Posted on 05/13/2002 11:57:12 AM PDT by July 4th
|
|
|
Projected seats |
|
31 Christian Democrats
28 Pim Fortuyn's List
25 Labour
25 Liberals
15 Greens
|
|
Nipo poll |
|
|
With only two days left before Wednesday's general election, Pim Fortuyn's List has overtaken Labour to take second place with 18.5% of the votes, according to the survey by the Nipo research bureau.
A poll by another organisation, Nova, on 3 May put him on 12.4% support, while a Nipo survey on 1 May gave him 17%.
The new poll - the first since Mr Fortuyn's death - puts him only two percentage points behind the leaders, the right-wing Christian Democrats, whose support registers at 20.5%.
Wim Kok's Labour party has been beaten into third
|
Support for Mr Fortuyn's party was registered at 18.5%, which would give it 28 of the country's 150 seats.
The Labour Party of outgoing Prime Minister Wim Kok has slid to 16.5%, the poll suggests - dramatically lower than the 29% it achieved in the 1998 election.
If the poll is accurate, it would mean Labour losing nearly half its 45 seats.
|
|
 The sympathy vote will generate extra support - the problem is that no-one knows if they are able to offer suitable people for the
 |
|
|
|
Kees Lunshof
|
All election campaigning was stopped after Mr Fortuyn's murder, but BBC correspondents said it had been thought that his party could benefit from a sympathy vote.
Dutch political commentators told BBC News Online that Mr Fortuyn's party was very likely to be in the new Dutch cabinet, if the poll predictions were accurate.
His party could get as many as four or five seats in the 12-member cabinet, said Kees Lunshof of De Telegraaf newspaper.
The Netherlands was shocked at Pim Fortuyn's murder
|
"The sympathy vote will generate extra support," he told BBC News Online.
"The problem is that no-one knows if they are able to offer suitable people for the job - it's such a new party."
And Frank Poortuyes, of De Volkskrant newspaper, said the left was "taking a hammering" partly because some voters held it responsible for demonising Mr Fortuyn, thereby playing a role in his murder.
The margin of error of the opinion poll is 1.8% for the big parties.
More than 2,100 people were interviewed, fewer than the usual sample of 3,000, as polling was also suspended temporarily after Mr Fortuyn's death.
 |
|||||
|
One thing that I can't figure out is why, if immigration is needed so badly in Europe, do they not shift to migrants from Central & South America, and Eastern Europe, home to people eager to assimilate.
So. Your new criterion for allowing people to inhabit a land is military conquest...well, that doesn't really quite square with your earlier assertion "Netherlands for the Dutch, France for the French, etc.". To be logically consistent, you should say "land for whoever can conquer it militarily". Unless, of course, you agree that whoever is born in a particular country should be considered a citizen of it, but somehow, methinks you'd be all against that...
Hmm... what should happen, in your mind, then, if, say, a Dutchman and an Englishwoman have a child: split the difference and throw it into the North Sea? Or would you rather institute some nice little laws against miscegenation, just to keep the "races" pure?
Quite frankly (and this is more for the benefit of those non-knee-jerkers out there), immigration would cease to be a contentious issue if we got rid of the welfare state. Immigrants who come willing to work hard and not live on the dole should be welcomed with open arms. They contribute mightily to growth in productivity, and growth in productivity fuels capitalism. Growth in capitalism fuels economic freedom, and economic and political freedom are inseperable.
Tell you what- please list the nation or peoples of a landmass who have, throughout history, VOLUNTARILY allowed themselves to become a minority in their own homeland? Has it ever happened? No? Then why do social engineering Leftists, and their neo-con allies insist that it happen in this day and age---but ONLY to European homelands and peoples?
As for your gratuitous and irrelevant comment on "miscegenation", laws against such are completely inappropriate in my mind, as I may be a paleo, but also a libertarian. But, since you brought it up, what in the world prompts you to call a Dutch-English birth "miscegenation"?
As for your gratuitous and irrelevant comment on "miscegenation", laws against such are completely inappropriate in my mind, as I may be a paleo, but also a libertarian. But, since you brought it up, what in the world prompts you to call a Dutch-English birth "miscegenation"?
To begin with: nope, not a neo-con (ooo, that was a nasty slur!). Interesting how you define neo-con, though--anyone who is not anti-immigration? Next: comment on miscegenation--not gratuitous, nor irrelevant. Your comment about "Netherlands for the Dutch, etc." prompted it. Or how DO you define "Dutch" or "French"? By blood? By place of birth? If it's by place of birth, then you nullified your premise. If it's by blood, then the only way to maintain "Netherlands for the Dutch and France for the French, etc." is to not intermarry, n'est-ce pas? Logical consistency, my friend. Additionally, you call yourself libertarian? I think you will find that libertarians (yes, with a small "L") generally tend to favor immigration.
Just for the record, however, I don't disagree with Mr. Fortuyn on certain counts: non-assimilating Muslims are causing problems in many of their "host countries" (and no, I don't believe in cultural relativity, I do believe that American/Western civ is inherently superior to others, especially in its recognition of the concept of natural law, the Rights of Man and the dignity of the individual)--however, there would be no incentive for them to emigrate to these countries if the welfare state were not so "generous". Immigrants who are putting in 14-hour at the auto-body shop, busting their butts cleaning house and mowing lawns or 16-hour days in the fields are just too damn tired to plan terrorist attacks.
And, again, read up on your history: American culture is not static. The American Southwest has ALWAYS (let me repeat that, since it obviously is not getting through to many people) ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS been influenced by Hispanic culture, and California has ALWAYS been influenced by Asian culture. But what makes us Americans is not whether we eat Wonderbread rather than tortillas or pita bread (thank GOD for that), but a common belief in those basic principles outlined in the Constitution and the Declaration, the dignity of the individual and what constitutes civil society.
And a last general commentary... Every generation has its cultural scapegoat. Oh, those *insert one of the follwing here: the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans, the Poles, the Vietnamese...*, they're overwhelming our Anglo-Saxon culture. America will never survive their invasion! Well, history has proven this "conventional wisdom" wrong time after time. Dismantle the welfare state and teach American values and you have a much better answer. (But then, Paleos never could quite reconcile the concept of individual freedom with their desire to control individual's actions...)
Maybe it's because there have been some high profile "honor killings", whereby the Muslim father murders his daughter to protect the family's "name".
The election is on Wednesday.
Our friend's Norwegian au pair, after 6 months of erratic behavior, which included smashing up the family car, ran off last Saturday...apparently to become a stripper. If she ever turns up, however, we'll send her your way.
To a chance observer, it translates as "nevermind, I've started something I can't finish."
That's a good point.
I emphasize one on one contact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
