<span class="vcard">Julio W. Wilson</span>
Julio W. Wilson
Featured

Why Is It Necessary To Pay For Election Programs?

Today, the mathematicians of the Central Planning Board present the calculation of the election programs. They did so for the first time in 1986 and now, 35 years later, it is an almost indispensable aspect of the campaign. But how useful is this tradition?

Are you looking for a game while you are watching a debate? visit https://online-solitaire.com/freecell

This year, 10 parties voluntarily made use of the CPB’s math skills: VVD, CDA, D66, GroenLinks, SP, PvdA, ChristenUnie, SGP, Denk and 50Plus. 2000 measures taken by the parties have been calculated and this shows that these parties mainly want to spend more money. This increases purchasing power, as does the budget deficit and the national debt. Our children and grandchildren will pay for this, the CPB said this morning. The PVV, the Party for the Animals, and the Forum for Democracy do not do this for several reasons.

Non-relevant

“The calculations are useful for indicating direction, but should not lead to discussions,” says Sweder van Wijnbergen, an economist at the University of Amsterdam. During Kok’s first cabinet, he was also secretary-general at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. He explains that the parties are now using the calculations in debates in order to find a better solution themselves. “Since the first calculation years ago, politicians have been using those statistics as a foundation for the discussion. Then, for example, in such a debate a politician brings up that his party will provide 2,000 more jobs. Those numbers are not important at all,” he said. it must be about the content. ”

Estimates

There is an enormous margin of uncertainty about the calculations of the CPB. “The models used for the calculation are so large that they contain many estimates. The CPB itself indicates that, by the way.” The advantages in numbers that politicians stroll with during these debates are therefore not at all accurate or relevant, says Van Wijnbergen.

Abuse

In addition, the models used for the calculation are not completely public. “I don’t like that about the calculations. I think it should be more transparent, now the calculations cannot be checked.” Van Wijnbergen thinks that this is because the calculations will probably be criticized. “They are not waiting for that.” Another disadvantage of the calculation, according to Van Wijnbergen, is that sometimes abuse is made of the calculation. “The parties now know what they need to respond to. The parties then coordinate their measures in such a way that they get the desired results from the CPB calculation. That is good for the campaign.”

Effects

Apart from adjusting the measures, it is almost never the case that the calculation actually had an influence on the outcome of the elections, says Van Wijnbergen. The parties that decide not to participate in the calculation will not notice this much in the long term either. But that parties that do not do it, such as the PVV and the Party for the Animals, are viewed critically when choosing not to participate, Van Wijnbergen does not think so. “You can go to a party for that. If a party says: ‘I am not participating’, it actually shows that the plans may not yet be concrete enough and that sends the signal that the party does not know what they are going to do.”

Realistic plans

The most important argument for the calculation is that it forces politicians to make the election program concrete. “That is a big plus of the calculation. The parties have to make realistic plans, otherwise, it will become clear during the calculation.” If it were up to Van Wijnbergen, the tradition of calculating can therefore remain. “But more emphasis should be placed on the fact that they are just numbers, and that those numbers are only an indication, which can certainly be wrong.” Incidentally, we should not expect that from politics, says Van Wijnbergen. “We can continue to expect them to pay attention if, according to the calculation, their party really does generate more jobs, whether that is an indication or not.”

Elections | There’s A Lot Of Promises But Little Is Fulfilled

In an election battle, it is not who is right that counts, but who is right. This sometimes makes campaigns and debates entertainment, but more often a source of great irritation. Logic loses out to rhetoric. But as an audience, this is partly our own fault, because we determine what scores. A series by philosopher Arno Bouwes on logic and illogic in election time.

A good election slogan does not repel potential voters, it attracts them. The best slogans that they will print using the best printers such as ‘printer for avery labels‘ are a mirror in which everyone can see their own preferences reflected. The PvdA wants to “Move forward together. Let’s build the Netherlands together that everyone can be proud of”, D’66 “gets it done. Good work, good education, good care” and for the VVD it’s about “Normal. Doing it. . ” They are slogans that you can hardly disagree with, because moving forward, normal and good can mean something different for everyone. Even with many points of view, you can only agree. Hugo Borst visited all political parties and discovered to his great surprise that they all really want the same thing: good care. But of course, the party that strives for bad care, bad work, and bad education has yet to be founded. In the run-up to the elections, there is, therefore, a lot of shouting, but little said. Precisely because it is too little about the content, politicians talk about each other too often. Rutte lies, Buma is a pouting toddler, Jesse Klaver is a bad imitation of Obama and Wilders is insipid and indecent. The other is no good, but this doesn’t tell me who to vote for.

Everyone wants a better, just society that you can be proud of. But what does this look like? Nobody wants ambulance personnel to be abused, annoying neighbors, pollution, or heavy taxes. But how do we achieve this and what do we sacrifice for this? In other words: what are the choices we will soon face as a voter? If you are in doubt about who to vote for, you can start by asking yourself the following two questions: 1. What are the parties saying about their own content? And especially 2. Do they say something that you can also disagree with? A statement that you cannot disagree with is almost always meaningless.

The problem with meaningless positions is that political policy must eventually become concrete. The content comes later and with it the disagreement, division, and disappointment. The care plan will not get off the ground like this, Elke1 will simply become everyone for himself again and the new prime minister will (again) turn out to be a disappointment. You had imagined something different about “the Netherlands you can be proud of.” So let’s hope for election debates with propositions and substantiation that you can wholeheartedly agree with, but especially disagree with so that there is a clear choice in the elections.

Featured

Seniors And Politicians Conversation

BARENDRECHT – Representatives of all seven parties participating in the municipal elections in Barendrecht entered into a debate on Wednesday. They did this during the political afternoon of senior citizens’ associations KBO and PCOB. The venue was De Ontmoeting, which was occupied to the last seat.

Arie Slob (PCOB) managed the afternoon in a relaxed manner. The representatives were given three minutes to introduce themselves and their party to the seniors who arrived. Ada Dekker did this for GroenLinks, Arjan Stolk on behalf of SGP-CU, Ed Mol on behalf of PvdA, Marianne Tijssen on behalf of D66, Simon Kelder on behalf of VVD, Peter Luijendijk on behalf of CDA and Lennart van der Linden on behalf of Echt for Barendrecht.

Then the audience was given the opportunity to ask questions. Important themes this afternoon were safety, (public) transport, the Service Center, a vacancy on the Middenbaan, and housing. But the first question was about the BAR collaboration and was put to Lennart van der Linden. He said that EVB is against merging. “We think cooperation is very important, but this model is not the perfect solution. We believe that part of the services should come back to Barendrecht. “Ed Mol responded clearly:” Getting out of the BAR cooperation is a completely idiotic plan. We finally have the tent in order. It has been researched: it works fine. ” Simon Kelder added by saying that merging is absolutely out of the question.

There was also talk of free public transport for people over 65, which all parties are enthusiastic about. It was mainly mentioned that there should be more stops and that the connection between old Barendrecht and Carnisselande should be much better. Peter Luijendijk about this: The local bus that will soon be running, really goes through the neighborhoods, so it will partly tackle that problem. ” Marianne Tijssen called on the seniors to let them know what they are missing or to raise this with RET themselves. , which covers the stops, among other things.

Another topic of discussion was the Service Center, where seniors can no longer go. But there is no alternative either. Ada Dekker indicated that a lot is planned where meetings will be possible in the future. One option is to create a meeting space in Borgstede if it receives a quality boost. Luijendijk gave the tip to approach the many schools in the neighborhoods. “They are open to outside users and often have an auditorium that is very suitable.”
The accessibility of the police also turned out to be a concern. Marianne Tijssen said that in the regional consultation it was stated that there is a need for more police officers in Barendrecht, but that the municipality is not about the police. The option to use BOAs and become a volunteer at Neighborhood Prevention was mentioned.

Finally, a lot of attention was paid to housing for seniors and modifications to the home. The lack of transparency of the WMO policy was discussed. And the question of why so many owner-occupied apartments in the high segment are being added was heard from several angles. There is now hardly anything available for the group that just missed out on social housing. Ed Mol about this: “There is no long-term vision. The strategy has always been to opt for expensive projects. And we are afraid of going up in Barendrecht, but such buildings can solve the problems. ” Van der Linden added that much social housing will also be built at the locations on the Botter and the Oude Postkantoor. If your senior love ones are having difficulty to walk you can buy and ‘choose the best narrow walkers for seniors‘ for them.