Talk:Prime Minister of the Netherlands

Untitled

This page should be merged with List of Prime Ministers of the Netherlands, because both are lists of the same, but one is longer than the other. In merging we could expand the article. --C mon 12:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not a very staunch resister to this suggestion, I'd like to point out that a "List of ..." entry has a specific function in wikipedia, which should IMO not include general information which should on the other hand be contained in the article Prime Minister of the Netherlands. I therefore propose we keep both separate articles, remove the list from the article and expand the article with more info on the history and constitutional role of the prime minister.--Dengo 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the list does have a point, and this article needs expansion. --YB 07:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought he resigned due to the welfare payments scandal?!

How does this guy get to stay in his position?! He resigned himself and his whole cabinet due to the above-mentioned scandal, and merely kept his seat until the general vote to maintain a 'some' presence as PM. That looks really bad! The page needs a Scandal section with these details recorded.2A00:23C7:5998:C701:9961:8D6:4DFF:D870 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume uou mean Rutte with "this guy"? I disagree these details are to be recorded on this page, it should be on Rutte's own article.

Lugrasio (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Head of government

Is the prime minister the head of government? Aecis removed it from the article, and then I reverted him saying I'll figure this out. He responded by adding some useful comments to my talk.

Here is what I found so far:

1. The Dutch constitution is extremely fuzzy on the issue. It adds no hierarchy to prime minster, ministers and king. None of them would be head of anything this way. Furthermore it does not differentiate between state and government.
2. The english wikipedia says that head of government is "the chief officer of the executive branch of a government, often presiding over a cabinet." And lists all equivalents of the Dutch prime minister.
3. The prime minister is often referred to by the media as regeringsleider (leader of government).
4. In protocol, which separates between heads of state and heads of government, the Dutch prime minister is treated as a head of government; and the queen as a head of state.
5. Handbooks on Dutch politics like Andeweg & Irwin do not discuss this issue, but instead focus on prime minister vs. Queen; handbooks of comparative politics like Gallagher, Laver and Mair, separate between head of state and prime minister.
6. Aecis mentioned both parlement.com and the Dutch wikipedia as a source. I don't trust the Dutch wikipedia article. I intend to re-write it. And the parlement.com-reference concerned the Speech from the Throne and not the issue head of state/government and might as well be a slip of the tongue.

For me, there is not sufficient proof either way. I propose to do the following.

"The prime minister of the Netherlands is the chair of the Dutch cabinet. As such he is the de facto head of government of the Netherlands."

- C mon 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The constitution is not fuzy. It clearly defines the role of the prime minister. That this might entail some kind of 'de facto' powers in the eyes of some, is neither here nor now. Intangible2.0 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The constitution states 2:42 "De regering wordt gevormd door de Koning en de ministers." And that's basically all: it does not make a hierarchical order between those offices. C mon 19:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so why speak of head of government at all when there is no hierarchy? Intangible2.0 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Because he de facto has this role, while de jure the Netherlands has neither head of state or head of government. C mon 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case, it should become obvious from the article itself (in describing the roles of the prime minister, etc.). No need for big words (especially not in the introduction), that tend to put a stamp on the article. Intangible2.0 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For me the entire article is one big obviosity, but it might not be for other reasons. For them it has to be clear immediately what the Prime Minister of the Netherlands is, namely its de facto head of government. C mon 23:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On hindsight, I agree with C mon on the sources I provided. Other wikis are not reliable sources, and while parlement.com imo is a reliable source, it only discusses the issue in passing, and it could indeed be caused by confusion. What can be said, is the following. There are three important concepts: the regering (government), the kabinet (cabinet) and the ministerraad (council of ministers). The regering consists of the King/Queen and the ministers, the kabinet consists of the ministers and the secretaries of state, and the ministerraad is made up of all the ministers. Both the kabinet and the ministerraad are chaired by the prime minister, who is nominally equal to other ministers ([1]). The King/Queen is nominally head of the government. But common practice is that the King/Queen is only marginally involved in politics behind the scenes, so the Prime Minister acts as the leader of the government. I'll look into this further, since the issue is not as clear as I thought it was. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I say: let's use C Mon's suggestion to use 'de facto' in this issue. It may be wise to also relate this to the European Council, which gives the title 'head of government' a formal content in the international context. --Dengo 12:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use international context, a UK prime minister has considerably more powers than a Dutch prime minister, when you look at their political system. Yet, when giving both the status of de facto head of governments, it would almost put the Dutch office at the same footing as the British one. Intangible2.0 16:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. When I checked Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, I did get an idea for how to handle the situation. I propose we make the intro somtehing like:

"The Prime Minister is in practice the most important political office in the Netherlands. He's the chair of the Dutch cabinet and responsible for coordinating the policy of the government. In that capacity the Prime Minister is the Dutch member of the European Council, alongside other heads of state or government."

This way, we'd correctly describe both his actual position within Dutch politics and his position within the European context, without actually having to call him head of government (which he is in fact not, particularly since he can not hire and fire ministers the way the British PM can)--Dengo 21:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually value I reference to the head of government-article in the intro. Furthermore I would prefer the introduction to the discuss the de jure situation before the de facto situation. So I propose

"The Prime Minister of the Netherlands is the chair of the Dutch cabinet and responsible for coordinating the policy of the government. In practice he holds the most important political office in the Netherlands and is de facto head of state government. In that capacity the Prime Minister is the Dutch member of the European Council, alongside other heads of state and government."

- C mon 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather like it, but I hope you mean de facto head of government not state. In the majority of countries in Europe, the head of state (be it president or king/queen), is relatively powerless. If I'm not mistaken, France is the only EU-country that is represented by the head of state in the European Council.--Dengo 18:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right. Fascinatingly Cyprus is a presidential republic and therefore only represented by its president and I thought the French and the Finnish had dual representation of both prime minister and president, because of their semi-presidentialism. C mon 23:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, all member states come to a European Summit (meeting of the European Council) with more than one representative. The Dutch foreing minister always comes with the PM for instance, so I wouldn't be surprised if the French PM hangs around as well. But the official 'council' consists of one representative per member state. I say: if no one objects to C mon's proposal for the intro within a few days, we go for it.--Dengo 12:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Officially, the head of government is the Queen, but de facto she has no influence at all and the prime minister is. He is officially the head of the cabinet. Salaskan 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you're making it sound too easy Salaskan. The problem we were discussing was actually the fact that the PM is NOT 'officially the head of the cabinet'. OFFICIALLY he's only the chair of the council of ministers and responsible for coordinating government policy AND the representative to the European Council. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dengo (talk • contribs) 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Dutch constitutionial doctrine is in complete consensus that The Netherlands do not have a Head of Government. The reason for this is that government is formed by both King and ministers. So if there were a Head of Government it should be the King. However, this is precluded by ministerial responsibility. Now one could claim that the PM is the de facto Head of Government but such a statement would be very problematic. It would imply the, unproven, subclaim that the rôle of the King is in fact ceremonial and thus the cabinet could be equated to the government.--MWAK (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it is quite obvious from the perspective of an informed observer that the monarchy is effectively emasculated from having anything other than a ceremonial and symbolic role, given the way the constitution is written. Furthermore it is also apparent that the Prime Minister is the "head of government" in a teleological reading, and with respect to comparative cases in other European constitutional monarchies (excluding Sweden due to their unique constitutional arrangements). RicJac (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Living former prime ministers

Hey, WildComet. I never meant to suggest that my removal was in any way related to guidelines established in WP:TRIV. Regardless, I still believe shining a light on any living former prime ministers is undue nonsense and more specifically, WP:Out of scope with regard to the fact that the WP:TOPIC of the article is about the position, role, and history of prime minister of the Netherlands itself. Additionally, the status of living former prime minister is nothing more than a statistic (WP:NOTSTATS). Finally, this type of triviality is already dealt with more appropriately in List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by age. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 21:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention Jay D. Easy, the reason why I restored this is because precedent on articles of heads of state and government such as at President of the United States and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom includes a list of living officeholders. With regards to WP:Out of scope, the content is obviously encyclopedic, as there are multiple articles that are just lists of PMs by education, age, religion, etc., as well as the fact that this is an established inclusion on high-traffic articles. WP:NOTSTATS wouldn't apply here because the entire article isn't just a list, just an excerpt from the main article which was already established as valid content. WildComet (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@WildComet: you raise a fair point. However, I believe you misinterpret WP:Out of scope. Whether the content is encyclopedic or not is neither here nor there. Simply put, it feels out of place. Although I admit I may be influenced by its ill-suited location within the article, which I feel only raises its prominence and out-of-place feel. I'll see if I can add a little improvement with a few tweaks here and there. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 22:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can probably expand with post-tenure activities like in the US president article to give some background. I may see if I can add anything to this when I have some time as well. WildComet (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Google Search result shows ‘Mark kutje’

When you Google ‘Prime Minister Netherlands’ in the results you’ll find the wiki page, in the text preview it says ‘Mark kutje’ Dutch for ‘Mark pussy’. Quite childish. On the page itself, I can’t find ‘Mark kutje’ anywhere. 85.144.250.154 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Was indeed vandalism, from December 2021. Was done in an infobox field that was not visible in the article itself but did show up in Google. Has now been reverted and Google displays correct info again. Thanks for mentioning.--Wolbo (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"President of the Netherlands" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect President of the Netherlands and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 14#President of the Netherlands until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s Dick Schoof now

2 July 68.199.243.137 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Prime Minister of the Netherlands → Prime minister of the Netherlands – In the article itself and on most other places, we write Prime minister without the first letter of minister in capital letter, except in the title. Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• I believe the third bullet point in MOS:OFFICE prescribes this capitalization and explains why it should not be used in most other cases. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Tristan Surtel so is the oppose or support, just so we're clear? YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to get clarification on the capitalization standards. The page I linked suggests the current article title is correct. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, so you can oppose on that basis :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:OFFICE and WP:CONSISTENT with many other articles. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tristan Surtel, the third bullet point of MOS:JOBTITLES gives this example an exception as it is used as a title itself, and is not preceded with "the" etc. As well as WP:CONSISTENT with other Prime Minister articles. The lead should remain de-capitalised, as it is used with "the" preceding, and generically as stated in JOBTITLES. DankJae 18:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, as while consistency isn't policy, I don't see a good reason to decapitalize, especially considering the English language often does capitalize both words in the relevant job title. We're an English wikipedia, not the Dutch one. Personally I'm predicting a WP:SNOW InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 13:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Consistency with other articles on unique positions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.