[ad_1]
Municipal politics is only national politics: there is a coalition and there is opposition. The coalition has forged a majority for some projects and will try to apply them until the next election. In Amsterdam, the coalition has been left since 2018: GroenLinks, D66, PvdA and SP are in the majority and have developed a left-wing program with all sorts of things that the opposition does not want. For example, the College of Amsterdam is going to deal with illegal immigrants, a move opposed by the opposition party of the Forum for Democracy (FvD). FvD is unlucky: the coalition is in the majority.
Also read – The FvD Series in Amsterdam
What does FvD do to succeed? Let's look at the motions and amendments that the party submitted in its first year (up to and including March 2019) to Amsterdam City Hall. FvD submitted a total of 86. They covered a multitude of topics, but a few stood out: the parking lot (28), the budget (14) and the undocumented, including the group of itinerant squatters We are here (12 in total). But FvD also spoke of sport, a care farm, mixed formulas, flexible workers and zoning plans
The numbers speak for themselves: an overwhelming majority of these motions and amendments (61) were rejected. Annabel Nanninga, president of the political group, has submitted a motion with the CDA and the VVD, among others, to demand the closure of the Islamic high school Cornelius Haga. The motion was rejected. Nanninga wanted the minutes of the consultations on the future illegal reception to be sent to the city council. Rejected Nanninga wanted to investigate the harassment of De Rode Hoed when FvD organized a party there. Rejected
Councilor Anton van Schijndel wanted candidates who publicly apply for mayor's office not to be disadvantaged during the procedure. Rejected Councilor Kevin Kreuger moved a motion to hire call center employees who have been working for the municipality for over three and a half years on a temporary or temporary basis. Rejected Van Schijndel made a proposal for zoning plan zoning. Rejected We can therefore continue for a while.
One or more council members may submit motions and amendments, after which council will decide on them. We can therefore see with which parties the FvD presented common proposals and points of view. Of the 86 proposals and amendments, the FvD only ranked 33. In 36 cases, a motion was signed by a member of the FvD and VVD council. In 35 cases, it was CDA. FvD, CDA and VVD have collaborated regularly, especially regarding parking, the Cornelius Haga High School, We are here, the security and the squatters of the ADM site.
Many of these motions were also supported by the single party party for the elderly. This board member was 29 times with a member of the FvD under a motion. We could call this older party, FvD, VVD and CDA, the right block of the Amsterdam City Council. Nevertheless, FvD also collaborated with others: 22 times between FvD and Denk signed the same motion. Twenty of them were about to park. ChristenUnie and FvD met 15 times, including 13 about parking. The other parties have signed only a handful of motions with FvD. Only the SP has never done that.
What were the successes? A motion was adopted nine times. Motions bearing the name of Nanninga underneath have never obtained the majority. Six motions bearing the name of Kreuger succeeded. Five of these concern parking: no paid parking in Amsterdam Noord on Sunday morning, affordable parking in hospitals, increased parking facilities for visitors, research on the capacity of P & R sites and parking permits . A sixth motion dealt with participation in the "Climate Neutral Roadmap".
Three motions were signed by Van Schijndel and obtained a majority: one on the population of bees and two on the mixture of formulas (combinations of shops and restaurants), namely an evaluation of these formulas and rules for these formulas in the Pijp. The city-wide assessment will examine whether blending formulas contribute to store survival, if they result in unwanted tourism and hospitality activities, what is the ideal percentage and ideal size of the formulas. mix and if the policy of accommodation in the city needs to be adjusted accordingly. 19659004] Adopted FvD motions were always presented with one or more other parties. In six out of nine cases, it was CDA and VVD, in five cases, the Party for the Elderly and Think, and in four cases, the Christian Union. The motions concerning the mixed formulas, on the other hand, were co-signed by three of the four parties of the coalition and by the Party for the Animals. Initiatives originating solely from FvD have never received the support of a majority in the city council.
In this way, we learn that FvD can "get motions", but only if the initiative is taken with other parties. These motions always concern themes for which FvD does not appear at all. With regard to important issues for FvD such as squatters, illegal immigrants and Cornelius Haga High School, the party only makes noise because there is no wider support. For example, FvD in Amsterdam looks a lot like a witness night like the SGP in the lower house. If the party realizes something, it's mainly in combination with CDA and VVD. The party is helpless precisely on its main themes.
Chris Aalberts is studying the development of FvD this year. It begins in Amsterdam, where the party has been sitting on the city council for a year. Donate via For the Arts to continue this series in the province, the Senate and the European Parliament.
[ad_2]
Source link
