The Cabinet-Schoof: always say that there is unity, while distrust is growing

At his weekly press conference, then Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende (CDA) took out a postcard. It was Friday, October 4, 2002, and the ministers of his first cabinet of CDA, LPF and VVD had been an open fight for weeks. Paul Rosenmöller, leader of GroenLinks, had asked if there was still unit in the cabinet.

Balkenende kept the postcard in front of him, so that it came into the picture. It was a pencil drawing from the Trêveszaal, where the cabinet then met. « Dear Chairman, in response to the oral questions of Ga Rosenmöller et al. We greet you together and unity from the Council of Ministers. » The signatures of the ministers were under the text.

Two weeks later the cabinet had fallen.

The postcard of Balkenende has not been forgotten in The Hague. A minister of the Schoof cabinet starts on himself when it comes to the unity of this cabinet. Others also seem to remember. They see a warning in it: you can always say that there is unity, as Dick Schoof does now, but what do you only see if voters can see?

Vechtkabinet

The Balkenende I government ruled 87 days. The Cabinet-Schoof of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB has been around for eight months, and is still there. And the comparison also goes wrong, say ministers and people around the cabinet. Balkenende I was a fighting cabinet, the Cabinet Schoof is not, say ministers. But, everyone acknowledges, things are not going well. The mutual distrust grows, the atmosphere is deteriorating. The unit is gone. And Prime Minister’s authority Schoof in the cabinet is falling fast.

Last week, the cabinet is seen as a low point. Schoof and Minister Marjolein Faber (asylum and migration, PVV) had to talk about the so -called ribbon affair in the Lower House. Faber had refused to grant Royal Awards to five former volunteers of the COA. Schoof and Minister Judith Uitermark (Interior, NSC) had signed at the time. Schoof and Faber had to explain to the Chamber why that was not contradictory with the unity of government policy. Among other things, it led to a motion of no confidence against Faber, which was supported by a large part of the opposition. Issue. But in the cabinet this week anger and shame can be heard about Faber, criticism of Schoof, and worries about the internal relationships. And in the cabinet it sounds that the position of Marjolein Faber has become untenable.

Last summer, the leaders of four right -wing parties concluded a main lines agreement after a difficult formation. The four leaders, Geert Wilders (PVV), Dilan Yesilgöz (VVD), Pieter Omtzigt (NSC) and Caroline van der Plas (BBB) ​​agreed that they would stay in the Lower House. The cabinet, was the agreement, would more or less perform what they wanted. The partyless Prime Minister, former top officer Dick Schoof, was in service. The government’s government program was not much more than a more detailed version of the party leaders’ agreements.

Construction

That construction had a disadvantage for the cabinet: the ministers, in particular moved, had little authority from the start. But it also had an advantage: arguments were mainly led between the party leaders, who already have a great lack of chemistry. They blame each other to leak at the press, distrust each other, think that others are out of the cabinet.

In the cabinet itself things are going differently, it was said for a long time. There was a collegial atmosphere. Certainly in the beginning, there was a lot of laughter. The doubts of the outside world helped precisely for that atmosphere, said Minister Femke Wiersma (agriculture, BBB) last summer: « It is precisely because it is being questioned, we think: let’s just complete those four years. »

Dick Schoof received compliments from ministers about how he worked: as a process manager, a true official who saw risks early and could come up with useful formulations. He organized outings, where partners and children were sometimes also welcome. A minister remembers how cheerful it was when they went to the fire brigade in The Hague on an excursion, partners. A sports group came on Friday morning, just as the cabinets had for him.

Weaving error

But there were weaving errors in the cabinet from the start. They put more and more pressure on personal relationships. An example: every party was more or less only in control of the most important topics for that party: for the PVV that is asylum and migration, for BBB agriculture, for NSC Domestic Administration, and for the VVD Finance. That worked profiling drive of ministers in hand and led to annoyances.

Another structural error: a joint story is lacking, or a thought that binds the coalition. The four coalition parties are all on the right, but they are not similar. That means that ministers have nothing to fall back on. Partly because of this, the inexperienced ministerial team has not adhered to the unity of cabinet policy from the start, as prescribed in Article 45 of the Constitution. According to that rule, ministers and state secretaries may not deviate from the government’s policy in their judgments.

On Friday morning the ministers come together for the Council of Ministers in the Catshuis, the stately official residence of the Prime Minister in The Hague. Many of those Fridays are the same way: a minister is angry about something the cabinet wants, says nothing about it, or wants to « a strong conversation » with sheaf. After a few hours the ministers come out again and the issue is resolved, or briefly. After that, Schoof may say in his press conference that the atmosphere is still good, that misunderstandings have been clarified, that the unity is not in danger. That ritual dance repeats itself almost weekly.

Deputy Prime Minister Fleur Agema (Public Health, PVV) has already violated the unit within the cabinet a few times. For example, she did not agree with new cutbacks in healthcare, and with the 3.5 billion euros that Schooofed to Ukraine had promised. More ministers were unhappy about that promise, but they kept their criticism in rooms.

Solo

Minister Marjolein Faber causes the cabinet bigger problems. Her behavior is solo, see cabinet members. For example, she said on a Friday, just before the Council of Ministers, that the Ukrainian president Zensky is « not democratically chosen. » Last Friday she was openly angry with Schoof, because he had refused her plans to withdraw the Spreading Act on the agenda of the council.

The bad atmosphere between the four room fractions is increasingly skipping to the cabinet. The mutual distrust of the four party leaders can now also be heard there. Team building is no longer done. The sports club is only faithfully visited by a few ministers: the Caspar Veldkamp ministers (Foreign Affairs, NSC) and David van Weel (Justice, VVD). Others rarely come or not.

There are annoyances grow annoyances in the inexperienced cabinets team (only two ministers have administrative experience). VVD people are annoyed by BBB people. PVV people to VVD people and NSC people. But most of the time it is up to the personal relationship, not to party color. For example, some PVV ministers, such as State Secretary Ingrid Coenradie (Justice) and Minister Dirk Beljaarts (Economic Affairs), are good at other cabinet members.

In the cabinet, the annoyance about Faber is particularly large. Consultants may put up to the agenda for each Council of Ministers. Far too often, it is said, it is about something that Faber has said or done. Her whimsical behavior determines the image that voters have from the cabinet: a quarreling club that gets nothing for each other. Ministers don’t think that is fair. Why is there so little attention for their plans? Do they have to pay the price for Fabers obstinacy?

Last month Marjolein Faber and Mona Keijzer (Volkshuisvesting, BBB) were in conflict during the meeting. Faber wants status holders to leave asylum seekers’ centers faster and get housing, Keijzer wants to abolish the priority of status holders on social rental homes. It led to a fight in the Council of Ministers. According to those present, there was no shouting, but it is rare that conflicts in the Council of Ministers arise. This happens earlier in the undercarriers, preliminative of groups of ministers.

Increasing irritation at Schoof

Those present in the Council of Ministers see that Prime Minister was also becoming more annoyed by Faber, and that he suspect her. The irritation about Faber is so great that he did not feel like this week, it seemed to help her in the Lower House. Almost the entire opposition had asked for Schoof’s presence during the parliamentary debate, because that would be about the unity of cabinet policy, his portfolio. Schoof only came when the opposition asked for it again at the start of the debate. During the debate he hardly looked at Faber.

In and around the cabinet they see that Faber attracts all the attention, but hardly reaches anything. Some suspect a conscious strategy of Geert Wilders behind this: if her asylum plans do not come through the Lower and Senate, and everyone counts on it, the image of a minister who is being opposed, and who does not admit it under pressure. Moreover: the more it is about asylum and migration, the subject that voters associate with the PVV, the better that is for Wilders.

Yet worries about Faber also live in the PVV. Some PVV people had hoped that the government would be a success and that the radical-right party would prove to be able to fully rule. The fall of the tolerance cabinet-Rutte I (VVD and CDA), which the PVV was blamed for from the other two parties, has pursued the party for years. The same threatens to happen by Marjolein Faber. Two PVV people from the cabinet took away this week from Faber: Fleur Agema and Ingrid Coenradie. They would have signed the application for the ribbons, they said.

Dick Schoof has to do something, some people find in the cabinet. He must call her to order and dismiss it if necessary. His predecessor Mark Rutte had done that with Mona Keijzer in 2021. As State Secretary for Economic Affairs (on behalf of the CDA), she was openly critical of the cabinet’s coronary policy. But a dismissal is highly rare, and would almost certainly mean the fall of the cabinet in this case.

This week Marjolein Faber is one of the first ministers present in the Catshuis on Friday morning. She has had a difficult week, she says at the entrance, but she keeps good courage. Tonight she will eat steak. The withdrawal of the Spreading Act is again not on the agenda of the Council of Ministers. She had no time to work out the plans further, she says, because of the two debates about the ribbon issue.

Cabinet members who want to see the warning from the past can view Jan Peter Balkenende’s postcard. He is still in the archive of the Lower House, says a spokesperson.

To share

Mail the editors