While it sure wasn't a good economic start-position for Balkenende-I in 2002, let's not forget that the Purple coalition started among an even worse economic constellation in 1994. The big mistake/choice Balkenende made was taking money from the poor (that is, reduce of freeze all kinds of benefits). This made the recession worse, for poor people spend almost all they earn/get (they have a very small saving quote). They also cut subsidised jobs in schools, like janitors and teacher-assistants. Bad for the schools and for the sacked. Cutting deficits is sometimes needed, but where you do it is a choice. This was a very poor choice.

The maximum 3% deficit is actually an invention of Zalm, the Liberal finance minister. He pushed it through at the Euro-negotiations. Nobody adhered to it (France, Germany, Italy and Greece run much deeper deficits year after year) but Zalm demanded it as maximum because ignoring it would mean a body blow to his reputation. But the 3% is not the problem. The problem is the reluctance of the administration to go anywhere near that number (and pay off the debts incurred when the economy returns `to normal') and especially making the wrong cuts.

While the unemployment rate is much lower in the Netherlands than in other countries in the EU, it has risen significantly under Balkenende's watch. Maybe it's on purpose (so that the Liberals can argue that all kind of workers rights should be abolished so the market will create more jobs) or it might be an accident, but the fact is that unemployment has risen in the Netherlands while decreasing or flattened in other European countries.

Balkenende's administration has achieved nothing- good, at least. Even your list of feats consists solely of appointments at international organisations that always look to the Netherlands (because we pay large amounts of money to international organisations). When you ignore the deals employers and unions make, and think you know better, things start going wrong. His economic policies are the worst of both worlds and his liberalization of healthcare insurance is so incredibly nonsensical that just for this policy the coalition should be punished.

Now, the Dutch Army is withdrawing from Iraq. Great. But they shouldn't have been there in the first place! In spite of massive opposition Balkenende followed Bush and joined 'the coalition of the willing'. He was very eager to show his support and destroy the chance for a European front. But most importantly, he followed without thinking. He made the war more credible while doubts over WMD's were shared by a large majority in the Netherlands.

Purple wasn't great- the ideological differences between Labour and the Liberals made effective solution virtually impossible. But they did preside over a huge economic boom, and they didn't destroy it. Also, the Brongersma affair and the social policies (euthanasia, gay marriage) were not controversial. Srebrenica was a huge deal, but not really on the minds of the voters- it just strengthened the feeling that Purple has failed when Fortuyn argued that. This was also the case with ministers who refused to take responsibility and the immigration problems. Purple started immigration reforms that had a significant effect, but now Balkenende's administration has toughened the already tough laws and return refugees to war zones where they are killed (the Congo for example).  

I agree that the Labour has not been a great opposition party. They were barely visible for the first two years of Balkenende II, supposedly because they were convinced they were about to govern with the CDA and so stunned this didn't happen that it took a long time to recover. But Balkenende has not been a good PM. Even if you like his program, he has shown no leadership and is more a liability than an asset for your views. And in the Dutch political system it is pretty much impossible for opposition parties to make laws. As such, their lack of proposals is understandable.

Partisan politics aside, when I and many of my friends look at him, we only see the caricature that comics did of him when he stumbled over every possible stumbling block in the beginning of his administration. All parties say his failing leadership was the reason Balkenende-I ended. His perpetual calls for a return of norms & values- basically a return to the christian ways of the 50s, his criticism of jokes on TV (you shouldn't make fun of the queen) and his strange set of priorities makes him utterly unacceptable to return as PM.

I have to add though that in the last year he seems much more composed, and more of a leader, than before. Maybe he grows in his role- but he's still not acceptable. I think the new Foreign Secretary is the reason for this apparent stability in the coalition (plus the fact that everybody knows that they can't fail a second time if they want to make a credible case to voters).

It's true that there are many swing voters. But it is not unique for the Netherlands, they are perfectly pollable (which party would you most likely vote for?). They will probably swing left. They've seen what Balkenende has tried to do- return `values' while cutting in expenditures and waging unpopular wars. Maybe he'll rebound, you never know- without the constraints of a coalition he might surprise us all. But swing voters are called that for a reason- they don't like any of the parties enough to support them already. Which will make it much more likely that they will vote for an alternative- they have already seen the destructive policies of Balkenende in practice. Of course, this also depends on how Labour defines itself- will it take the center? For more on that, see my recent diary.