This question is actually not answering.You must first know what you expect from a politician. Is a good politician a man or woman who manages to realise his political goals without being settled by the electorate?
Take Rutte, he has seized the recession to achieve political goals.A political core goal of the VVD is a small government. People have to see their own problems to solve. During the recession, he cut down the whole public sector, under the guise of inevitable crisis policy. The reality is that because of that policy the housing need has increased enormously, there are far too few nurses, the education on the slats hangs, the judicial power has become too small and the police are decomposed. The armed forces have become a kind of remunerated scout.
In fact, in a recession as a government, you need to stimulate the economy.For example, you have to let the housing corporations build at full power. After all, they do not suffer from the economic situation and keep many people at work. It will cost you as state no penny. He has not done that. He imposed a heavy levy on them, which almost stopped construction production. Because of all this, we are much harder hit by the crisis and we are now having all sorts of problems.
Rutte sells it with a smile.He pretending that he has piloted the country great through the recession. He says nothing about the stagnant wage development and the increased burden on individuals and the tax burden on business. Is he now a good politician because he manages to reach his political goals, or is he a bad politician because he has made a heavier living for the average Dutchman on the twill?
Take Wilders.He conducts an anti-Islam policy. He seizes every opportunity to express his grievances against this belief. Meanwhile, large parties have taken a number of points from him and many more people realise that Muslims have a totally different view of the world than Westerners and that those visions are seriously collide on a number of points. He never ruled and never will. Nevertheless, as a kind of parliamentary action Group, he has strongly influenced the thinking of his subject. Is He a good politician or a shouwer on the sidelines?
Now Gertjan Segers, a Christian politician who is the model of trustworthiness and sincerity. The question is whether he can achieve really political goals with his ethical style or whether he is more of a handy contributor to the larger government parties?
Jesse Klaver is a gifted parliamentarian, but he could have sat in the government.He could have achieved his political goals better than in the opposition. Does his style and star quality make him a top politician, or is he just a political group president who has passed a major opportunity?
My personal favourite is Pieter Omtzigt of the CDA.He has so many preferred voices that he can sail a bit his own course. He is energetic and dives deeply into all sorts of dossiers and fights very hard there. He has his own network of journalists who regularly provides interesting news. This brings him to the attention of his subjects. Well regarded, he is the type of chamber member you want to have 150 of. But alas, the bulk consists of benchers who are mainly doing what they are instructed by the Group chairman.
I hate politics so it would nie know
The best politicians are diplomatically skilled and do what is best for their country, Europe and, if possible, the rest of the world and not-like Mark Rutte what (only/mainly) is good for him and his supporters.They also remain consistent: example is Silvio Berlusconi. In The Netherlands Thierry Baudet Although he is (much) less diplomatic than the first. Two more: Ahead Sybrand Buma (unfortunately now local politician, but the question does not indicate that this is not allowed) that there are three: the fourth may be Angela Merkel.
They are all motivated to want to commit changes that benefit their supporters, but everyone wears a different vision that is not always equal to other political parties.I cannot appoint 4 best politicians because they all do their best to what lies in their power and is connected to their powers. The 1 struggle for the fight against infrastructure for preserving nature, the other struggle for the preservation of national identity, the other struggle for tax enhancement in the guise of the social card to be able to optimise, while another party is Again solidified for flora and fauna care and culture and another again wants to represent the Christian faith and ultimately they all compete in their own unique and sometimes strange way for an improvement of society, only what means Individual improvement of society on 18 million people by now? So in my personal opinion there are no best politicians, there are people who can better express themselves in politics and bring their ideals out in a somewhat credible way, but to appoint them as best in contrast To other politicians that is going to take me too far.