The Netherlands risks becoming ungovernable. The main cause of the housing crisis is the migration crisis. The country needs new cities. These were the statements at the election debate Who Builds the Future, organized by Studium Generale.

The Blauwe Zaal was full, with nearly 300 students, a few staff members, and some visitors from outside the university. For the first time, two extra rows of seats were added to accommodate the large number of attendees. Previous editions had between 150 and 200 visitors. The organizers are unsure what caused the increased interest.

Upon entry, everyone received three colored cards. Only occasionally did they go up in the air, for example, when asked who was voting for the first time (a few dozen), who was voting for the second time (a similar number), and who had lost count (the majority).

Playful jab

One of the candidate MPs asked debate leader Erik Stam beforehand what to expect: a fight, lots of one-liners, or a civil conversation. It soon became clear that the eight debaters often agreed on content. A civil conversation, then, with occasional playful jabs or humorous remarks.

Eight of the eleven invited parties attended: Volt, PvdD, GroenLinks-PvdA, D66, SP, NSC, CDA, and VVD. The candidates were between positions 5 and 21 on their party lists. PVV, BBB, and JA21 declined to participate. The audience cheered when Jade van der Linden of GroenLinks-PvdA took the floor; she was the only woman among the other candidates and a TU/e alumna.

The candidate MPs were allowed to give a score for how governable they felt the Netherlands is. VVD and D66 were the most optimistic. CDA, SP, and GroenLinks-PvdA were the most concerned. The latter accused the governing parties of creating a mess. They believe the Netherlands is governable, but only with the right people at the controls.

Courage and decisiveness

What needs to happen to make the country more governable? Most parties agreed: there must be much more cooperation. “Decent and solution-oriented,” emphasized the CDA. “More courage and decisiveness are needed,” added GroenLinks-PvdA. “We need each other to address important dossiers such as the housing shortage and the nitrogen crisis.”

There were also concrete ideas. VVD wants to introduce an electoral threshold, NSC aims for more regional connections, and Volt calls for more long-term policy. PvdD seeks solutions in reducing livestock farming. This would lift the nitrogen restrictions and allow more construction. “Otherwise, the consequences will fall on you, the new generation,” was the warning.

A member of the student faction Groep-één in the University Council highlighted the urgency of the student housing shortage. “Every year, 3,000 new students enroll at TU/e. This year, 500 had to withdraw because they could not find housing.” He called for the creation of sufficient affordable student housing, a plea that resonated with the audience.

Additional investment

Most parties want to build more housing for groups such as students and the elderly. They also support measures like allowing house splitting, building upwards or on plinths, and shortening permit and appeal procedures. The construction of ten new cities, an initiative by D66, was less well received by other candidates: “Unrealistic” and “it takes too long,” they said. NSC invited students from Built Environment in the audience to contribute ideas.

According to the debaters, the housing crisis is not caused by the migration crisis. Knowledge migrants and international students are needed, especially in this region. However, the arrival of around 100,000 people per year does raise concerns for NSC and Volt. “Universities have a perverse incentive to attract international students, but not enough housing is being built,” Volt stated.

Education was discussed only briefly, but in the closing remarks, D66 added that the party wants to invest an additional €5.1 billion. “Invest in education and research, and you invest in the future of the Netherlands.” The SP agreed. Together with D66, the party has drafted a manifesto to support students, including lower tuition fees and a higher basic student grant.

Not much wiser

Before the debate, interaction with the audience had been promised, but apart from a few questions, there was no time for deeper discussion. Fifth-year Industrial Engineering student Mika Schipper found the debate very interesting. “But I don’t feel that I’ve learned much,” he said afterward. “I expected a bit more room for discussion and had hoped the candidates could explain why they hold certain views.”

For Anna, a student in Applied Physics, too few topics were addressed. She cannot base her choice on a party on that. Therefore, she sticks with her preferred party. Yet she continues to attend debates. “During a debate, you might hear another party say things you also agree with. The world changes; it’s important to remain open to different opinions and interests.”

“I would have found it more interesting if a topic had been discussed where the party positions differed more,” said Mink, a student in Human Technology Interaction. “Housing is important, but everyone agrees that building more houses is necessary.”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor.