On Thursday evening, October 23, 2025, VVD leader Dilan Yeşilgöz found herself on the defensive during the most-watched Dutch election debate in history, with over two million viewers watching on SBS. Accused by rivals of abandoning liberalism and sliding toward the far right, the once-dominant center-right party was painted as out of touch, antisocial, and dangerously close to Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders. The debate, held in Amsterdam, wasn’t just another campaign clash—it was a reckoning for Dutch politics.
The Accusations: A Party Losing Its Soul
Frans Timmermans, head of the GreenLeft-Labour alliance, didn’t mince words: "The VVD has become indistinguishable from the far right on migration and social issues, having abandoned its principles for political expediency." He accused Yeşilgöz of normalizing Wilders’ rhetoric by negotiating with his party, a move that once would’ve been unthinkable for a party that once championed individual liberty and social cohesion. Henri Bontenbal of the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) zeroed in on policy. "Your proposals would leave vulnerable citizens without essential support," he said, holding up a VVD plan to slash housing allowances and tighten welfare eligibility. "That’s not conservatism. That’s cruelty dressed up as fiscal responsibility." The crowd in the studio fell silent. Even moderates were unsettled. The attacks weren’t just about policy. They were about identity. For decades, the VVD was the party of entrepreneurs, civil liberties, and pragmatic governance. Now, opponents argued, it was chasing votes by echoing the most divisive elements of Wilders’ platform—anti-immigration rhetoric, distrust of institutions, and a dismissive attitude toward social safety nets.Wilders’ Shadow: The Unseen Player
The debate’s elephant in the room was Geert Wilders. He’d been absent from earlier debates after the Dutch National Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism and Safety (NCTV) warned him of a suspected terrorist plot involving three men arrested in Antwerp, who allegedly planned to use a drone with a homemade explosive against politicians—including Belgian PM Bart De Wever. Wilders suspended his campaign on October 13, 2025, but returned for this SBS event, appearing briefly to answer moderator Wilfred Genee’s pointed question: "Will you be with us all evening, Mr. Wilders?" His presence loomed large. Even when he didn’t speak, his shadow did. The VVD’s attempts to distance itself from Wilders rang hollow to many voters. Polls showed his PVV leading by 8 points. Yeşilgöz’s earlier dismissal of Wilders as "one man with a Twitter account" now looked like a desperate bluff.The Backdrop: A Nation on Edge
This wasn’t just a debate—it was a symptom. On October 22, 2025, just one day before the SBS event, Frans Timmermans was verbally attacked in an Amsterdam café by a man who gave a Nazi salute. He posted afterward: "The social majority of good people is stronger. We will not let ourselves be intimidated." The incident, widely shared on social media, underscored how toxic the atmosphere had become. Political commentator Tom-Jan Meeus wrote in NRC that Wilders has "been poisoning the political debate for over a decade"—through the normalization of the Great Replacement theory, the undermining of parliament, and the relentless amplification of fear. The VVD’s shift, he argued, wasn’t accidental. It was a response to a changed landscape—one where fear sells, and nuance is seen as weakness.What’s at Stake: The Death of the Center?
The VVD used to be the anchor of Dutch politics. Since 2010, it had led or co-led every coalition government. But now, it’s caught between a rising far right and a left that sees it as compromised. The party’s traditional base—middle-class professionals, small business owners, urban voters—is fracturing. Some are turning to the CDA. Others to the socialists. Many aren’t voting at all. The October 27 penultimate debate, reported by NL Times as "accusations and insults galore," and the final clash on October 28, described by RFI as "marked by fierce exchanges, personal attacks and some genuine discussion," confirmed a grim trend: Dutch politics is no longer about policy differences. It’s about moral boundaries.What Happens Next?
The general election is set for October 29, 2025. Even if the VVD survives, its identity crisis won’t. Polls suggest the PVV will be the largest party, but unlikely to form a government alone. That means negotiations will be messy. And if the VVD joins a coalition with Wilders—or even tolerates his influence—it risks becoming irrelevant to the very voters it once represented. The real question isn’t who wins. It’s whether the Netherlands still believes in a center that doesn’t have to become a clone of the far right to stay relevant.Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the VVD being accused of becoming far-right?
Critics point to the VVD’s recent policy shifts—cutting welfare benefits, adopting stricter immigration rules, and refusing to rule out coalition talks with Geert Wilders’ PVV. These moves mirror PVV positions once considered unacceptable for mainstream parties. Former VVD voters say the party has traded its liberal principles for electoral gains, especially after losing ground to the PVV in recent polls.
How did Geert Wilders return to campaigning after suspending it?
Wilders paused his campaign on October 13, 2025, after the Dutch NCTV warned of a suspected terrorist plot involving three men arrested in Antwerp who allegedly planned to use a drone with a homemade explosive against politicians. Though the NCTV later said there was no "residual threat," Wilders only resumed appearances after reassurances from security officials—and only for the most high-profile events, like the SBS debate, where media attention could amplify his message.
What impact did the Nazi salute incident have on the debate?
The October 22 attack on Frans Timmermans in an Amsterdam café shocked the public and framed the debate as a battle for the nation’s moral compass. It gave urgency to accusations that the VVD’s rhetoric was emboldening extremists. Timmermans used the moment to call for unity, contrasting his vision of a tolerant society with what he called the VVD’s "socially destructive" policies.
Is the VVD still a viable political force after this debate?
It’s in survival mode. While still the second-largest party in polls, its traditional voter base is eroding. Younger voters see it as outdated; older voters fear it’s becoming radicalized. Its future depends on whether it can reassert its liberal identity without alienating voters drawn to hardline positions—or risk becoming a footnote in Dutch politics.
What role did media play in shaping the debate’s impact?
SBS’s broadcast drew over two million viewers, making it the most-watched political debate in Dutch history. Live social media reactions amplified key moments—like Bontenbal’s welfare critique and Timmermans’ "indistinguishable from the far right" line—turning them into viral soundbites. Media outlets like NRC and NL Times then framed the debate as a turning point, pressuring parties to respond before election day.
Why does this matter beyond the Netherlands?
The Netherlands is seen as a model of stable, consensus-based democracy. If its center-right party abandons liberalism to compete with populists, it signals a broader European trend: mainstream parties are surrendering ground to the far right not through ideology, but through fear. What happens in Amsterdam may echo in Berlin, Paris, and beyond.