Talk:2021–2022 Dutch cabinet formation

Sequence

I understand your reasoning, but we dont have to force chronology. There are other parts of the article where we diverge from that to organise it thematically. Preferably, I want to prevent sepetare snippets of information, but instead create coherent (sub)chapters. But ill create a different wording that emphasizes the chronology more Dajasj (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Omtzigt story is the main theme from 18 March till 2 April.

It is quite hard to unravel this story.

Journalists have taken a year and a half to get a clear picture and are still going.

To keep the complex story simple: stick to chronology.

Do not require many readers to sort things in their mind, that is a writer's job.

Chronology does not really contradict a thematic approach when there is just one main theme.

Move 'what is when known' to references. Limit the story to events as currently known.

Suggestions:

- Limit the chapter about scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren to their work as scouts.

- Describe the aftermath in a chapter called something like 'Debate in House about scouts'.

- Describe van Ark and Koolmees as a side story in the aftermath chapter

Suggestion for story line:

Scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren

• 18 March, scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren start
• 19 March, Jorritsma: Omtzigt's position a problem for CDA particpation, 'untenable'. Arib: scouts should listen, not have biased opinions about people and parties
• 22 & 23 March scouts talk to parties
• 25 March photo of notes, scouts resign

Debate in House about scouts

• 25 March new scouts van Ark and Koolmees start, yet delay till after 1 April debate
• 26 March final results known, leadership of Hoekstra versus Omtzigt less of an issue.
• 26 March Jorritsma and Ollongren: will join 1 April debate as former scouts
• 1 April 7:30 Rutte hears about notes, source unknown
• 1 April debate, https://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/ontstane-situatie-de-verkennende-fase-van-de-kabinetsformatie

Rutte and Jorritsma can't recall speaking each other about Omtzigt.

Rutte survives vote of no confidence.

SP and CU rule out cooperation with Rutte.

House want new, independent scouts.

• 2 April van Ark and Koolmees resign

Uwappa (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Until 25 March, Omtzigt isnt really a public story. Iy then focuses on whether it will be GL/PvdA versus CU, which is the theme in the later formation. Having that subchapter focus on parties, and then having next subchapter focus on Omtzigt makes more sense (based on what is known now ofcourse).

And agreed, sorting things out is the job for the writer. And thats why chronology does not make sense.

And telling when it is known is relevant, because it highlights that it was not known during the debate and thus not a topic in the debate on 1 April. Dajasj (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that it was not a public story at the time. True, yet that goes for many historic events. Still, describe events with the best knowledge now available. The main issue was: CDA in or out? I also agree that the knowledge gap is very relevant. Today's news revealed:

(Dutch) "The scouts Annemarie Jorritsma (VVD) and Kajsa Ollongren (D66) saw MP Pieter Omtzigt from the start of the formation in 2021 as a problem and a risk for the stability of a future cabinet."

Yes, that is from the start, 19 March, the scouts' first full day on the job. So, describe it at the start. Describe Arib's reaction there too, how she explained the discrepancy between job assignment and intended job execution. Describe Arib's role in more detail, the scouts should work for the House, not for the government. Expand a bit on how special it was to have Ollogron work for parliament, where her day time job was minister, part of the government. Describe the gap between knowledge of scouts and members of the House. The next events will make more sense, the photo turmoil, the resignation, the scouts' hesitation to debate, the 'no recollections', the vote of no confidence, the wish for an independent scout.

As a reaction to today's news, several members of parliament announced a new debate. Some more aftermath to come... Uwappa (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick side note, but ministers have been scouts in the past. That is not unusual. Dajasj (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And Aribs role is very unclear, nothing really to describe. Dajasj (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not unusual, yet was not worth repeating. The House later desired an independent scout. (Tjeenk Willink).

The role of Arib: As Speaker, she was the one who gave the assignment to the scouts on 18 March. On 19 March she tried to put the scouts back on the right track. Her role gets unclear during the April debate as she did not disclose details on the 19 March talk. Uwappa (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The article and video is still largely vague about what exactly Arib said. I dont believe we can say anything more than we already said. More details will follow probably.

Bit confused about your point about scouts being in government. But it appears we are in agreement Dajasj (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, we do not agree.

The article should be clear, not mirror the confusion of the process itself. The main structure of the article is time: scouts, informateurs, formateur, aftermath. The events of 19 March are now out of sequence. The reader is now forced to mentally sort dates from several chapters:

Scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren

• 18 March
• 22-23 March

Leaking of formation notes

• 19 March
• 25 March.

That sorting should be a mental effort for the few writers, not for the many readers.

The solution is easy: keep events in sequence. Describe events that happened at the start of the process... at the start of the process.

Also, make it clear why the House passed a motion to request a new independent scout. It was to avoid a conflict of interests:

• an assignment as scout, working for the House, gather information.
• a day time job as minister, working for the government, daily politics.

See https://www.tweedekamer.nl/sites/default/files/2023-02/20230223%20rapport%20evaluatie%20formatie.pdf (in Dutch) page 6 and 7 for recommendations to the House, including recommendations for the scouting phase. Suggestion: include those recommendations in chapter Aftermath. Uwappa (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm going to include it in the aftermath, mirroring the Dutch article.

But on the time thing, I still disagree Dajasj (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The motion also does not explicity use the term conflict of interest. But ofc thats also implicit in the article. Dajasj (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: as a mental exercise, add dates to headers (don't do it for real). You'll see chronology all the way:

• 2021 Jan-Mar, background
• 2021 Mar 15-17, Election results
• 2021 Mar 18-23, Scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren

• 2021 Mar 25, Leaking of formation notes
• 2021 Mar 25- Apr 2, 1 April debate

• 2021 Mar 25 - Apr 2, Scouts Van Ark and Koolmees
• 2021 Apr 6 - May 12, Informateur Tjeenk Willink
• 2021 May 12 - June 22, Informateur Hamer
• ... etc, etc,
• 2022 Jan, aftermath'.

I do like this general setup of the article. In fact, I like it very much. It nicely explains how one event impacted the next. It makes this complex story easy to understand. Well done!

Now, just stick to the sequence of events at a more detailed level. Move events of 19 March 2021 to the 2021 Mar 18-23 chapter.

• Move the bit about scouts considered Omtzigt to be a problem for desired CDA participation
• Describe how Arib tried to direct the scouts on 19 March, on their first day of their assignment.
• It will be clear that the preference for CDA preceded talks with parliamentary leaders.

A reader that reads only that chapter will get a complete story of what happened those days and will be enticed to read on. It will be even more clear why 'position elsewhere' caused such a turmoil a few days later.

Other suggestions:

• Change header "Leaking of formation notes" to "position Omtzigt, function elsewhere".
• Change the header "1 April debate" to something that describes the subject of the debate. It was not a debate about April fools day.
• J&O were not scouts anymore during the debate. The debate was a major event, promote it to a new chapter. "Scouts Van Ark and Koolmees" could be a subchapter of the debate, with explanation whey vA&K did not even start scouting.

Proposed new chapters

• Scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren

• position Omtzigt, function elsewhere

• Debate about scouting Jorritsma and Ollongren

• Scouts Van Ark and Koolmees

About Arib's role, current available knowledge:

Nothing known about Arib sharing the 19 March events with other members of the House, not even during the debate. A week later, April 7, she seized to be Speaker. Arib still declines to comment on events of 19 March 2021.

The aftermath could be an excellent chapter for a theme based approach, explaining the recommendations in more detail. What were the problems of this formation? What are the proposed solutions? Uwappa (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond in seperate comments. But with regards to the "1 April debate". In Dutch this is the name of the debate in articles. There is also "Night of Rutte", but that tends to be used less. That's why I switched to the former. This makes more sense with redirects. Dajasj (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's try making a seperate chapter about "position Omtzigt, function elsewhere". But lets keep the part about the meeting with Arib there, that makes even more sense thematically. Dajasj (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

What the article now fails to highlight: scouts had a preference for CDA, were even discussing how to expell a just reelected CDA member of parliament, even before asking parliament about party preferences. This is not a minor detail. It is the core of the anger of members of parliament. Uwappa (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• scouts had a preference for CDA => From the start, the scouts considered CDA pivotal within the formation.
• were even discussing how to expell a just reelected CDA member of parliament => That's your interpretation, especially the word 'expell'.
• even before asking parliament about party preferences => Twice I have highlighted the fact that it was from the start.

Dajasj (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to rephrase. Your choice of words is fine with me. All I suggest is a move, so events are in the correct chapter, in the correct sequence.

• 18 Mar: scouts appointed
• 19 Mar: scouts discuss CDA and Omtzigt with Arib. Arib tries to put scouts back on track.
• 22-23 Mar: talks with leaders
• 25 Mar position elsewhere, members request debate.

Putting events in sequence would make things just too easy. No highlighting, no 'from the start' required. You could leave it in, but it will be redundant.

Why is it so hard to sort events in the right sequence? Uwappa (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

See https://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/ontstane-situatie-de-verkennende-fase-van-de-kabinetsformatie Uwappa (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That's way too formal and not really picked up in independent sources. See a short discussion on that topic: nl:Wikipedia:Etalage/Archief/Kabinetsformatie_Nederland_2021-'22#Kabinetsformatie_Nederland_2021-'22 Dajasj (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Note as well that the coalition preferences of the parties are also not discussed chronologically (which was the case in the first version). Instead, I grouped them (although these events were spread over 2 days). Dajasj (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries there, assuming that the sequence of talks did not matter much. Uwappa (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Had another look at the party preferences. Reordered that part by possible coalitions. Uwappa (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I remembered we had a discussion about this on Dutch Wikipedia as well, but please stop making a bullet point list out of everything. It does not improve readibility in such cases.

There is no perfect ordering, let's start with that conclusion. But it makes no sense to have one bullet about VVD-D66-CDA-JA21, but which also names other preferences (one of which ended up being the chosen one). Why place CU in the progressive bullet, but not Dassen? Why start with Geert Wilders anyway? In the end it will always be arbitrary, but I quite liked how it was.

And please note that I specifically opened every paragraph with a summarizing sentence after your advise. Don't see why they should be merged like that at the start. Dajasj (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You surprise me. I've taken your idea for a theme based strucure one step further and expected some enthusiasm. Don't worry, I did not change any text, just rearranged it.

• Old structure: party leader A says..., party leader B says ...
• Proposed structure: option X, option Y, option Z

The logic behind the proposed structure: The scouts were exploring options. What were those options? What were the opinions about those options? Which option had sufficient support to be explored further? Let the text reflect that work. List those explored options and describe opinions of party leaders about each option.

Comments of leaders per option show that there was no clear favorite option. There was not even a clear feasible option. This helps to explain why this formation was such a difficult process.

Please have a second look at the proposal.

A bullet list is not a must for me, though it does suit the scout's task: explore a list of options. The sorting helps to show the complete range of options across the political spectrum. An alternative sorting could be number of seats, high to low, but for a political process, a left-to-right or right-to-left makes more sense.

With 90 seats for VVD + CDA + D66 + PVV it seemed an obvious option to explore first. You described it first and I did not change that. I think it is good to explain right away why that option wasn't feasible.

I agree that the CU option should be described separate. Especially because it was this option that made it in the end. So yes, it should be outside the progressive option. Yet I could not do that while keeping text unchanged. My idea was: show the proposed structure first and text fine-tuning will follow. Uwappa (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

But there is already a theme: who wants to join a cabinet (and with whom) and who are hesitant.

And in that phase there we not really options necessarily, but opinions of party leaders. Dajasj (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Who wants to join with whom? That is the core theme. Please look again at my proposal. No text changes, just grouped per option, the who with whom. Uwappa (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A version without bullets, CU to new paragraph. I still prefer the bullet version. Show the list of options as a list.

The expected parliamentary leaders were invited for individual meetings on 22 and 23 March. VVD and D66 had different coalition preferences.

A number of parties were open to cabinet participation. Most other parties were hesitant about joining a cabinet at this stage for various reasons.

PVV leader Geert Wilders said that a right-wing coalition of VVD, CDA, PVV, FVD and JA21 should be investigated, but this was ruled out by VVD. Although FVD leader Thierry Baudet indicated on election evening that cabinet participation was possible, he no longer expected this after talking to the scouts.

VVD leader Mark Rutte first wanted to "look seriously" at a center-right coalition with D66, CDA and JA21. JA21-leader Joost Eerdmans supported Rutte's wish to form a right-wing cabinet of VVD, D66, CDA and JA21. However, D66-leader Kaag found collaboration with JA21 "difficult to imagine" and preferred a progressive coalition, without naming parties. CDA-leader Wopke Hoekstra said he had no desire to join a "liberal block".

Although there was speculation about cabinet participation by newcomer Volt, party leader Laurens Dassen was cautious about this.

Lilianne Ploumen said PvdA was open to cabinet participation, provided that SP or GroenLinks also joined. GroenLinks-leader Klaver was also open to government participation in an "as progressive as possible cabinet". SP-leader Lilian Marijnissen thought that coalition participation was not obvious given the electoral defeat. PvdD leader Esther Ouwehand also argued for a cabinet that was as green and progressive as possible. Collaboration with one of the left-wing progressive parties, on the other hand, was only an option for Rutte after considering CU.

As the tenth political group in terms of seats, CU-leader Gert-Jan Segers considered it strange if parties started the negotiations with them.

The other groups, with three or fewer seats, all indicated that cabinet participation was not an option for them. Uwappa (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

So now the preference of Mark Rutte is partially at the beginning and partially at the end.

To me, it does not make more sense than before. There are definitely shortcomings with the current one, but at least there is a theme that matches a logical number of paragraphs. Dajasj (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes! I am happy you do get my point about the proposed change of structure: from who-said-what to who-with-whom.

The who-with-whom is the key question of the formation, so let that be the leading theme.

Yes, in a who-with-whom-structure the opinions of one leader about various ends of the political spectrum will be found... on various ends of the spectrum. That is fine.

The good news: various opinions of each who-with-whom option will be together. Uwappa (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I got your point, I simply disagree whether it is an improvement. Dajasj (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Its important to note that most party leaders dont specifically mention a coalition, only a vague direction Dajasj (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

So, what part do you disagree with?

1. The core part of scouts' work is to explore possible coalitions. The goal is to recommend the most feasible coalition. (Dutch original) Scouts talk to party leaders to get a list and select the most feasible option.
2. J&O set the stage with the who-with-whom question. It was a hard job and it got even harder after the leaked notes and the debate. The who-with-whom question remained an issue for vA&k, TW, H till Remkes (29sep). A J&O text structured by possible coalition will be a good introduction to the next chapters.
3. A text structured by polician is difficult for an international audience. Imagine a text with a structure based on Tony Burke (ALP) and Paul Fletcher (LP). Most readers won't have a clue. Who are they? What is ALP? What is LP? Yet these are politicians in a country with a bigger population than the Netherlands and far less political parties. Also politicians and parties come and go, disappear in the fog of time.
4. A text structured by possible coalition, sorted left, center, right (or vice versa), will ring a bell for a large audience. That is easy to relate to, even for readers that do not know the many Dutch political parties and politicians. In addition, left, center and right are terms that withstand the sword of time quite well. No worries about 'vague directions'. That is a bridge already crossed, see version above.

I maintain my point of view: The text is quite good already. It was a pleasant surprise that zero text changes were required for the rearranged version. Yes, a bit of fine-tuning will be needed. Some sentences may need to be split. That is an easy bridge to cross once we agree on the structure of text.

Let me reverse the question: What is the structure of the current text? Leader A says x, y, z? Large to small? Willing to unwilling? Time? What is the advantage of the current setup? Does it suit an international audience? Uwappa (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

1 April debate could be fine for a Dutch audience, familiar with Dutch news. For an English, international audience, '1 April debate' won't ring a bell. A quote from the BBC: "A sticky mess for 'Teflon Mark'". I do not think that would be an appropriate header though. It must be possible to come up with a better name for the debate. Uwappa (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph summarizes the most important viewpoints, those of VVD and D66. Without them, it is hard to form a coalition. Their position is largely already discussed in the Background, but essentially reaffirmed in statements after talking to the scouts. If there is anything a reader should read, it is that paragraph.

Then there are two paragraphs discussing those willing to join a cabinet and those hesitant to do so (with the irrelevant ones left out entirely). Initially they were sorted by size (and thus importance, but open to changes).

And regarding your points, I dont see how your proposal is an improvement. In the scouting phase, there are in theory thousands of combinations possible and we should not discuss them. But just briefly mention what the preferences of every party are. Later on, the article makes clear that there are two options essentially. Dajasj (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also note that all important parties are introduced in either the Background or the Electoral results. This creates a more natural flow Dajasj (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

OK so the current sorting is relevant to irrelevant, meaning:

1. willing first, within willing: pivotal first.
2. unwilling last

I do like the relevant first idea. I also like the pivotal role of VVD and D66.

Could we apply this sorting to possible coalitions?

1. most relevant option first
2. within an option: willing to unwilling

Suggestion (no worries, no thousands of combinations, Kaag's opinion split into 2 sentences, no other text changed, just the sentences in another order):

A number of parties were open to cabinet participation.

VVD leader Mark Rutte first wanted to "look seriously" at a center-right coalition with D66, CDA and JA21. JA21-leader Joost Eerdmans supported Rutte's wish to form a right-wing cabinet of VVD, D66, CDA and JA21. However, D66-leader Kaag found collaboration with JA21 "difficult to imagine". CDA-leader Wopke Hoekstra said he had no desire to join a "liberal block".

Collaboration with one of the left-wing progressive parties, on the other hand, was only an option for Rutte after considering CU. As the tenth political group in terms of seats, CU-leader Gert-Jan Segers considered it strange if parties started the negotiations with them.

D66-leader Kaag preferred a progressive coalition, without naming parties. Lilianne Ploumen said PvdA was open to cabinet participation, provided that SP or GroenLinks also joined. GroenLinks-leader Klaver was also open to government participation in an "as progressive as possible cabinet". PvdD leader Esther Ouwehand also argued for a cabinet that was as green and progressive as possible. SP-leader Lilian Marijnissen thought that coalition participation was not obvious given the electoral defeat.

PVV leader Geert Wilders said that a right-wing coalition of VVD, CDA, PVV, FVD and JA21 should be investigated, but this was ruled out by VVD. Although FVD leader Thierry Baudet indicated on election evening that cabinet participation was possible, he no longer expected this after talking to the scouts.

Most other parties were hesitant about joining a cabinet at this stage for various reasons. Although there was speculation about cabinet participation by newcomer Volt, party leader Laurens Dassen was cautious about this. The other groups, with three or fewer seats, all indicated that cabinet participation was not an option for them. Uwappa (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why is now a coalition with JA21 most relevant?
• With this ordering, Wopkes comments seems to refer only to this coalition, but it does not. It refers specifically to the two pivoral parties.
• The most relevant option - CU - is discussed merely as a side note. Which was also the case in my version, but that version was not focused on a complex structure but simply mirroring what people said
• The most relevant option - CU - is discussed merely as a side note. Which was also the case in my version, but that version was not focused on a complex structure but simply mirroring what people said
• This structure gives undue weight to these right wing coalitions (similar to JA21 at the top)
• SP is now in the paragraph of progressive parties. But D66 does not consider SP a progressive party. But the current structure suggests that.

Dajasj (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Why a JA21 most relevant? Because "VVD leader Mark Rutte first wanted to "look seriously" at a center-right coalition with D66, CDA and JA21." It was not the most relevant for long, see Kaag's "difficult" and Hoekstra's refusal.
• checked Hoekstra's statement. You are correct, it applies to all coalitions with VVD + D66. So CDA was not interested to continue VVD+D66+CDA+CU either? And not interested to join a progressive coalition either with VVD and D66? Should CDA move down to the unwilling? Should CDA be listed in all options as not interested?
• Yes, CU was a sidenote at the time, yet Rutte prefers CU to a left wing progressive coaliton, so that option has to precede the left wing option. Those sentences need a bit of work. I suggest we worry about the relatively easy rewriting sentences later. Agree on structure first.
• SP not progressive according to D66? Really? And Kaag did not name parties? Still, I think it is OK to group these statements together in a 'progressive option'. As SP was not even interested in a progressive coalition, move SP down to the unwilling? No, I'd prefer to keep the SP's refusal close to Ploumen's "SP or GL". Ouwehand preferred VVD, D66, PvdA, GL, PvdD.
• Undo weight to right wing coalitions? Not really. The option with PVV, FVD and JA21 is at the bottom of the list and it quickly lost momentum as FVD was not interested.

I really like this structure. The text needs a bit of work but the relevant-to-irrelevant works like a charm. It shows that there was not any feasible option. It was a difficult formation indeed, right from the start. Uwappa (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Uwappa (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• JA21 was never a serious option, lets be honest. That was just to please his rightwing.
• And yes, CDA should be moved to a paragraph of generally not-interested, just like SP and CU.... Which was already the case....
• SP is anti-Europe for starters, so not progressive no..

Again, the first paragraph already shows that the differing preferences of VVD and D66 would make it difficult. This new structure does not make that clearer. Splitting their preferences makes it even harder. Dajasj (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know how serious Rutte was with his JA21 option. I can not read his mind. The used source does not confirm that JA21 was Rutte's first choice. So the current text "first wanted to" may be unsourced, or just wrong. That would make the VVD+D66+CDA+CU Rutte's first choice.

Checked secondary source against primary: Rutte in an interview. The secondary source is consistent with Rutte's words. I'll go and see where "first wanted to" originated.

• Another possibility would be to list CDA again and again for each option with a 'no'. That would be double text, with details only in the first option and a shorter mention in the next options. It would make the CDA obstruction very clear. Another option could be a table as a summary. Possible coalitions top to bottom, relevant ones on top, irrelevant at the bottom, Parties left to right sorted pivital to irrelevant, support/neutral/oppose/blank in the cells. SP and CU each play a role in just one possible coaliton. I prefer to keep opinions complete for each possibility. It makes things very easy, very clear for the reader.
• So where would SP, the socialist party go if not left wing? Center? Right wing? Really? Do you have any source for that?

I disagree. The new structure does make things very clear, very easy for the reader. It makes it obvious that there was no feasible coalition in sight, right from the very start. Uwappa (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Leftwing is not equal to progressive.
• Duplicating information is undesirable. And an table is as well. Its making stuff way too complicated.
• Youre right on the ja21 thing

Dajasj (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The "first" is old, already present in the first English version. Thank you for your quick correction. Now, this now raises the question: What was Rutte's first choice? There are notes of those talks that could provide the answer. If I remember correctly those notes are available somewhere on https://www.kabinetsformatie2021.nl/documenten Uwappa (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the first English version is simply my translation of (mostly) my article on the Dutch Wikipedia. And going into the notes would be original research Dajasj (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No probs. I am happy with your speedy correction. But... your first version is likely to be right after all. The notes are available at https://www.kabinetsformatie2021.nl/binaries/kabinetsformatie/documenten/publicaties/2021/04/01/deel-i-aantekeningen-ambtelijke-ondersteuning/Deel+I+Aantekeningen+ambtelijke+ondersteuning+2.pdf page 2. They are handwritten, a bit hard to decipher but Rutte's preferences are noted as:

1. JA21, because 7 seats in Senate
2. CU if JA21 does not work out
3. after that prefer SP
4. above PvdA-GL unless they are willing to let each other go.

So, backtrack: JA21 was Rutte's first choice. And... SP was a conditional third choice!

I am not sure about OR as Rutte, the primary source, did not write those notes himself. It is not self published. A staff member working for the scouts wrote these notes. I think the notes qualify as a direct quote, not bad according to WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. And even if the notes are primary, they might still be used, see WP:USEPRIMARY.

Interesting: these notes are different from Rutte's (primary source) public statement in the video for NOS (CDA, D66, JA21, CU, nothing about SP, GL, PvdA). So Rutte's video statement, the primary source, may be proven wrong by the notes, the secondary source.

Also it seems very unlikely that I am the very first to study these notes. Is there really no journalist that did so already? There must be other sources available that confirm these notes. Uwappa (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The idea for a table:

relevance	coalition	seats	VVD 34 (+1)	D66 24 (+5)	PVV 17 (-3)	CDA 15 (-4)	SP 9 (-5)	PvdA 9 (0)	GL 8 (-6)	FvD 8 (+6)	CU 5 (0)	JA21 3 (+3)
1	VVD D66 CDA JA1	76	Rutte's 1st choice	difficult to imagine JA21		no desire to join liberal block, VVD + D66						support Rutte's wish
2	VVD D66 CDA CU	78	Rutte's 2nd choice	medical, ethical differences with CU							strange to start negotiations with 10th party
3	VVD D66 CDA SP	80	Rutte's 3rd choice	progressive preference			not obvious given defeat
4	VVD D66 CDA PvdA	80	Rutte's 4th choice					wish coalition with GL
5	VVD D66 CDA GL	79	Rutte's 5th choice						wish coalition with PvdA
6	VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL	90	Rutte's 6th choice					with GL	with PvdA
7	VVD PVV CDA FvD JA21	77	ruled out PVV		proposed by Wilders	PVV FvD not likely				no expectation		support

• A table combines possible coalitions by relevance and opinions of party leaders
• It shows instantly that the formation was very difficult. There was no feasible coalition in sight.
• VVD, CDA required for all options, but CDA opposes all possibilities
• VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL seemed most likely. Hamer later explored this option.
• final solution VVD D66 CDA CU seemed very unlikely at the time.

Why would a table be undesirable? Why would a table "make stuff way too complicated"? Uwappa (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It adds a lot of whitespace, it sucks on mobile, its's hard too read, it introduces original research such as relevance and again SP is called a progressive party. You cant put everything in a table. And Im honestly not really interested in repeating that discussion. Dajasj (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Done

• whitespace reduced, column relevance removed, shorter words for smaller columns. Measured minimum width for table: 727 px. Note that the whitespace is meaningful: party not involved in coalition. Note that CDA does not have any whitespace. Also note the odd whitespace for coalitions with JA21, CU and PVV. They are out of line with the large-to-small diagonal of other options.
• I prefer not to comment on 'it sucks', 'it is hard to read' and 'not really interested'.
• There is a secondary source for Rutte's preferences: JA21, CU, SP, PvdA, GL, already a ref in the article: https://www.ad.nl/politiek/rutte-eerst-formeren-met-ja21-dan-christenunie-dan-pas-met-links~a8b9c5f98/

The AD shows a primary source, letter by Rutte, 22 Mar:

https://images0.persgroep.net/rcs/IEVfoFgks7TAyQa2Nos_inhHdX0/diocontent/201239954/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.8&desiredformat=webp

Note that the letters is inconsistent with the handwritten notes on VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL.

• What matters: Does Kaag see SP as an progressive party? Avoided that question. Kaag did not exclude SP, despite the differences on EU.
• VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL: took out Rutte's 6th choice, although it is in the handwritten notes. Marked it as 1st choice of PvdA and GL.

New proposal:

coalition	seats	VVD 34 (+1)	D66 24 (+5)	PVV 17 (-3)	CDA 15 (-4)	SP 9 (-5)	PvdA 9 (0)	GL 8 (-6)	FvD 8 (+6)	CU 5 (0)	JA21 3 (+3)
VVD D66 CDA JA1	76	1st choice	JA21 difficult		no desire to join VVD + D66						support
VVD D66 CDA CU	78	2nd choice	no, differences with CU							no, 10th party
VVD D66 CDA SP	80	3rd choice	SP not ruled out			no, given loss
VVD D66 CDA PvdA	80	4th choice	progressive preference				only with GL
VVD D66 CDA GL	79	5th choice						only with PvdA
VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL	90	not ruled out					1st choice	1st choice
VVD PVV CDA FvD JA21	77	ruled out PVV		1st choice	PVV FvD not likely				first yes, later no		support, yet not realistic

I disagree.

• The table does a wonderful job of giving an overview of the complex formation. It shows that not a single coalition seemed feasible.
• The text works on a more detailed level: party leader A says X, Y, Z.

Table and text together are excellent. They complement each other. Uwappa (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Any source for JA21 in coalition with PVV or FVD?

Anyway, the central arguments:

• It is harder to read and understand
• The information is not suitable for such a table
• The information is not suitable for such a table. Note for example that any coalition with Volt is not mentioned, something that is discussed later in the article.
• You need both text and table then. Then what is the added value?
• That chapter already has enough tables and images, so another (wide) table will break the layout
• That chapter already has enough tables and images, so another (wide) table will break the layout

Youre not going to convince me on adding more lists or tables, too be honest. This is also not something that came up during review. So if you want to add it, it is best to look for support, for example in the Dutch Wikiproject... Dajasj (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• added sources for JA21 in table above. Changed support to: support, yet not realistic
• The text only mentions speculation about Volt participation, no party leader as primary source mentioned, no secondary source either.
• Text and table make a great team, see 11:44, 17 June 2023 above. Don't worry, I am not trying to replace text by a table. The added value of the table is overview. The added value of text is detail. Together they are fantastic.
• layout issues can be solved.
• I disagree. The table is easy to read and understand, very much so. The information at hand is 2D in nature, extremely suitable for a two dimensional presentation. With both rows and columns sorted, the table tells a story. A reader that knows how to read a table will grasp aspects of the main story, even without knowing anything about Dutch politics, even before reading cells, even before reading the text. Imagine a table, with coalitions that you do not know, parties you do not know, no readable text in cells, just a pattern of green/red/blank cells. It would still be possible to grasp the main story lines:

coalition	seats	p1	p2	p3	p4	p5	p6	p7	p8	p10	p12
A	76
B	78
C	80
D	80
E	79
F	90
G	77

1. There are so many parties. Don't the Dutch have 2 major parties, like the UK and USA? Why do coalitions need at least 4 parties? Isn't there one party that comes close to a majority on its own?
2. There is green and red in the left hand top corner. The two largest parties share a lot of green, yet not for the top two options. Why?
3. There is a coloured diagonal in the center. Is there a correlation between party size and preference? Is there a special story for coloured cells outside that diagonal?
4. There is not a single row with green cells, zero reds. No coalition seemed feasible. This formation must have been very difficult. Why? How long did it take to find a solution? And what was that final solution? This must be a very interesting story!
5. There is something special going in rows D, E, F, two parties sepearate, both red, then in row F both green, together. What is the story behind that?
6. There is only one row with 4 green cells. Did they really need a 5th party for a majority? And if so, couldn't another party step in?
7. There is an all red column of one medium sized party, saying no to all possible coalitions. Why are they against all options? Why was that party so pivotal? Couldn't they simply be left out and head for opposition?
8. A lot of green is on the left hand side, with the biggest party. Most of the red is in the center, the medium sized parties. There must be some special story. What was going on between the biggest party and the medium sized parties?
9. The third party has a lot of whitespace. Party 1 and 2 lack green in the bottom row, where party 3 is green. There is no coaliton with parties 2 and 3. What is going on between party 1, 2 and 3?

The table serves like an appetizer for the text. The row will tell which coaliton to look for in the text. The column header will tell which party to look for in the text. The cell text will give a clue what to look for in the text. Some readers don't know how to read a table. No probs, nothing lost. They'll skip the table and head straight for the text. Some other readers may get confused by all the text details and use the table as a kind of TOC.

So, I am not going to convince you? Oops, so what use is this talk? Does it serve any purpose to answer your questions?

This is the English WP, with a diverse, international audience. Creating an English version is more than just translating sentences. It is writing for another audience, likely a different level of knowlege of Dutch politics, possibly a completely different mindset in a completely different political system.

Let us step away from all the details, text issues, which coalitions to include, the choice of words, sources, speculations, layout, etc, etc. I am actually not worried about those details. Those details are easy to get right. More difficult: What is the best structure for this complex story with an international audience?

Please take this talk to that higher level: the best structure of text. Should the text go by column (party) of by row (coalition)?

• At the time information became public one party leader at the time. Sources of those days will tell: What did party leaders say? The current overview was not there yet.
• My suggestion is to step away from party leader opinions. Select a structure that matches the scout's goal: find possible coalitions. Reorder the text so it describes rows, possible coalitions.

The table provides both, rows and columns. Please look again at the table, the version with text. Please see how the current text suits columns. Look at the alternative: going row by row, in a top to bottom sequence.

• I hope you will see another structure: difficulties related to each coalition. You will see how all those difficulties mount up to tell why this formation was so difficult.
• I hope you'll see that a text-by-possible-coalition takes the text to a higher level, which coalitions were possible? The text will focus on the formation difficulties. Right from the start, it was hard to find a possible coalition.
• I hope you'll see how a coalition-structure will suit the knowledge level of an international audience, that does know terms like left, center, right, progressive, conservative but lack knowledge of Dutch political parties. It will be easier for readers to understand why this formation was so difficult. Why it took such a long time.
• I hope you will see how the text will set the stage for later chapters, where some possibilities were dropped and impossibilities became possible. In the end only one coalition remained. Readers will be able to relate coalitions back to the J&O chapter. What were the difficulties of a coaliton at the start? How were those difficulties overcome?
• I hope you will see that table and text go together well. The table is a kind of summary of the whole formation.
• I hope you'll see that the transformation is easy. The text already has all required info, already gives details of points 1-9 above. Just the sequence of sentences would be different. After that, just a bit of finetuning will do.

Uwappa (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Ollongren explained in today's hearing what D66 meant with progressive preference: Swap the current 4th coalition party (CU) for e.g. GL or PvdA. See https://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/verkenningsfase-tijdens-de-formatie-van-2021?start=4252 So

• VVD D66 CDA PvdA
• VVD D66 CDA GL

coalition	seats	VVD 34 (+1)	D66 24 (+5)	PVV 17 (-3)	CDA 15 (-4)	SP 9 (-5)	PvdA 9 (0)	GL 8 (-6)	FvD 8 (+6)	CU 5 (0)	JA21 3 (+3)
VVD D66 CDA JA1	76	1st choice	JA21 difficult		no desire to join VVD + D66						support
VVD D66 CDA CU	78	2nd choice	no, differences with CU							no, 10th party
VVD D66 CDA SP	80	3rd choice	SP not ruled out			no, given loss
VVD D66 CDA PvdA	80	4th choice	Ollongren: progressive preference				only with GL
VVD D66 CDA GL	79	5th choice						only with PvdA
VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL	90	not ruled out	Kaag: 1st choice				1st choice	1st choice
VVD PVV CDA FvD JA21	77	ruled out PVV		1st choice	PVV FvD not likely				first yes, later no		support, yet not realistic

Uwappa (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating, I had missed that specific part about progressive preference. But I still do not support such a table, to be honest.. Dajasj (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is fascinating! Olongron pretended it was common knowledge at the time. It was not. It may have been common knowledge just within D66 at the time.

Even more fascinating: Kaag preferred a 5 party coalition, VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL. Not a word about a 4 party coalition with either PvdA or GL. See handwritten minutes of meeting with scouts, the D66 chapter at page 6. So there is an odd contradiction between Ollongren's memory and Kaag's preference.

And yes, I do know the table is not your cup of tea. Still, as an input for a text update, please have a look how Ollongren's words align with 4th and 5th choice of VVD and Kaag's preference aligns with the next option.

Kaag repeated her preference later to Hamer. I know this will rock your boat even more, but still: Imagine time as a third dimension which would give a number of tables. As time progresses, tables get smaller. Some rows disappear, some columns too. Some cells change colour and text. Based on the current text, a table during Hamer's task could look like:

coalition	seats	VVD 34 (+1)	D66 24 (+5)	CDA 15 (-4)	PvdA 9 (0)	GL 8 (-6)	CU 5 (0)
VVD D66 CDA CU	78	1st choice	blocks CU	?			held off by Seegers
VVD D66 CDA PvdA	80	2nd choice	2nd choice	?	only with GL
VVD D66 CDA GL	79	3rd choice		?		only with PvdA
VVD D66 CDA PvdA GL	90	not ruled out, voters negative	1st choice	reluctant, voters negative	1st choice	1st choice

Please note that

• there was little enthusiasm for VVD D66 CDA CU. It is quite amazing this turned out to be the final solution.
• the text (and NOS source) has little on CDA's point of view. Hoekstra probably did not disclose CDA's preferences.
• VVD and D66 preference sequences run in opposite directions.
• each possible coalition has a red cell, things were still difficult.
• the last option had most support. The reluctant CDA could have been replaced by any party for a majority >= 76 seats. Why was CDA pivotal to VVD and D66?

And please, don't worry, I would love to insert these tables in the article, but I won't.

To me text is like a one dimensional string of words, unsuitable for subjects of a 3 dimensional nature. It is as if a 3D sweater has been unraveled into a long 1D string of wool. Where is the sweater? Where is the front view? Where is the side view? Where is the top view? To me reading a 1D text about a 3D subject is a complex puzzle. Why do I have to burden my short term memory reconstructing this 3D object as a reader? With a subject as complex as this formation, this overloads my short term memory. Why didn't the writer make it easy for me, present a 3D object as a series of 2D tables?

Tables are as guides to me, provide overview, help me to understand the text. And yes, I still am convinced that tables would help many readers to understand this complex 3D subject. Uwappa (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Role of Arib

Some new sources on the talk of Arib with scouts, 19 feb:

1. https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2023Z11516&did=2023D27470
2. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2479753-tweede-kamer-vernietigde-documenten-over-onderzoek-kabinetsformatie

Suggestions:

• In chapter "Informateur Tjeenk Willink" describe the end of Arib's role on 7th April, change of Speaker from Arib (opposition, Pvda) to Bergkamp (coalition, D66).
• Move down "The expected parliamentary leaders were invited..." to "Coalition preferences"
• Move up "From the start, the scouts considered CDA pivotal ... a year and a half after the formation" to "Scouts Jorritsma and Ollongren"

Uwappa (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, I deliberately changed that, because it was a weird first sentence under Coalition preferences Dajasj (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I had also considered the first part, but the change had no impact on the formation as far as we know. It still doesnt really. I added it now to an image description, but a more detailed discussion wouldnt be relevant Dajasj (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: take the focus away from the invitation. That is stating the obvious. It would have been weird if party leaders had shown up uninvited. Instead, focus on when, who, what. Suggestion for a first sentence of "Coalition preferences":

"On 22 and 23 March the scouts interviewed expected parliamentary leaders on their coalition preferences." Uwappa (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dajasj (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol, never noticed the ministry part.

Anyway, I really dislike paragraphs of only one sentence (although that is not the only occurence in the article). I remember it was in some style guide. So I prefer attaching it to a paragraph (which is why it was at the top in the first place) Dajasj (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And now that I look at it again, placing it before Coalition preferences makes it a nice bridge between sections.. Dajasj (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. the Arib-scouts talk is a bridge to talks scouts-leaders. It also a bridge to the later Omtzigt turmoil. Suggestion for Scouts "Jorritsma and Ollongren", less words, sentences rearranged for Arib's role with 19 March moved up, more of when-who-what applied:

On 18 March, the expected seventeen parliamentary leaders selected a scout to investigate which coalitions would be possible. D66 insisted on a second scout from their party. Subsequently, speaker Arib appointed VVD Senate leader Annemarie Jorritsma and D66 Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations Kajsa Ollongren as scouts.

On 19 March President of the House of Representatives Khadija Arib discussed the assignment with the scouts. The scouts considered CDA pivotal within the formation. The scouts suggested to wait until 26 March when official results of the elections would show whether Omtzigt had more preference votes than CDA party leader Hoekstra (which turned out not to be the case). According to them, Omtzigt's position in CDA could hinder coalition participation. Jorritsma called Omtzigt's position a problem for coalition formation and 'untenable'. Arib disagreed, as she thought it was inappropriate to talk about people in the scouting phase. The content of this conversation was not mentioned in the scouts' final report and was only revealed a year and a half after the formation. Uwappa (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That was not what I meant, and I still like to keep it grouped thematically Dajasj (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)