CDA and the party leaders soap
Just some quotes about the CDA, from the Saturday edition of De Volkskrant:
1 “Wopke Hoekstra has to do it. From the moment Hugo de Jonge announces his departure as party leader, it is clear to the party leadership that the Minister of Finance must now 'deliver'. The future of the CDA is at stake. Hoekstra will not be forgiven for a refusal, is the barely concealed message ”.
(Why Wopke and not Pieter? Why no members' consultation this time? Why: 'supply'? Why the future of the party? Is the party more sacred than the supporters?)
2 “What remains unspoken: the former CEO of McKinsey must prevent the internally controversial number two, Member of Parliament Pieter Omtzigt, from taking the helm. Even after De Jonge's departure, he is not a serious option for the top party. ”
(Why not a serious option? He almost won against Hugo, especially if his own wife had voted for him? Suppose all votes were counted fairly and Pieter had won, would he have been harassed to the side? Why (democratic ??? ) elections, if left or right 'beautiful' Wopke had to be the party leader? Is charisma (nice face, nice butt and / or a smooth chat) the criterion for the front person?)
3 “I think that in the end I am more of a manager than a professional politician”, was his explanation at the time. I want to stay close to myself. ” (Did Hoekstra suddenly become a career -because that's what he means- become a politician, like the vast majority of all MPs? And therefore automatically very far away from himself?)
4 How could De Jonge turn the tide, while at the same time trying to avert the greatest crisis since the Second World War.
(Help me. What 'biggest' crisis is this about? What tide did Hugo - on his own? - have to turn?)
5 “Until recently, Hoekstra insisted that he was not born to be the top candidate. If he changes his mind, it also raises questions about his credibility. ”
(Good question Frank Hendricksx of De Volkskrant, but no answer was enforced. Believable as the leader of a religious party that, on the basis of the fact that the Netherlands is a secular state, should not be represented in parliament at all.)
6 “It is Omtzigt's sincere conviction that things must be completely different in the Netherlands. If the CDA can become the largest with him as party leader, it offers a unique opportunity to realize those ideals. He does not want to miss that chance by binding himself to another prime minister. "
(Excuse me? Does the party leader determine the course on his own, regardless of the election program? What ideals does Pieter keep under his hood? Pieter is right that things should be done differently in our country. But something so complex must be widely supported, right? reli party always in the same direction as that of any party leader? Does Pieter think he has a power of attorney to deviate from a number of party positions? Is the CDA a party that has suddenly embraced the AS system - alternativestaatsbestel.nl The CDA is in favor of party discipline and certainly in favor of a compelling, strangling fraction discipline?)
7 “Supporters within the CDA also still believe in Omtzigt's electoral opportunities. Hoekstra, as Minister of Finance, is bound by cabinet policy, while Omtzigt, because of his critical attitude as a Member of Parliament, could fearlessly take on Rutte. ”
(Exactly, there you go. First say yes and amen to the bigger government brother, to give the VVD a fair deal of it after four years during the elections, forgetting that the Minister of Finance financed VVD policy. ago was also against it, but in the interests of the country -oh no, sorry, party- and coalition interests- was four years ahead, and then with balloons, flyers and scarves to sell your own loyal supporters again various lies. But Pieter was, in spite of all his preference votes, also part of this voter-cheating four-year long play? How often did all MPs of the CDA, together with those muzzled career fools of the VVD, D66 and the CU, vote unanimously for degrading measures against a glorified flu, to but to call it a well-remembered subject. If Pieter had regularly been obstructive in the interests of the people, he would have stated that 1,5 meters is wet finger work, mouth masks not. They do not work, except against the users themselves who develop health complaints through use, while Tedros, Van Dissel and many other 'experts' have regularly undermined the effect of mouth masks. And then the tests with which the infections are determined. Shouldn't Pieter have said that even the inventor of the PCR tests declared loud and clear that his test material is completely unsuitable for detecting viral infections? In passing Pieter could also have suggested that HCQ could have worked more miracles with limited side effects than the much more expensive and hardly tested vaccines. Pieter also agreed that the churches should remain open, planes may be stuffed, but stadiums with a capacity of tens of thousands - in the open air - should remain completely empty, while eleven players hug each other almost to death after a goal. Many people with ailments other than Covid-19 could not be helped, others with healthy companies went bankrupt thanks to Rutte and CDA member De Jonge - and therefore also Pieter. But Pieter remained silent. Why? If he would have voted against once, he would have had to go to confession with Mark Rutte. -Mark is so flexible that he quietly wanted to act a Catholic priest-. If Pietje Bel had sputtered against Bel twice, he would have been removed from the electoral list and now not number 1 or 2. Why another Netherlands? Why not until he became prime minister?
8 “Omtzigt can count on much less sympathy in the highest parts of the party. The MP is stubborn and very demanding for his environment ”
(With less sympathy than Hoekstra? Is he malleable, slavish and subordinate to the party leadership? Are you stubborn and demanding when you say yes and amen for four years in the context of a strangling fraction discipline? After all, the majority was minimal after you left. van Haga no longer. It is not without reason that the 3 party leaders of respectively CDA, D66 and CU had to stay in the Chamber to keep 76 willless ones in line.)
Have you been able to discern a grain of democracy anywhere? Right, we are not a democracy! We are a particration. Everything for the party. The party (top?) Decides. Except for full loyalty, hardly any demands are made. On the basis of what qualities is someone prime minister? The accidental -Wopke? - party leader if it is not ignored? Think hypothetically about Geert or Thierry for the latter?
You have come across a lot of question marks, all of which will disappear if we do become a democracy, described in AS (alternativestaatsbestel.nl) with a plush revolution as a detailed interpretation. Very suitable for Pieter Omtzigt if he is really as stubborn and demanding as his environment claims.