Talk:2007 Belgian federal election

Election date
I thought the date hadn't been set yet, are you sure that the elections will take place on June 24? --Ganchelkas 15:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye: and . &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 17:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Election had to be held before Tuesday 19 June 2007, otherwise alle elections would have been illegal an unconstitutional (Dobby-fc 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Shouldn't we sort the parties by language - the Flemish parties together and the french-speaking parties together? Only in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, the voter had a choice between all of them.Bancki 14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should, over the next days and weeks, expand the "Consequences" section into an "Aftermath" section, in order to include information about the formation of the next Federal Government. --Ganchelkas 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Results
Can someone explain why Verhofstadt resigned when his coalition polled 54% of the vote and won a majority of seats? How can the CDs form a government with only 40 seats? Why does Verhofstadt not just carry on? Intelligent Mr Toad 09:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Because you are in error:
 * MR, VLD, PS and SP.a only have 75 seats in the Chamber of Representatives, which is one short of a majority.
 * Also, not that it is of any significance but those parties together only haver 45 percent of the vote.
 * Lastly regardless of the outcome, the PM always resigns the day after the elections, even if they had won. This gives the King the possibility to appoint a new cabinet. -- fdewaele, 13 June 2007, 16:10.


 * I am counting the two Greens parties as supporters of the outgoing government, which I believe to have been the case. They presumably still prefer a liberal-socialist government to a conservative one. Also I understood Verhofstadt's resignation not to be pro forma as you suggest, but a "real" resignation. Correct me if I'm wrong on both counts. Intelligent Mr Toad 08:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The green parties were not supporters of Verhofstadt II. They were part of the majority parties of Verhofstadt I (1999-2003) but after their disastrous result in the 2003 federal elections, they joined the opposition. The current outgoing government therefore only existed of VLD-MR-PS-SP.a
 * In this case it's a pro forma resignation which will become permanent on the accession of a new government as Verhofstadt is very unlikely to lead the next government, but as I said it's part of the good form to resign the day after the elections regardless of the result. --fdewaele, 14 June 2007; 10:30 (CET)
 * I see, thanks for that. Would the Greens really support a conservative government? Intelligent Mr Toad 08:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that as at many points they're even more to the left than the socialist parties... --fdewaele, 14 June 2007; 11:10 (CET)

Indeed. So the Liberals, Socialists and Greens still have a comfortable majority between them, even if the Greens do not join a new government but merely support it from the crossbenches. Why then are the conservatives being allowed to form a new government? Intelligent Mr Toad 09:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they (MR & CD&V) clearly won the elections. The biggest party or family of parties is always given the opportunity to try to form a government. Plus the socialists have announced that, given the drubbing they received, they prefer to enter the opposition. -- fdewaele, 14 June 2007, 11:30 CET.
 * They didn't win the election. They polled 31% of the vote and won 53 seats out of 150. The centre-left still have a large majority of votes and seats. The only reason the CDs are the largest single party is that the Socialists are divided into two parties. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So are the liberals (MR-VLD), the greens (ECOLO-Groen!) and the christian-democrats (CD&V-CDH). That's specific to the Belgian situation. Each political group has a Flemish and a Walloon counterpart. And actually, the biggest political family in the new parliament will be the liberals. The biggest single party however will be the CD&V. And they did win the elections. The CD&V/NVA alliance won 8 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.
 * Yes, they made the biggest gains, but they didn't "win". To win an election means to win a majority of seats. You cannot "win" an election with 53/150 seats. Even with the support of VB, FN and Dedeker a CD government will still be a minority.
 * That's why they'll probably form a coalition government with the liberals.--Ganchelkas 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * you can't say they didn't "win" a Belgian context... unlike the British and American first past the post system, the Belgian electoral system always is based on a proportional representation, which means that no single party can claim an absolute majority and that parliament is fractured so coaltions need to be formed. The last absolute majority dates from before the split of the different parties in their Flemish and Walloon wings and dates from just after WWII. Therefore winning in a Belgian context means something different than in a Anglo centred context. In Belgium you win the elections when one improves one's total number of seats in parliament. And that increase means one could enter the new government if one can come to an agreement with an other party/parties and one has a majority in the chamber. -- fdewaele

OK so the real outcome of the election is a shift from slightly-left-of-centre to slightly-right-of-centre, with the liberals continuing to occupy the decisive centre ground. Intelligent Mr Toad 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the decisive centre ground is also partly occupied by the CD. They have both a centre labor oriented wing and a right pro business wing, just as the liberals which cannot be considered to be a purely centre party. In this case it's to be expected that the pro business wings of both parliamentary groups will be dominant within their respective parties. The main difference between both groups (CD & liberals) is that the CD's are more ethicaly conservative and more flamingant than the liberals... You just can't speak of a clear left right centre division: there are important overlaps between the various parties vis-à-vis their place in the political spectrum. -- fdewaele 14 June 2007, 13:18.

"Flamingant"? They are in favour of flamingoes? Intelligent Mr Toad 11:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they're in favor of more autonomy for Flanders... a supporter of Flemish autonomy or even Flemish independence is called a "flamingant". -- fdewaele, 14 June 2007, 14:25 CET.
 * Yes, a flamingant is someone who strives for more Flemish autonomy or independence. Many Flemish parties and politicians are flamingant: N-VA (separatist), Flemish Interest (separatist), Lijst Dedecker (separatist), and to a lesser extent Spirit (confederalist) and CD&V (confederalist). Btw, it's not sure what kind of government Belgium will get. CD&V/N-VA seem to be mainly focused on more competencies for the regions (.e.g. employment) partially due to its alliance with N-VA; the main liberals (MR and VLD) on an social-economic reform (e.g. also employment, but they want to do it on a federal level) and tax reform (lower tawes and a simplier tax system). But it could turn out the other way: no substantial power to the regions (as the Walloon parties are vehemently opposed to this), and a christian-democratic social-economic policy similar to the socialists (higher pensions, higher child benefits, no change in unemployment benefits and duration). Depends on who is willing to pay what price for what reform. My own opinion is that the CD&V/N-VA will get a moderate state reform, and that there will be a moderate social-economic and tax reform. CDH's position will indeed be crucial - if they will participate. An asymmetric government is not impossible, especially since CHD's stance is contrary to the amount of seats they have (only 10). This leaves the option open to replace them by one or two small parties, though an asymmetric government never occurred before (correct me if I'm wrong). Sijo Ripa 12:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

marginal parties
Marginal parties should not be dealt with, per WP:NPOV. There are many other parties that fielded candidates for the Senate (like Stijn, Resist, etc), equally marginal, equally deletable. I think it is best to concern ourselves here to parties which got elected, or which had already parliamentary representation. Intangible2.0 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. I think all parties that were given a national number (awarded to the parties that have lists for the senate AND in all provinces in Flanders or Wallonia) should be included. The party Stijn is a joke-party that only had a list for the senate and Resist is a cartel that included the PVDA and doesn't exist anymore, so you're examples are irrelevant. According to the standard I suggest there are 15 parties in Belgium that can be taken into account, not too much I think. --SalvadorEn 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Due to the electoral system"?
In the following sentence: "Vlaams Belang gained a little bit compared to the previous election, but lost one seat due to the electoral system." I'd like to remove the bit "due to the electoral system" because it sounds POV to me. "Ostracized by all other political parties for its viewpoints towards Flemish independence and immigration" also sounds very POV. --Ganchelkas 15:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * well due to the electoral system they did lose a seat: they improved their score overall in Flanders except in the province of Antwerp where they lost some percents. As the electoral districts are based on the provinces, this meant they lost a seat in Antwerp... and their gains in the other provicnes were not enough to win extra seats there -- fdewaele, 15 June 2007, 18:20 (CET).
 * Perhaps it would be better to add a sentence explaining why they lost a seat instead of just saying "due to the electoral system", which has a rather pejorative overtone in my view.--Ganchelkas 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ostracized by all other parties for its viewpoints towards Flemish independence?
"Ostracized by all other political parties for its viewpoints towards Flemish independence and immigration, the VB is unlikely to take part in a new government." I beg to differ, NVA is explicitly separatist just as well, and Dedecker wouldn't mind seeing Flanders becomee independent. And I think an important point is that VB doesn't want to take part in a national goverment if it's not the last government of Belgium.

Separate article for government formation?
It becomes increasingly clear that this is one of the more intense and long crises in the political history of Belgium. This crisis is also quite difficult to understand for most non-Belgians. Perhaps it deserves a separate article in which the formation can be discussed in more detail? Sijo Ripa 12:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the government formation deserves a separate article. I'd suggest, analogous to the articles on Dutch cabinet formations: 2007 Belgian government formation as the title. It will be tricky to maintain NPOV on some issues though, as the media in both parts of the country sometimes have completely opposite views (Example: the Francophone newspapers blame Leterme for the crisis, whereas the Flemish newspapers blame Milquet).--Ganchelkas 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I created the separate article. Sijo Ripa 14:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)