story will then have to be deleted, or placed under another name (Formation of the Fourth Balkenende Cabinet??)--Dengo 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we move this article to Fourth Balkenende Cabinet and split off a  article on formation as you suggested. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to (re)move or rename this article. Cabinet formation history is a very much alive form of history, at least in the Netherlands — although most people forget about formations while there isn't one going on. Also 2003 Dutch cabinet formation was quite rightfully kept. Peterbr 18:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Peterbr. There is no reason to delete this article, there will be separate Balkenende IV article I guess, which can refer to this one. And in 4 yrs time (or earlier if it comes to that), many people may want to check back on the previous one. Arnoutf 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Leave it as it is, just like the 2003 article. —Nightstallion (?) 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep!, though we might want to look critically at what is a) still relevant after the cabinet has been formed (I'm thinking especially of the list of possible coalitions) and b) what could better fit on the Fourth Cabinet Balkenende article, (like the policy which I recently moved off). BTW you all did a great job at this combination of journalism and encyclopedia writing, you were so fast I couldn't keep up! C mon 22:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What do we do with this article in a months time??

message: Regarding the references in the article, please remember to follow the citation methods as outlined by Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web. AecisBrievenbus 18:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please follow citation templates 

message: Precisely what is missing now? Just parliamentary approval of the new government? —Nightstallion (?) 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they got that, they need to be officially appointed by the Queen (scheduled for thursday). Arnoutf 11:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, great. So the new government will be official per 22 February 2007? —Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cabinets never get parliamentary approval. There is no investiture vote or anything. We are waiting for royal appointment. C mon 12:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh sorry, that is true, I meant that the involved parties agreed with the program (i.e. gave approval to the results of their negotiators). This, in this case, makes up for a parliamentary majority approval. But yes we are waiting for the official appointment (ceremonial).Arnoutf 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/56276711/GEHEIM_TOPOVERLEG_OP_LANDGOED.html?p=2,1
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-05-26 02:34:49, 404 Not Found
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-06-15 00:51:47, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://nos.nl/gfx/nosjournaal/documenten/regeerakkoord2007.pdf
** In Fourth Balkenende cabinet on 2011-03-19 11:13:15, 404 Not Found
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-05-26 02:34:49, 404 Not Found
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-06-15 00:51:50, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://formatie.regering.nl/actueel/nieuwsarchief/2007/02February/12/0-149-1_149-92663.jsp
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-05-26 02:34:50, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation on 2011-06-15 00:51:58, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2006–07 Dutch cabinet formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nu.nl/news/905211/11/Balkenende_maakt_links_fors_verwijt.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nu.nl/news/909356/11/Balkenende_en_Marijnissen_bespreken_formatie.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209055008/http://nos.nl/gfx/nosjournaal/documenten/regeerakkoord2007.pdf to http://nos.nl/gfx/nosjournaal/documenten/regeerakkoord2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2006–07 Dutch cabinet formation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209064513/http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/dossiers/kabinet2007/regeerakkoord.html to http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/dossiers/kabinet2007/regeerakkoord.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect 2006 Dutch cabinet formation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Dajasj (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2006 Dutch cabinet formation]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]