Could you take a look at the following question: Talk:House_of_Freedoms#Polo_della_Libert.C3.A0? Did the House of Freedosm really exist in 1994? There was no direct alliance between Lega Nord and the National Alliance at this time. Isnt the House of Freedoms actually a more recent alliance? --Oddeivind (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Freedoms is actually the continuation of the Pole of Freedoms. That coalition was composed basically by FI and LN in 1994 and was present only in Central and Northern Italy. For the 1996 election, the coalition was composed of FI, AN, CCD and CDU (the LN had left and AN joined). In 2001 it was transformed in House of Freedoms with the re-entry of LN and CDU (which left it briefly between 1998 and 2000) and the joining of some small parties (NPSI and PRI, basically). --Checco (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The court approved the referendum, I've read, and now they're supposedly trying to pass a law on electoral reform before the referendum can be held...? Details? Thanks! —Nightstallion 17:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was approved! The Parliament is trying to pass a new electoral law on the basis of the one I described you some weeks ago: the only difference is that it is more close to proportional representation. That's the reason why both Veltroni and Berlusconi do not like it too much and they may both turn in favour of the referendum, as both remarked recently. This is great in my opinion because it will be the only chance for the referendum to pass and finally to approve a law more keen on a winner-takes-all basis! That's all. --Checco (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So as someone in favour of a proportional system with a sensible electoral threshold, I should be in favour of parliament passing a new electoral law before the referendum takes place, then? How likely is that? And how likely is a successful referendum? —Nightstallion 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should. Because if the referendum will pass, it would become very difficult to politicians to act against people's will. How many chances for a reform before the referendum? I would say 40:60, but as there is no agreement between parties and a new series of political crises is damaging the government stability, I think that we are definitely heading toward the referendum. This can pass only if even one of the big parties will decide to support it. Both Berlusconi and Veltroni seem to be thinking about this option as a possible one, in order to get away from the current stalemate. We'll see. Obviuosly if PD and FI will decide to support the referendum it would definitely pass by a landslide. --Checco (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much proportionality would the referendum solution involve? —Nightstallion 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referendums in Italy are only abrogrative so what they can do is simply to cut words and sentences from a bill. This one would shift the majority-premium from the largest coalition to the largest party, so that the first party/list would get 340 members of the Chamber of Deputies (out of 630). An identical system would be applied to the Senate. Tresholds would be raised to 4% for the Chamber and 8% (on regional basis) for the Senate, without exceptions. No candidate would be able to present his candidacy in more than one constituency. Thus the referendum would create a rough electoral system but it would also open the doors for a reform based on a winner-takes-all basis. That's many Italians are supporting it. Proportional representation can be good for many, but most Italians want to choose the government when they elect the Parliament. A proportional representation like the German system would leave the parties free to ally with who they want after the election. --Checco (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the system sounds pretty horrible to me -- it means that a party could have a majority to govern with only 30% of the vote, if enough parties compete... —Nightstallion 10:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The system is pretty horrible, but as we Italians are allowed to propose only abrogative referendums and not propositions, that was the only way to stop the comeback of proportional representation (at least as it was in the "First Republic", without tresholds and coalitions) and to make politician think about other options, more likeable to voters.
95% Italians voted for a first-past-the-post syestem in referendums in 1991 and 1993, and the outcome was a mixed electoral system. Then, in 1999 another referendum for the abolition of the 25% of proportional representation took the 95% of votes in favor, but it fell short from the quorum (49.6% instead of 50%+1, and then it was discovered that in voters' lists there were many dead people: without them the referendum would have passed). It has been a long march: voters against ruling classes, if you want. As I already told you some weeks ago, there is not too much respect of people's will in Italy and the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the people, as constituents feared each other and most of them feared that voter would have given a majority to Communists.
Now, as I said, the new system would be pretty horrible, but it wouldn't be applied to any election, as the Parliament would have a mandate to reform it on a first-past-the-post basis, based on single-seat constituencies, or even in the sense proposed by Veltroni some months ago: only one vote, 50% of MPs elected in single-seat constituencies and 50% in small multi-member constituencies, so that basically only PD, FI, LN and other parties in regional contexts would enter the Parliament. For a more detailed explanation go to the "Reforms 2" section, above.
Actually two systems were discussed during the last months:
the one explained in "Reforms 2" section, named Vassallum after the political scientist who invented it for Veltroni;
the bozza Bianco, after the President of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate, which is more similar to the German system.
Veltroni and Berlusconi (alongside with Maroni, it now seems) strongly like the first one, Fini wants the referendum to succeed but can live with the second one, Casini, Bertinotti and D'Alema support the second one. Small parties seemed to be more keen to the second one, but recently some of them turned in favour of the referendum, as it would be the only system which would make possible for them to enter the Parliament, in coalition with other parties. --Checco (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! When will the date for the referendum be set? (We should create an article, BTW, for the Italian electoral reform referendum, 2008...) And thanks for the congratulation! —Nightstallion 14:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not before the end of March or the beginning of May, I guess. It would be good to start an article, but only if the referendum is to happen at the 100% and, sorry, but at this point I would not be able to write that much. --Checco (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, fair enough. —Nightstallion 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! --Checco (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is Brussels in Flemish Region? No. Is Brussels in Walloon Region? No. Problems in Belgium are based upon language. It's a linguistic issue, not an "ethnic" issue.
The opposition in Belgium is between French-speaking people and Dutch-speaking people. Not between Walloons and Flemish people. For example, you are telling people that FDF is a Walloon political party. FDF isn't even present in the Walloon Region, it's only present in the Brussels-Capital Region and the Flemish Region! The people who are voting for FDF are French-speaking, not Walloon and they won't ever present themselves as Walloons.
Same thing for the Flemish parties : they are present in Brussels so they can't be presented as "Flemish only". Except of course if they are nationalist parties but most of them aren't.
Furthermore, speaking about "Flemish people/parties" isn't even more precise than speaking about "Dutch-speaking people/parties". Actually it's more ambiguous. Are you speaking about the Flemish Region, the Flemish Community, East-Flanders, West-Flanders, Flemish dialects, Old County of Flanders, Flemish Nationalism, etc... Same thing for Walloon.
Beside, a lot of people in Flemish Region don't present themselves as Flemish. I have studied one year in Sint-Truiden. You would present them as Flemish, they would answer they are Limburgians. Again, French-speaking people in Flemish Region are Flemish because they live in "Flanders" and it wouldn't be a problem if they weren't asking for linguistic rights. I can be presented myself as "historically/ethnically Flemish", like lots of people in Northern France... our mother languages are still French and Picard. Not Dutch or Flemish dialects.Auseklis (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with you, but I don't want to start a long battle on a issue that is not so important for me. I will ask anyway to some friend users their opinion. --Checco (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use Flemish for simplicity, frankly. —Nightstallion 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Flemish-speaking media I read the parties are referred to as "Frenchspeaking" and "Flemish" (see for instance this article by the VRT), the French-speaking media speak of "Neerlandophone" and "Francophone" (see this article by RTL), the BBC mainly uses "French-speaking" and "Dutch-speaking", but also dabbles in "Flemish" and "Walloon" (see this article). The Flemish-speaking parties are called "Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten", "Vlaams Belang", "Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams" and "Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie". I would tend to go for "Flemish" and "French-speaking", mainly because that's what the Flemish-speaking media do.
In the meantime, I will revert the last edits of Auseklis, as it seems to me that there is no actual consensus on them. --Checco (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too think the original page was better than what User talk:Auseklis changed. The use of adjectives "Flemish" and "Walloon" are far more explicit than Dutch-speaking and French-speaking. Nevertheless, we could use the term "Brusseler" to speak of the FDF, as Brussels is its main area of propaganda. Stephane.dohet (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution to our debate. As the discussion is growing bigger and bigger, I think that it is better to copy this section in the talk page of the article. There we can continue the discussion and more users can have thier say. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you summarise what you expect to happen? Will Prodi somehow manage to get enough votes against all odds, as he did in February 2007? Will there be a governo tecnico to pass a new electoral law? Will there be early elections under the current, horrible electoral law? —Nightstallion 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, I don't have any idea of what will happen and the only reason why I'm sorry about this situation is that I fear that there will be no changes to the electoral law nor the referendum. Until this morning I thought that Prodi would have been able to manage to get enough votes for a vote of confidence, but during the day a senator, Domenico Fisichella, announced is "no", as two Liberal Democratic senators out of three did (Lamberto Dini and Giuseppe Scalera). I personally think that the best way to get out from that situation is to have a minority government led by Prodi until late Spring in order to make a new electoral law or celebrate the referendum, but I don't now if it is likely or not. As of today a provisional government formed by people from all the major parties or by technocrats seem to me very unlikely because... who would support it? Apart from the centre-left parties, not Berlusconi, not Fini, not Maroni, not Giordano and I don't think that Casini wants to do something like this as it will be damaging for the next electoral campaign. Do you have some ideas? --Checco (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Casini stated he'd be in favour of a technical government? —Nightstallion 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He stated that he'd be in favour of a cross-coalition temporary government, but not without Forza Italia. Berlusconi ruled out that option, as both Fini and Maroni did. --Checco (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. So basically, almost no chance of a new electoral law? —Nightstallion 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Checco, would you know if a Prodi resignation would delay the ratification of the Lisbon treaty in Italia? Intangible2.0 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, sorry I don't know anything about that treaty ratification, but I guess that there will be some delay. Do you know if it was already scheduled? --Checco (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, but it would certainly happen this year, no worries there. —Nightstallion 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mastella apparently claims there are plans for a third, centrist Christian Democratic bloc in Italy...? [1] —Nightstallion 12:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and as a centre-right voter I would approve, but unfortunately it seems more likely that UDEUR will join UDC in a new christian-democratic bloc within the centre-right. Actually UDEUR is split between those who want to stay with the centre-left and those who want to go with Berlusconi. Mastella has ruled out an agreement with Berlusconi, for now, it may be only tactics. Yesterday the UDEUR group in the Chamber of Deputies, dominated by supporters of Prodi, decided to abstain and not to vote against Prodi. Among the three senators of UDEUR, at least one is likely to vote in favour of Prodi today. It's a typical Italian drama or, better, commedy. --Checco (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, no answer or several answers. Everything look insecure, so the only thing I can do for you is to summarize what every party is currently asking to President Napolitano:
FI, AN, LN, PdCI and UDEUR are asking a fresh election;
PD, UDC and other parties of the centre-left want a transitional government (but it is not clear of what lenght and kind);
others (as PRC and IdV) have not yet stated what they would prefer.
These are only the official positions of the parties. It is not to exclude that Berlusconi would prefer to change the electoral law (in order to govern without the blackmail of AN and UDC) and the Constitution (in order to be more effective) and that Veltroni would prefer a fresh election a fresh election in order to disarm his principal political enemies (Prodi and D'Alema, who have a bad relationship too). There is a power struggle within the centre-left and the PD itself. Even Lega Nord, to which Prodi asked support two days ago proposing ministerial posts for Maroni and Calderoli, could be interested to reform quickly the Constitution. The are some options, but everything depends on the outcome of this power struggle. Anyway, three options on the table (ordered by likelyness) are:
a transitional government, led by Prodi, Marini (President of the Senate, who would be replaced by Pisanu of FI, Amato (the evergreen Amato!) or Draghi (Governor of the Bank of Italy), for two or three months with the only goal of making a new electoral law, then a general election;
a fresh election as soon as possible with Prodi in charge of current affairs until that date;
a transitional government for one year, led by Marini or Draghi, formed or supported by mainstream moderate parties (AN, UDC, FI, LN, PD and others, or at least UDC, FI, LN and PD), aimed at reforming the electoral law and the Constitution. --Checco (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Thanks for the analysis. (Though I wouldn't agree that LN is mainstream and moderate... ;)) —Nightstallion 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is one of the few points on which we disagree. I don't want to convince you on LN, but, despite its strong opposition to illegal immigration, the party tends to be very centrist on the issues. That's why Prodi tried to woo it in order to find support for his dead-walking government. --Checco (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How likely is it that Marini will win a vote of confidence? At least a part of UDC now supports him, but is that enough? —Nightstallion 10:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It depends on what Marini thinks he should do. His dilemma is between taking the grave decision of forming a government with a narrow majority as his predecessor Prodi (and taking the risk of loosing his political capital and being considered as an impostor by the majority of the public) or refusing to take such a risky move. Remember that only one senator out of 19 and one deputy out of 38 left UDC for now. But keep attention: Marini did not receive the mandate of forming a government, but simply an explorative mandate, basically the continuation of Napolitano's consultazioni. --Checco (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is sure is that it is very difficult to make a new electoral law. None of the proposed changes will be better than this in term of stability for the next government. Both the parties of the centre-right and those of the centre-left do not agree on the issue. Berlusconi wants to win the election and to govern. The German model would make impossible this and, as neither Fini nor Casini nor Bossi want a plurality-voting system (the only one which could make possible for either FI or the PD to govern alone or with a confortable majority), no changes are possible. Obviously the centre-left wants and electoral law which would make more difficult for Berlusconi to govern and Berlusconi does not agree! --Checco (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WebHamster 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I've been researching this, and I'm assuming that PD Liberal is (and should also be listed as) partidul democrat liberal. Give me something that will pass WP:N and I will reinstate it, as it was right now it did not have any source and I'm sure you understand my apprehension about a political faction founded today. Trusilver 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article had a reference. I don't know why you did not read it. Anyway Liberal PD is the translation of "Liberal PD" (Italian not Romanian!) and means the liberal part of PD, acronym for Democratic Party. Please read articles before deleting them! --Checco (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already like the change made to it, and I've been reading news on the subject as it comes in. Supposing this doesn't turn into a fifteen minute flight of fancy (which is the thing I immediately have reservations about when I see article written about something that happened within 24 hours) that is all but forgotten tommorow, and accounting for Italy's tendency to splinter and form new parties at the drop of a hat (any hat... from anyone....anywhere), I don't see any reason to CSD or AfD this. You have got my vote as it is now. Trusilver 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your balance and good faith. Hope to see you again. --Checco (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what are the likely upcoming changes in the party system?
The White Rose will be founded on 4 Feb; will this be the "white thing", or just one of the participants in a Christian democratic bloc? Who else will join them?
Freedom People will be founded on 27 Mar -- or will it? What if the election is held earlier? Which parties are really going to join it?
The Socialist Party will be founded on 6 Apr. What about the Democratic Left? Will it join either PD or PS, or will it do something else? Will it contest elections as part of The Left? —Nightstallion 12:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions have double answers, as almost everything will happen will depend on the electoral law with which the next election will be fought. The most likely option is that we will vote with the current one and so there will be no need of merging parties thanks to the low, Dutch-alike tresholds.
The White Rose is a mysterious project as of today. It is not even clear if it will be a united party or a coalition of parties. There is also a lot of speculation about who will be part of it and this could mean a lot. Is a little bit different if Di Pietro or Mastella is to join, if the "thing" will be the party of digruntled Christian Democrats or of the poteri forti (strong powers), starting from Confindustria. Italy of Values, UDEUR Populars, Liberal Democrats and other centrist or populist parties may join, as also important personalities: Savino Pezzotta (almost certain), Luca Cordero di Montezemolo and Mario Monti. Obviously some options exclude others: the presence of either Di Pietro or Mastella would exclude the other one. It is also a little bit difficult to imagine a party led by Tabacci, Baccini and Pezzotta, but, anyway, at least they have a common Christian Democratic background.
About the Freedom People party, it is likely that the foundation will be postponed after the election, so that even National Alliance could join. A big change, isn't it? It is also likely that Forza Italia will fight the elections as "Forza Italia-Freedom People" or "Forza Italia for the Freedom People", opening its lists to fresh faces (as Capezzone of Decide!), to the members of the Freedom Circles and small parties, such as DCA, NPSI, RL, PRI and so on. Some of these parties could fight the election with a separate list if there won't be higher tresholds.
The Socialist Party will be founded either on that date, before or later: it depends on the date of the election! The Democratic Left will fight the election alone or, maybe, in list with the Greens if if there won't be higher tresholds and every party of The Left is likely to do the same. There is only a remote chance of a united list composed of the four far-left parties, but I wouldn't exclude it yet.
Is everything clear? If the answer is "no", don't worry: it is not clear even to me! --Checco (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, with the current electoral law, the small party era will simply continue with different names, but with a new electoral law, there might be changes? —Nightstallion 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it depends on what kind of electoral law and any kind of reform seems not so likely. Obviously a reform modelled on the German system (what both Marini and Tabacci would like) would strenghten big parties and force small ones to merge, but also make more difficult to form a stable government after the election. If there will be such a system, you would probably have basically 6 parties: AN, FI, LN, UDC-white thing, PD and The Left. --Checco (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would mean either a right-wing government with AN/FI/LN/white or a left-wing government with PD/Left/white... Wouldn't La Destra and the Socialist Party also have chances of getting into parliament on their own? —Nightstallion 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In presence of a 5% treshold no, but there is a but. In the last version of the bozza Bianco, parties would enter the Parliament if they take 5% nationally or 7% in at least 5 constituencies (26 in total). La Destra would find very difficult anyway, while the Socialists could enter, as they will take more than 7% in Calabria, Basilicata, and maybe Campania 1, Campania 2 and Apulia. In any case they would be able to surpass the tresholds if they form a joint-list with the Radicals. --Checco (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your assertion above, I would like to tell you that, yes, this could work in a normal country, but in Italy it would mean instability and the succession of governments we experienced from 1946 to 1994. --Checco (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems the party system is in a state of flux right now, with all the allegiance changes, isn't it? —Nightstallion 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Actually it seems that everything could change. Obviuosly a new electoral law would be the major cause of other big changes, but even now may things have changed. Actually, it is possible that in the next election there will be four coalitions instead of two: the House of Freedoms, a centrist pole, the Democratic Party and its allies, The Left. Evey coalition will have its candidate for prime minister, so, at least, we would have more interesting political debates, despite all the regulations that make them rare events. The Left would do something intriguing, it seems: a ticket composed by a man (Vendola? Bertinotti?) and a woman (Francescato?).
Today I'm more possibilistic about electoral reform: what may happen is that Marini forms a government with the support of the centre-left, then UDC decides to support a reform and finally Berlusconi understands that the only way to prevent a punitive electoral law for the centre-right is to negotiate. He may be also interested in postponing the election to June becausein this way the next Parliament will elect the new President in 2013 and that President could be Berlusconi himself. Today Gianni Letta, the closest aide to Berlusconi, met with leading centre-left leaders, including Marini, it seems. Interesting... --Checco (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears that things might change after all for the better, then... —Nightstallion 14:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, the only thig we can do is to wait until Monday or Tuesday. Newspapers seem one day optimistic about a new government and the other day pessimistic. Today pessimism prevails. --Checco (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When will the vote of confidence be held? —Nightstallion 14:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and could you be so kind as to let me know when something important occurs? For instance, what was that Montezemolo said today about the next elected parliament to be a Constituent Assembly for a new constitution? —Nightstallion 14:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He simply repeated what Berlusconi, Fini, Casini and Rotondi are saying since the beginning of the crisis. I find rather strange anyway that Marini decided to speak with trade unions, Confindustria and other entrepreneurs' associations in order to find evidence that the country want a new government and a new electoral law. The crucial moment will be on Monday, when Marini will meet with Berlusconi, Fini and Veltroni. All the hopes of the centre-left are on Berlusconi. Forza Italia leading members continue to say that a fresh election is the best solution, but, as Berlusconi is almost silent these days (his old mother is close to death), some people hope that he can change his party line. Most pundits, anyway, say that Marini's attempt is doomed to failure and that, as soon as Wednesday or Thursday, Napolitano might dissolve the Parliament. --Checco (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the idea of Fini and Rotondi is basically of electing a Constituent Assembly which would deal with constitutional reform, while the Parliament and the government would govern the country. --Checco (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, actually, that doesn't sound like a bad idea -- might help to differentiate the controversial constitutional issues from everyday politics...
Why would Berlusconi suddenly want to have a new electoral law before early elections?
One more question: I've read that some analysts state that PD has still got chances of winning the election if they form a less close alliance with the communists and leftists -- and that according to some polls, in such a case it would be 48% for the left to 52% for the right... Correct? Details? —Nightstallion 16:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only survey I knew about was one that explaining how the PD would gain 2-3% by running alone, so that the total of the left-wing would also grow from 44% to 46-47%. Every opinion poll published in Italy is consultable on http://www.sondaggipoliticoelettorali.it/asp/visualizza_sondaggi.asp?ordine=data. The problem about electoral reform is that the PD is proposing it to have a better chance of not losing the election. Berlusconi understood this and so he has been not very interested in the issue. Obviously if Marini proposes to Berlusconi an electoral law which can secure him a better majority (without damaging too much his allies), he will think about it. Actually Berlusconi spoke about electoral reform for months and he even reached an agreement with Veltroni (the bozza Vassallo), but finally nothing was done because other centre-left parties and Democratic heavyweights stopped this attempt. Then there was the bozza Bianco and there was the same problem. Then again the bozza Bianco II: Berlusconi was less enthusiastic but continued to negotiate. Then the government fell down. One of the reasons for this is that Mastella wanted to stop any kind of electoral reform which can damage his 1% party (read any electoral reform). How you may understand the problem is not Berlusconi and Veltroni, but the other parties, including AN and UDC which disliked the bozza Bianco. Now way, I would say. --Checco (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't that mean that an agreement between PD and FI would make electoral reform viable? —Nightstallion 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the only good reform is possible if PD and FI makes it together, no matter what Fini, Bertinotti, Casini or Maroni think. The problem is that PD is divided within its ranks and FI does not want to hurt its allies. If PD and FI wanted to make the reform, they could have done it in November when Berlusconi was in collision with Fini and Casini, but at that time the PD was not able to find a common position within its ranks and was under attack from its partners in government and, above all, from Prodi. When an agreement (a viable one also for AN, UDC, LN and PRC) was close to success, the government fell dow because small parties were afraid of losing their power. Now it is Berlusconi who does not want a reform which can damage his allies and, above all, a reform which can damage his prospect of winning the election. Who's right? Everyone, it seems! --Checco (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, currently little chance for a new electoral law? Despite the party changes from and to UDC? —Nightstallion 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct: little chance. But anyway, tomorrow will be THE day... --Checco (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's new? White Rose founded yet? Any news on it, the "white thing" or the electoral law? —Nightstallion 16:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually nothing new yet. Marini finished his consultazioni and will go soon to the Quirinale Palace to speak with Napolitano, who met today with Giuliano Amato and Mario Draghi. I don't know what this means. --Checco (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, Marini gave up this late afternoon. Tomorrow Napolitano will probably meet the speakers of the Chambers, Bertinotti and Marini again, and, although surprises are always possible (especially if these surprises are named Amato or Draghi), may even call a fresh election. I consider this the most likely option, as well as a fresh election on 6 or 13 April. --Checco (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, do you think Berlusconi will win the elections, or does Veltroni stand a chance? —Nightstallion 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berlusconi will win the election hands down and Veltroni has no chances, especially if he will be the candidate of a reduced centre-left coalition composed of PD, IdV, PS and Radicals. The question is if Berlusconi will win by a landslide (more than 54%, thus more than what the majority premium would give him anyway) or by a narrower margin (say 50-52%). If he wins by a landslide, UDC and smaller parties won't be a problem for the stability of the majority. Anyway I think that Berlusconi is thinking of what allies is good to have around (UDC? UDEUR? LD?), but I am afraid that in the end he will try to forge the largest coalition he can. If this will help him to surpass the 54% it would have been the right decision, but it won't this could create him problems. As it is very difficult to surpass the 54%, I would advice him to do what Veltroni wants to do: a more coherent coalition. A FI-AN-LN coalition would be more stable and will easily surpass the 45% needed for getting the majority premium. Moreover, in Parliament there would be a stronger centre-right majority: the 54% of FI-AN-UDC plus UDC and the White Rose. Bizzare outcomes of a bizzarre electoral system! --Checco (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, then. And I suppose it would likely last the full five years? sighs —Nightstallion 21:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. I guess it will be more difficult this time. What is interesting is what kind of premiership will be: compromising or bold? Maybe this time, as he is not up for re-election, he will be more bold... it depends, it depends basically on how strong Fini and Casini will be. --Checco (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it'll be most likely his last term as PM, then, I suppose? —Nightstallion 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and was White Rose founded today as planned? —Nightstallion 22:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing: What about the referendum? Doesn't it have to be held? —Nightstallion 23:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will be definitely his last term as PM (the defining one?) and he himself spoke about being like "a Blair handing power to a Gordon Brown" at some point during the five years.
Today there was in Turin a press conference/public debate in Turin with Tabacci and Baccini, but it was not a real founding convention as they said before. The meeting was attended also by Leoluca Orlando, n. 2 of the Italy of Values, but at this point it is more likely that IdV will form an alliance with the PD.
Nothing new about the referendum. As I explained you some weeks ago, it should be held between April and June, and actually tomorrow the government will set a date, but that date will be postponed as a fresh election will be probably called by the end of the week by Napolitano. In this case the referendum will be postponed to April-June 2009. As of today a fresh election on 6 or 13 April seem the most likely option, unless there will be surprises I cannot foresee now. --Checco (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read some claims that the postponement of the electoral reform referendum would be illegal, and that the early elections *BEFORE* the referendum would thus be unconstitutional...? Or is that incorrect?
What are the likely alliances for the election? —Nightstallion 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you read, but probably who wrote that article misunderstood the problem. The problem is about an article of the electoral law which may be unconstitutional. But this is only a claim. The other things you understood are not correct: it is perfectly legal to call an election before the referendum and to postpone it.
The likely alliances are likely, in fact... nothing sure and nothing new from what I told you yesterday (see above): basically House of Freedoms, "white thing", PD-PS-IdV, The Left. --Checco (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Thanks! So we'll need to overhaul our party templates, mh? ;) —Nightstallion 23:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need it and I was thinking about it today, but I think also that we should wait until electoral lists are presented. At that time we will have the complete framework. Ok for you? --Checco (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it. The problem is that sometimes I find difficult to understand how the complete template works... but I'll figure it out. I constantly update also List of political parties in Italy. So if you feel that there is something missing there or introduce a new or a defunct party in those templates, remember to take a look at this page. We have a lot of work ahead, it seems... Rumors today are that tomorrow Napolitano will dissolve the Parliament and the election will take place on 13-14 April (two weeks later than the first useful date, 30-31 March). --Checco (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods What precisely is unclear about the complete template? Just ask. :) —Nightstallion 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nothing in particular: it is simply very complex and sometimes I loose my direction! Anyway, it is good to have that template, even if some of the parties included are very irrelevant and nothing more than electoral political action committees of very small groups (5-10 people), which never fought elections and arose to a certain degree of notability because of the Internet (anyone can present himself as the leader of a new big party!) and of it.Wiki, before it changed policy on this. --Checco (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. True enough, yeah. I've been thinking about removing some of the REALLY small ones, myself, but I wouldn't know which ones. —Nightstallion 10:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of them. Others too are unrelevant, but I was not decided about them, especially about all those independentist parties. If you don't agree with some of my changes, let me know... probably I was too bold and, as that template is "yours" to some extent, be free to make all the changes you want. --Checco (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold also in Template:Historical Italian political parties. Even in this case, if you don't agree, make the changes you want. The only thing I wanted to express is that there were a lot of short-lived coalitions which were never formalized. --Checco (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the referendum be postponed for *EXACTLY* one year, or does it just have to be held within a year? —Nightstallion 14:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The referendum would have been on 18 May 2008. As today Napolitano will call a fresh election, the referendum will be postponed for one year, starting from 18 May 2009. Everything obviously is subjected to changes. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Maybe you could write a short article about the referendum, as it how has been called for one date (and then postponed)? —Nightstallion 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know what to write about it. If you want you can do a standard article about a referendum, as you do for other countries. The setting of a date was a formal decision and it is not sure that the referendum will take place, even in 2009: a small change to the electoral law would stop it and I think that the new Parliament will do everything it can to stop it because it will fear of beaing delegitimated by its eventual success. --Checco (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Okay, then we'd better not. —Nightstallion 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly, Berlusconi announced he'd only be PM for three years before stepping down... [2] True? —Nightstallion 10:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what newspapers reported, but I still think that it is more likely for him to almost finish his term and step down only to run for President. --Checco (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Napolitano dissolved the Parliament and today the government will set the election day. Yesterday was the first day of electoral campaign, at least in TV debates. It could be a very beautiful campaign, without the insults, the nastyness, the dullness and the greyness of that of 2006. Both Berlusconi and Veltroni will try to propose a new idea of Italy, without insulting each other, while trying to make voters dream again, as it was in 1994 for Berlusconi, in 1996 for Prodi and in 2001 for Berlusconi again. Yesterday I watched a debate between Anna Finocchiaro, Democratic floor leader in the Senate, and Roberto Maroni, de-facto leader of Lega Nord. It was amasing to hear Finocchiaro praising Maroni and saying that he was a very good minister, while Maroni (always a moderate, but this time astonishing!) saying that the centre-right won't change everything the centre-left did in government and praising the work of his successor at the Ministry of Labour, Cesare Damiano. Moreover, for now, the only real nasty confrontation is between Democrats and their former allies. I hope this could be a new page for Italian politics. I hope both that Berlusconi gains a big majority and that the Democratic Party will grow as it deserves. Only the centre-right and the Democrats together can change Italy for the better, especially changing the Constitution and introducing federalism. Sorry if today I'm a little bit excited and POV! --Checco (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you're right that this is all for the better, but I still doubt Berlusconi will improve Italy... At least this time, he won't run for reelection. ;) Who will elect the next president now, BTW, the parliament elected this year or the next one? It ought to be the next one elected in 2013 at the latest, right? —Nightstallion 12:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the next (you are right), but if there is a constitutiona reform, Napolitano informed that he may step down before the time. --Checco (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, we'll see. —Nightstallion 13:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the precise content of this article? It seems to be interesting, but my Italian is not good enough to grasp the finer points... It seems to discuss which parties will belong to which of the four alliances, right? Details? Thanks! —Nightstallion 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new from what you already know... anyway, these seem to be the future coalitions:
House of Freedoms (FI, AN, LN, UDC and, maybe, others)
White Rose (White Rose)
Democrats and allies (PD and, maybe, IdV and PS)
The Left (PRC, PdCI, FV and SD)
I wrote two "maybe" because there is a chance that the House of Freedoms would have only four lists (both Fini and Maroni oppose the enlargement of the coalition) and that the Democrats will decide to fight the election completely alone. In that case IdV will merge with PD or join the White Rose, while PS could form another alliance with the Radicals and UD. Actually there will be more than four coalitions, including smaller ones... That happened also in 2006, but then, as you know, there were only two major coalitions. --Checco (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods So Veltroni really is going to lose the election on purpose, more or less. —Nightstallion 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have the point, but it is also true that winning the election in alliance with the far left (and in Italy it is very extreme) is like losing it because the two "lefts" have little common ground and cannot live in the same government for a long time. --Checco (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods I still dislike the idea of having Berlusconi govern again, but it's not as if there's much of an alternative right now. —Nightstallion 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the inside I find difficult to understand why he is so disliked outside Italy. We discussed about this some months ago and I know and respect your opinion. Though I'm not a passionate supporter of Berlusconi too, but, as I told you sometimes, the problem with him is that he is not enough bold, too moderate and compromising. I hope that this time he would be different, but my hopes are very low.
What is interesting these days is that our template about Italian parties will completely change: at least four coalitions and less parties. Actually in the next Parliament there will be not more than twelve parties and they could become five by 2009. Despite the electoral law, we could see interesting changes and a rationalization of Italian political landscape. --Checco (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I recall our discussion -- though I can similarily not understand why he's so well-liked within Italy. ;)
nods Yeah, that's at least something. Fewer parties can only improve the situation, no matter the electoral law. Why would they become five parties by 2009, though? —Nightstallion 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berlusconi is liked in Italy (or at least in more modernized areas) beacuse he is perceived as the man of the people, against big powers and privileges. You may find this strange but there are many reasons why this is true. Obviuosly there is another Italy who hates him! I don't love him, but I consider him the best of the evils.
Anyway, responding to your question... what seems very likely today is that FI and AN would merge in a single party, IdV would merge into PD and The Left would become a single party. And what you have is five parties: FI-AN(=PdL?), PD, LN, UDC-White Rose and The Left. This could be only a dream, but these days it seems like everything could happen. Tonight for example in many talk shows the issue is that rumors speak about a single list composed of FI, AN and other centrist parties (those which wanted to merge into PdL), leaving UDC out. Amazing, isn't it? --Checco (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would actually be a sensible party system, on the whole. So there are plans to merge the Left into a single party? I thought the differences in policies and people were too large? And why is AN in favour of merging into PdL all of a sudden, I thought they were against it? —Nightstallion 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to explain Italian politics. The four far-left parties forming The Left are very different but the current situation and the desire of survival strenghtened their alliance. At this point their unity is necessary because for a coalition to get seats it needs to surpass 10% and they (except PRC) risk to stay out from the new Parliament. The current electoral law could be both very proportionalist and very winner-takes-all.
Regarding Fini, he always wanted to unite his party with Berlusconi's and that was why he supported the referendum: he simply disliked some moves of Berlusconi, but when he understood that the man from Arcore is the only possible leader of the centre-right, he decided to rally behind him. It is not the first time: Fini tried to surpass Forza Italia and to become leader of the centre-right in 1996, 1999 and 2001, but Berlusconi always won the "battle". Italian politics is static, but, as it happened in 1993-94, it can change in a very short period of time. I hope this is the case. --Checco (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Well, then there's still some kind of hope. —Nightstallion 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's official: FI, AN and many many small parties will all fight the election united under the banner of the "Freedom People" or "Berlusconi for President". The decision of the Democrats to run alone under the banner "Democratic Party for Veltroni" has really changes things which seemed impossible to change even three days ago. It' America, baby!?! The centre-right coalition will be coposed of this omnibus list (which will soon become a party) and Lega Nord: two lists!! UDC will be invited to join both in the new list/party or as an ally, but Casini can even decide to fight the election alone. We'll see. --Checco (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's interesting. So there'll be the Left, PD, White Rose, possibly UDC, LN and PdL? At least, that is? —Nightstallion 10:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely does "locally allied with LN" mean? —Nightstallion 10:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing different from what happened until now: LN will be present on the ballot everywhere as always, but, as always, will elect MPs only in the North. In my opinion this decision by FI and AN will help LN in the long-term, but this time the party could be trounced in the imminent election. There will be no more than 8-9 major lists in the election: PdL, PD, LN, UDC, White Rose, The Left, IdV and, possibly, PS-Rad-UD and The Right. --Checco (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When is the deadline for official nomination lists and such? And I suppose this election will thus likely mean the end of many of the smaller parties which managed to live on up to now thanks to the large coalitions? —Nightstallion 11:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct and our templates will be very simple: all the small parties reckon that their time is history and that they need to adapt to the new system (read: merge) and all this without any change to the electoral law! The deadline for symbols is sometime around 2 March, while the deadline for lists will be sometime around 10 March. What is interesting now is to se the single candidatures, since many political heavyweights stated their desire to retire, including Romano Prodi, Giuliano Amato, Ciriaco De Mita, Marcello Pera and Alfredo Biondi. 13-14 April will be a defining election day (actually days), since there will be elections for the Parliament, Sicily, Friuli-VG, Province and Mayor of Rome and so on... --Checco (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! :) Will you be writing an article for the regional elections, too? —Nightstallion 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someday yes. --Checco (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably if the Democratic Party are running alone, then they are competing directly against some of their erstwhile allies in The Union (IdV, UD, PS, Radicals) and do not contemplate or plan forming any kind of coalition with those parties? If so, that sounds to me like a heavy-handed way of getting those parties to merge into PD. --Free Socialist (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is and it is not. Indeed IdV would be allied of the PD, while the Radicals and the Socialists will run alone and, as they are very small parties, won't get seats. --Checco (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't understand: Why don't they finally merge into PD? They must clearly see that they've got no chance this way... —Nightstallion 15:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Socialists don't want merge into the PD because they consider that party not enough social-democratic and secular, while the Radicals would like to merge but they were refused. --Checco (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why were they refused? Is it likely there'll be more mergers before and after the election? When will the foundation pf PdL and PS now take place? —Nightstallion 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know (probably because of their stances on moral issues, I guess) and I think that Radicals would have been an interesting component in the PD: that's just non-sense to me. The PS foundation will be anticipated somewhere in March, while the PdL will be officially founded after the election. Anyway there's nothing certain about this. --Checco (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "White Rose" or "Rose for Italy" or "White Rose for Italy" or ...? —Nightstallion 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is nothing official about it, I preferred not to move the article. I will do it when I am certain of the title (in two days there will be the symbol and the website). --Checco (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Will you be uploading the other symbols, too, BTW? (For instance, the one of PdL.) —Nightstallion 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if I am able. I wouldn't have moved the article on PdL to the current title, anyway... --Checco (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, as a native English speaker, the more literal translation "People of Freedom" sounds better somehow. Both translations are technically "right" however. Just my two cents, as they say. --Free Socialist (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. We can leave the article where it is now, but we'd better see what name newspapers and websites (let alone the party itself) will use in the long-term.
Yeah, we should update the smaller template right now and the complete template later, when the mergers have taken place. —Nightstallion 11:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great work ahead... The Union is definitely dead, while the House of Freedoms could actually continue to exist as a federation between PdL and LN. Berlusconi and Fini spoke about a pact similar to that between CDU and CSU in Germany, even if there is a strong difference: PdL will be present also in Northern Italy, of course. --Checco (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've partially updated the Union article and tried to update the smaller template. —Nightstallion 12:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the template: the order of coalitions is better now (both by size and position in the political spectrum) and the section you named "Centre" included both far-right and far-left parties, as well as centrist parties. Now the only thing we can do is to wait for news about new coalitions to come and then we will decide if they deserve a section. --Checco (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'd still prefer to clearly show which parties will become part of PdL. What do you say? BTW, what do you expect to happen now? Will more parties join PdL, and will IdV ally with PD? —Nightstallion 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you on that and atually after the election we could eliminate all those small parties (which won't receive more than one or two seats each, and will be only small factions within PdL) and insert something like "PdL (FI-AN)". Moreover some parties will be part of the PdL list but won't merge with it. As of today I'm not sure which parties will and which parties won't. PD and IdV are very close to an alliance. Other than that PD is likely to follow the example of PdL: only one joint-list allies with "territorial" parties (in the case of PdL: LN and, maybe, MpA; in the case of PD: SVP, PATT, Civica, etc.). --Checco (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course -- that was what I wanted: Leave it with the merging parties for now and remove them once PdL is officially formed. —Nightstallion 12:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I continue not to agree with you for two reasons: 1) the current version is not coherent with the ratio of the rest of the template; 2) as every single party in the House of Freedoms will be part of the PdL list, except Lega Nord, there is no need of expalaining which party is member and which one is not. The House of Freedoms, if it continues to exists, will be simply the federation of PdL list with Lega Nord. For this reason, as a compromise, I propose you to take away "House of Freedoms" and writing directly "People of Freedom", and thus putting UDC and The Right in the "Others" section, since they did not join the PdL list yet. Take a look at the template. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, that's fair enough. But will MpA really be part of PdL? I thought they stated they wouldn't join, and Berlusconi said there would be no alliance besides the one with LN? —Nightstallion 13:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All depends on what UDC will do: if it joins PdL it is ok, if it doesn't Berlusconi can help MpA to create a Sicialian-based Southern regionalist party which could steal votes from UDC. In any case, even if there is an agreement with UDC, MpA could anyway form a pact similar to that done by PdL with LN. MpA leader even stated that he would like either to reapeat the alliance with LN and form a new one with UDC. Both options are possible, but it is very strange that a party, MpA, could either join forces with UDC or LN, which are arch-enemies on the national stage! --Checco (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect UDC to do? BTW, in case you're interested: Most outside media in Europe are portraying the election as increasingly uncertain and state that Veltroni still has a chance if he can convincingly push his motif of change. —Nightstallion 13:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They probably don't know how the electoral law works and the last opinion polls. I think that there is a 40% chance that Casini accepts to join PdL, 40% chance that he decides to run alone and 20% chance that Berlusconi accepts what Casini wants: an alliance with PdL without joining it. As generally Berlusconi is not bold and likes to compromise/appease, the last figure could be higher. Actually, I don't know. What I know is that on Thursday UDC National Council will take the final decision. --Checco (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the most current poll, or are there newer ones? Is SPE.it generally a good source for polls, or is there a better one? —Nightstallion 13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPE is the official register for opinion polls of the Government of Italy. As you may know every opinion poll should be put there and polls in the last 15 days of electoral campaign are forbidden. The only problem with SPE is that it is updated not every hour and thus some opinion polls could be missing. The worse opinion poll for Berlusconi puts PdL-LN at 46% and PD-IdV at 34%, the best one PdL-LN 50% and PD 26%. Veltroni has no chance. --Checco (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Any dates to watch out for apart from UDC's decision on Thursday? And will Berlusconi's government be stable this time, as well? —Nightstallion 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no specific dates, even if there are rumors that PD will decide on the possible alliances with IdV and PS within 24 hours. Berlusconi's government in 2001-2006 was pretty stable and he would have a confortable majority even this time. Also in this respect what UDC will do is important: if UDC joins Berlusconi will have a big majority but will be conditioned by Casini, if UDC is out Berlusconi will have the identical majority but will have less problems of stability. --Checco (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Well, we'll see. We'll have to update all the party pages soon, BTW, to remove the Union and to correct references to the House of Freedoms... —Nightstallion 14:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. Actually it will be interesting also to understand if the expression "House of Freedoms" will still be used. --Checco (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Well, we'll see. —Nightstallion 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. Just rumors: it seems that PD will refuse any alliance (either with IdV, the Radicals or the Socialists), that UDC may run alone and that there will be something like a Lega Sud, composed of MpA and others, maybe UDEUR). --Checco (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Will that lead IdV, Rad and PS to merge with PD -- or won't that rather weaken the left? UDC alone? Wouldn't an alliance with Bianca Rosa be more sensible? And does a Lega Sud stand much of a chance? Would that be a party, or a federation? Would it be allied with PdL? —Nightstallion 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The left seemed weakened to death these days and there will probably be four left-wing lists (PD, IdV, PS-Rad-UD and The Left). In any case this is probably the only sensible strategy Veltroni can choose: his determination to run alone may attract many votes and take Italy toward a two-party system. His choice seems the only one he could have done, but he has been anyway very bold. This time also Berlusconi seems to be bolder than usual and launched a sort of ultimatum to UDC: or within PdL or out! We'll see if he will not change his mind. The proposal is not acceptable by Casini and UDC is likely to run alone, obviously in alliance with the White Rose and, maybe, with UDEUR. The idea of a Southern counterpart is far less clear and even if MpA and UDEUR will join forces they wouldn't reach the fortune of Lega Nord, which is "flying" in opinion polls: 5-8% against the 4.1% of the last election (the MpA was present in the South and took the 0.5%). It would anyway elect MPs. I don't know if this will happen, indeed Berlusconi is not so keen as before on an alliance with UDEUR (submerged by corruption and Mafia-related scandals: think only about the fact that all 3 UDEUR regional ministers in Campania and Calabria are under arrest) and Lombardo, MpA leader, has now declared his candidacy for the Presidency of Sicily in alliance with UDC. Complicated, isn't it? --Checco (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flash news: agreement reached between PD and IdV, a coalition composed of two lists! --Checco (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least something -- will there be a common name for it, or what will the common list be called? —Nightstallion 13:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the electoral law, coalitions does not need to have a name but simply a leader. There will be a coalition between PD and IdV with Veltroni leader and then united parliamentary groups... a path to a merger, it seems. --Checco (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Well, that's something. —Nightstallion 13:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's this I've read about abortion becoming an election issue and the "influential journalist" Giuliano Ferrara starting a single-issue anti-abortion party? [3] —Nightstallion 14:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is likely to present a list in favour of the moratoria of abortion in some regions. As he has been a long-time fellow of Berlusconi, this sounds strange. Everything is unclear. I think that the list won't have any success and I personally wrote yesterday to Ferrara trying to persuade him to change his mind. Moreover a bad result for the list will be the end of the campaign for the moratoria, which was endorsed by many influential Italian journalists and by Berlusconi himself. --Checco (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other flash news: it is almost official that UDC will run alone. --Checco (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there'll be an alliance of White Rose, UDC, and possibly other, smaller Christian democratic parties? —Nightstallion 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly between UDC, RB, UDEUR and MpA. No other small christian-democratic parties. What parties are you refering to? --Checco (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought some of the *really* small ones might try to join the coalition. —Nightstallion 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. These small parties are so small that they don't exist in practice but only in their webiste. Some of these parties will join PdL, some others could join a centrist pole, some finally won't partecipate to the election, because they are not able to collect enough the necessary signatures in order to present a list. --Checco (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Sounds logical. —Nightstallion 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Christian denominations by number of members[edit]
Your last set of changes to List of Christian denominations by number of members looks good.
--Carlaude (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will the Destra-FT alliance make it into parliament? How about the other minor parties? —Nightstallion 16:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont's think so but I wouldn't write it off. Centrist (UDC is centrist only by name) parties seems in disarray: UDC, UDEUR and RB are now likely to run all by themselves. --Checco (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Then they'll all fail, and only the Left, PD-IdV and PdL-LN will be in parliament? —Nightstallion 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the Popolari Democratici? (Could you write an article?) Are they the UDEUR Populars members who disagree with the switch to the right? —Nightstallion 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the expression "Tricolour Right" will be actually used, but I agree with you that the list deserved an article. The Democratic Populars is a small party formed by splinters of UDEUR: I will do some research and write the article. Last, I am not very enthusiastic about the changes you made to the template on political parties. I will think about it and eventually make some changese on which we should discuss. --Checco (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that every single coalition deserves its section in the template (the template will become very long and is too long already now) and the idea of inserting the leaders of the coalitions: this is a template on Italian political parties not a template on the 2008 general elections. Finally I would like too see the distinction between major and minor parties also in the section about the centre-right. Moreover, despite the fact that LN won't join the PdL-party, I think that it is not a mistake to consider that party as a member of the PdL-coalition. LN is something like a Northern appendix of the PdL and its autonomy was preserved because it is a regional party which is very useful in stealing votes from the centre-left. --Checco (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the current political landscape is defined by who the PM-candidate is, and therefore distinguishing them like this would be best, in my opinion; I wouldn't be against having all of the single-party-lists in a single group, though. —Nightstallion 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I continue to think that parties/coalitions with 1% don't deserve a section. And what about the structure of the section on the centre-right and the titles of the coalitions? --Checco (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Which one are you referring to? RB? I'd prefer to clearly distinguish between PdL and LN, but I've got no problem with having the size of parties represented accurately; and the coalition names, I don't know, is the CdL still a valid name for them? —Nightstallion 11:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to have only the major coalitions in template (CdL, PD-led, Left, UDC and, maybe, Right) and I would keep out coalition leaders. Finally I would like to have the size of parties reprented accurately: do you have any ideas for this? --Checco (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of the parties which are in parliament should be represented with their coalitions, and I would prefer to have the "leading candidate" of the coalitions in the template somehow... —Nightstallion 11:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but we need a simpler, shorter, clearer template. I can live with the name of the candidates until the election is over, but I definitely would like to see less coalitions and a better structure of the section on the centre-right. --Checco (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Aye, I'd be fine with removing the PM candidates after the election. How about a section for the parties which are running without a coalition, thus reducing the clutter? —Nightstallion 12:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with that and I would put more parties there. --Checco (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't like the idea of putting a minor coalition (Right) more in the spotlight than UDC. --Checco (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. I have an idea, wait a moment. —Nightstallion 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly better now, although it remains too complicate in my opinion and... there is the problem regarding CdL left. --Checco (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to change? And any official word on the missing parties yet? —Nightstallion 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a change, but I think that the template would become simpler after the election, so I can live with its complicateness for just two months! The only official news I can tell you is that Casini announced officially this mornig that UDC will run the election alone and that he will be the candidate for PM. --Checco (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The change I made seems to me a sensible compromise. I hope that you will agree. Actually there is the PdL with a regional ally which consider itself as a part of "the people of freedom", despite retaining its automy from the People of Freedom-party. --Checco (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just heard that MpA will be part of the coalition, after all, as a sort-of Lega Sud...? —Nightstallion 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I told you about these rumors last week, but there's nothing official yet. --Checco (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that it was made semi-official yesterday -- true? —Nightstallion 09:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that this is more and more likely. This is crucial because this would mean a landslide victory for the centre-right also in Sicily, where UDC is very strong. --Checco (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Will Berlusconi put pressure on MpA and others to merge into PdL, BTW? —Nightstallion 12:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Actually Berlusconi wants MpA to be automous in order to steal votes fro UDC in Sicily and wanted to run the election without Casini and Storace, the extremists in the coalition. --Checco (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, any other news? —Nightstallion 09:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet... sorry about that! --Checco (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to be so, it's not like it's your fault that nothing is happening. :) Hope I'm not getting on your nerves yet with my constant asking? —Nightstallion 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I like to be you correspondent from Italy! I will let you know when I know any news, but if you know them before me, just ask me! No problem, really. --Checco (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that, thanks! :) —Nightstallion 12:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read that UDC will try to form a strong Christian democratic party with the support of the bishops' conference? UDEUR is already in favour? [4] —Nightstallion 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that CEI (the bishops' conference) will support anyone. UDC leader Casini would like to form a centrist pole but he refused to make an alliance (for now) with UDEUR, while the White Rose is divided on an alliance with UDC. --Checco (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Too bad, that would have been a good idea, actually. —Nightstallion 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it would be even better if... the three parties will go alone and neither of them will surpass the 4% threshold! --Checco (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
grins Well, we've got slightly different wishes there, I suppose. ;) —Nightstallion 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke, but, do you really think that we need such centrist pole in Italy and - if yes - why? --Checco (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think a stable political system needs a left, a centre, and a right to actually offer change -- a system with just two large blocs will quickly see both shift towards the centre and offer nothing to distinguish them from each other, whereas a centre pole would help to avoid that. —Nightstallion 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't know what centre means in Italy and what are their proposals. They are old politics and their only goal is to govern always, sometimes with the left and sometimes with right. That's way Christian Democracy and its heirs have been so corrupt. Moreover they are a strange "centre": very socially conservative and generally opposing constitutional reform. In general, I think that centre (the real centre) is more effective when it is strong in the two major parties of the system, similarly to almost every European country.
Anyway, in the meantime I'm waiting for your answer on the centre, I have news for you: the Radicals will take part to the list of the Democratic Party; they will have six deputies and three senators, a minister (Bonino) presented during the electoral campaign and the 10% of the time for the Democrats on television. A very good deal for everyone. --Checco (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. Well, then it's time for a new centre, if you ask me. ;)
Good news about the Radicals! :) —Nightstallion 10:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the new centre you would like is well represented both in the PD and in FI: that of UDC is the old centre, but I'm sure that it will last for many years from now... --Checco (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh, fair enough. So, what will the other minor parties be doing? Especially PS, UD, UDEUR -- what about the UDC plans? Still no info on MpA? —Nightstallion 12:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new on PS and UDEUR, while UD is a dead-walking party. The most interesting issue is on MpA. Its leader, Raffaele Lombardo, although a former member of UDC, is a modernizer and staunch supporter of federalism (that's why he gets on well with Lega Nord), but he is also a very close friend of Totò Cuffaro, the iper-conservative and old-style UDC boss in Sicily. Lombardo wants to be candidate for President of Sicily and is supported by Cuffaro. Gianfranco Miccichè, the leader of FI in Sicily and the real modernizer, wants to cut any tie with UDC and its style of politics in the Region. He is the best chance for Sicily and was even endorsed for President by two leading centre-left intellectuals (one of them is a Communist). He could live with an alliance with Lombardo, but doesn't want Cuffaro around. Then there is Berlusconi: he firmly wants to win the majority-premium in Sicily and to beat soundly UDC nationally, so he wants an alliance with Lombardo. Lombardo wants the alliance too, but also to be the candidate for President and doesn't want to cut his ties with Cuffaro at the regional level. Here is the problem with Miccichè, who is trying to explain to Berlusconi that if UDC was a problem in Rome, it is a worse problem in Sicily. It is a very complicated situation, but Miccichè is right when he says that the PdL would be able to win in Sicily even without MpA, let alone UDC. Obviously, with Miccichè candidate, it would be even better for the centre-right if MpA is allied with the PdL for the general election: you will have a good government in Sicily and a stable majority in Rome. --Checco (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Think it's possible that PS might give in to PD, as well? —Nightstallion 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so, but PS leader Boselli definitely rules out the idea. I don't know if the fact that 18 MPs would loose their seat would make him change mind. --Checco (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he against it? —Nightstallion 22:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He and the Socialists in general want to retain their identity. --Checco (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good luck with that once they fail to enter parliament. —Nightstallion 09:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it'll have some effects on the election...? Which politicians are likely to be compromised due to this issue? —Nightstallion 13:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It won't have effects on the election, and anyway no names for now. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't edit war. Bring it up on the talk page; clearly, the new version has been there a while and supported by a kind of silent consensus. Therefore, before reverting wildly, discuss it plese. Fishal (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear checco, I know you as person of arguments, I don't think that I don't like the idea of "thinkers" is an argument, but an opinion. There are prominent social-democrats and communists on those templates. Why not on this? C mon (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, I have created a discussion space to deal with all the templates at once. You can find it on User:C mon/template. I have not yet invited other people to join in the discussion. First I hope to outline, the main points of discussion with you and then invite other users, from all the different templates. C mon (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have worked out a compromise in the form of the three templates. Let's work on making them! C mon (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cabinet will be formed by the same parties as Verhofstadt-III (CD&V, Open VLD, Parti Socialiste, CDH and Mouvement Reformateur), but now the Christian-Democratic Leterme will become prime minister. The cabinet is formed on basis of a programmatic agreement, which is meant for the coming four years (until 2011). The coalition program is moderately centre-right and does not forsee major changes and lacks clear financial underpinning. I have understood however that the cabinet will evaluate its functioning after four months.
The parties have not yet agreed with each other on far-reaching constitutional reforms, instead they have formulated an agreement over minor reforms and an agenda for continuing talks. Note that in addition to the governing coalition the other democratic parties also participate in this process (sp.a, Green! and Ecolo). The cabinet has a very narrow 2/3 majority in parliament, which is necessary to change the constitution.
So its no longer a care taker cabinet (as Verhofstadt-III was) or a cabinet of national unity (the sp.a would participate in that), instead it is a traditional majority cabinet, but a particular one. C mon (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these two parties now history? --Oddeivind (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet and for many months to come. --Checco (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they will still be functioning even after the new party is officially founded? --Oddeivind (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, when the party will be officially founded they will cease to exist. PdL will follow the example of PD, I guess... --Checco (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the new party will be founded on Thursday, that is in two days, right? (not several months). --Oddeivind (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no: there is a mistake in the article. The party was launched by Berlusconi on 18 November 2007 and was to be founded officially on 27 March 2007, but then some things happened: the fall of Prodi and the entrance in PdL by Fini. The party will be founded in Autumn. --Checco (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, never seen that article, but that's true. It will be only a list composed of all the parties which will merge into it. FI, AN and the other parties forming PdL will follow the example of DS and DL when they were forming PD: a joint list > united groups in the Parliament > dissolvement congresses for the forming parties > a founding congress of the new party or something like that. More or less that's what FI, AN and their small allies will do now. --Checco (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The upper reaches of the Adige: more trouble…[edit]
Hi,
I guess he’ll calm down after a while, but in the meantime you could raise the issue at WP:ANI—I believe that’s the way to get administrator attention in these matters. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Venetian People's Movement[edit]
I have nominated Venetian People's Movement, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venetian People's Movement. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Taroaldo (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Checco. I have seen a consensus emerging regarding the above article, so I have withdrawn the nom. I do continue to have concerns about references in another language being provided on English Wikipedia. An editor on English Wikipedia cannot properly ascertain WP:RS or WP:N this way. I made a comment in the nom about WP:RSUE but it was never addressed one way or another. I would appreciate receiving your comment about WP:RSUE in this matter. Thank you. --- Taroaldo (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A delay is possible, but I'm sure that almost everyone will do anything not to permit this possibility to become reality. The campaign has been very dull so far and people are pretty disillusioned so that politicians know that two more weeks of campaign could be fatal... In any case, DC is technically right when asking the delay because it was not granted the par condicio in the electoral campaign, but the Minister of Interior made an appeal on the issue: DC could either be re-excluded or re-introduced without the delay. --Checco (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will also ask you does House of Freedoms coalition still exist, because I saw opposite facts. And Berlusconi made new coallition. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as we're certain not to agree on whether the election result is good or not, let's just go to neutral ground ;) -- what exactly will it mean for the political landscape of Italy? —Nightstallion 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm only tired and excited, thus my reflections may not be balanced. In the next Parliament there will be three parliamentary groups in the Senate and four in the Chamber of Deputies, there will be no Communists and we will be very close to a two-party system. I hope that this is the time to reform the Constitution and to transform Italy in a truly federal state. The message from the North is clear: the North wants reform, change and modernization. Will the rest of Italy agree or not? I think that federalism is the only solution we have to save Italy. I'm not very optimistic, but this is the time. If it not now, when? Yesterday I read User:Nightstallion/notes: I find them amazingly interesting and complete, but I observe that you understimate the regionalist/autonomist/separatist tensions in Italy. It is almost twenty years that the North proposes and asks federalism: I hope that the rest of Italy will understand that if there is not a federal reform in the next five years, the North (or, at least, Veneto and Lombardy) could turn again to secessionism. --Checco (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Do you think Berlusconi's coalition will hold together and really form a single party? What will the leftists and centrists now do, after they've failed to enter parliament? —Nightstallion 06:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The People of Freedom will definitely become a single party thanks to the good result. The far left seems disbanded and disunited: PdCI speaks of returning to the hammer and sickle, the Greens could finally join PD, SD may join forces with PS... The centrists actually entered Parliament (36 deputies, 3 senators), but Berlusconi won't rely on them for his majority. You can see the totals at:
So will this result in the consolidation of the left (i.e., the parties of the left either join forces with PD or try to form a new, stronger bloc at the left)? I find it hard to imagine politics in Italy without any sort of notable communist party... ;) What are the chances of electoral and constitutional reforms, and why does Berlusconi still insist on having the abominable pseudo-economist Tremonti as his finance minister? —Nightstallion 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make predictions on the left-wing for now. My sense is that the parties of The Left will remain important political forces at the local level, but it is very likely that the alliance will break apart.
On constitutional reform, almost everything depends on Veltroni: will he collaborate (as he says) to the reform of the Constitution or will he stick to the past?
I don't understand why you speak so badly of Tremonti. He is a sort of a genius and definitely a fine intellectual, respected both by the right and the left-wing. Casini even proposed him as leader of a grand coalition between PdL, PD and UDC. I would probably like a more libertarian finance minister, but Tremonti would be a very respectable one. Moreover he is a reform-minded politician and a keen federalist, reason why he is very close to Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Outside of Italy, everyone agrees that Tremonti is one of the primary reasons why under Berlusconi's government, Italy's economy grew only 0.6% -- in five years... shrugs —Nightstallion 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Italy people see from the outside... I understand that many things in Italy could seem odd (and they are), but on some things I resolutely disagree: Italy grew more than 0.6% in five years! Anyway, I'm not an economist, so it's better if I talk only about politics... --Checco (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough -- but that's the number I've read more than once about Berlusconi's economic record... —Nightstallion 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may find very interesting that Veltroni decided to form a shadow cabinet. --Checco (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it -- that's a first for Italy, isn't it? I've also read he's trying to agree with UdC on some issues? —Nightstallion 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, also PCI had one in 1987-89. I would find very intersting if PD and UDC will try to coordinate their opposition to the government, but as far as today there is nothing to speak about.
But they're holding talks, right? —Nightstallion 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No or, at least, not yet. --Checco (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems they are talking -- UDC will be supporting Rutelli in Rome... [5] —Nightstallion 15:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, at least for now. I find this interesting, but what is sure is that the Democrats are closer to Berlusconi than to Casini on most issues. --Checco (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but are you sure that there is something to update? --Checco (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- all parties which are no longer represented in either the Italian Parliament or the European Parliament should be removed, entirely. BTW, we also need an article on the Movimento Associativo Italiani all'Estero, right? —Nightstallion 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral results in the article are correct. Keep in mind that the totals for the Chamber of Deputies from the Ministry of the Interior (your link) does not include Aosta Valley. --Checco (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which party mergers are due to happen now? PdL has not officially merged yet, right? And the UdC will become a merged party, too, right? When? Any other events? (On the left, perhaps?) —Nightstallion 08:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) The parties forming PdL will merge soon, say by the end of the year.
2) The parties forming UdC will probably merge, but I did not hear any news on this.
3) PD and IdV won't merge for now and IdV will even form separate groups in Parliament.
4) The Rainbow Left, as it is frequently called, seems to be disintegrating. There is both talk of a split of PRC in two groups and of a merger between PRC and PdCI. Anyway, for now, the leadership of PRC rules out this, while promoting again a broad merger by PRC, PdCI, SD and the Greens. --Checco (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods I'm sure I'll notice either in the news or in your contributions when something develops, then. ;) —Nightstallion 09:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. However you can always ask me, indeed there as so many parties in Italy that I won't be able to update all the articles by tomorrow. I noticed for instance that no one started the articles about regional elections, but as I can't do everything, I would say... it doesn't matter. Also my project about Italian regions is almost impossible if no other user helps me... it doesn't matter.
Now all the eyes are on the formation of Berlusconi IV Cabinet and the new assets of power: government, parliament, regions... --Checco (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I told you that the far left is disintegrating... here I give you more precise news, especially about the internal struggle within the three parties. The far-left could be divided in 13 different groups by the end of the year:
a part of the Greens could join the PD, but before it could form a splinter group;
another part of the Greens could try to form an independent green party, modelled on the German Greens
a third component of the Greens wants to continue the experience of the Rainbow Left;
a part of SD could join the PD, but before it could form a splinter group;
another part of SD may join forces with PS, but before it could form a splinter group;
a third group of SD wants to continue the experience of the Rainbow Left;
PdCI wants to re-found a communist party with PRC (whose members seem not to like the idea;
some members of PdCI want to continue the experience of the Rainbow Left;
the ex-DP faction of PRC, alongside with the Troskijtes, the so called "Stalinists" and the Leninists, could take the party and re-found it as a hard-left un-reformed communist party, while ruling out any collaboration with PdCI;
the current leadership of PRC may splinter in order to continue the experience of the Rainbow Left;
the Workers' Communist Party of Ferrando (0.6% in the last election), as former Trotskijtes of PRC could join forces with a new PRC led by Ferrero, but for now they rule this out;
the Critical Left of Turigliatto (0.5% in the last election), as former Trotskijtes of PRC could join forces with a new PRC led by Ferrero, but for now they rule this out.
the Communist Alternative Party of Ricci, as former Trotskijtes of PRC could join forces with a new PRC led by Ferrero, but for now they rule this out.
In the end we could have a social-democratic/democratic outfit (formed around PS), a green party, a communist-green party (the Rainbow Left) and five (five!) communist parties (PdCI, PRC, PCL, SC and PAC) for a total of eight parties. --Checco (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. And what are the prospects of having some of the left-wing parties join PD, and the others form a unitary socialist project? —Nightstallion 13:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly those I explained you above. Splinters from the Greens and SD will could join PD, splinters from SD could join PS and splinters from PRC, SD, the Greens and PdCI could merger in the Rainbow Left. The are good chances that this will happen, as there are very good chances that the internal left of PRC will take the party. If this means that there will be a re-composition of all the far left groups previously forming PRC, I really don't know. --Checco (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, a partial merger into PD and a partial merger into a Left Party will certainly occur, and it remains to be seen how many splinter parties try to obstruct these developments? —Nightstallion 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes. The crucial event will be the national congress of PRC, which is scheduled for July. Yet today or tomorrow the Central Committe of PRC could oust Giordano as secretary. --Checco (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When exactly? Any other important congresses coming up? —Nightstallion 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The National Committee of PRC is today and tomorrow, the national congress in July. No other party has yet scheduled a congress. Probably the Greens will have one by July. --Checco (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and then there is the national congress of PS in early June, I don't remember on what weekend. --Checco (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read he'll be trying to free Italy's press through three referenda? —Nightstallion 18:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about it, but I'm sure that one of these referenda will be on the abolition of the order of journalists. --Checco (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Der Standard: "[...] zur Abschaffung der Pressesubventionen, der Journalistenkammer und
des unter Berlusconi verabschiedeten Mediengesetzes." = to abolish press subsidies, the journalists' chamber and the media law passed under Berlusconi —Nightstallion 19:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know more than me... The first too proposals are great, on the third I don't have enough knowledge on the issue to espress an opinion. I will undoubtely sign the first two proposals. --Checco (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered a problem at it:Partito Comunista Nepalese (Unificato Marxista). In Nepal there are groups using the term 'Ekikrit' and 'Sanyukta', translated as 'Unified' resp. 'United' when used in English. How could such a differentiation be shown in Italian? --Soman (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --Soman (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with delinking years. --Checco (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can we keep all the talk on one page please. What purpose do you think is served by a link to a year? Lightmouse (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First: going to see what happened that year, in the world as a whole.
For the second, a link is not a highlight. If you want to change the font colour or add bold, there are other ways.
I believe that these links are excessive. Although you are a major contributor to that article, you may wish to allow other editors to make changes. This will help the article get better and is a good thing. Trying to help. Lightmouse (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that these links are useful. I disagree with all your unlinking work and, if it the case, I will continue to revert it . --Checco (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy if you help me in expanding the article and keeping it updated. --Checco (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak German as well to understand such an article. However, I translated it with "Google Translate" and, although the translation was not perfect, I understood something. For now I can say that I don't see any particular change in Italian politics, as the centre-right has always been open to dialogue with the centre-left, and the episodes which are described in the article are nothing more than the normal parliamentary etiquette. If you explain to me what is the real point of the article, I will be able to answer you more precisely. --Checco (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He states that: Schifani stated he would be willing to hear the opinions of the Communists "who regrettably are no longer represented in parliament", despite the fact that he only had acid criticism for them in the past; PdL offered the post of labour minister to PD member Ichino, who politely declined and will now be made chairman of the labour committee in parliament instead; Fini hugged Bertinotti and stated with tears in his eyes that he regretted that Bertinotti was not part of the new parliament; the post-fascist declared 25 April, the day when Italy was freed from Fascism, a national festivity for all Italians, while in the past the right has ignored the historical connotations of this day. He then states that all of this indicates that we'll see a lot of bipartisan reforms in the next few months and years, including a reduction of the number of MPs/senators, a regionalisation of the Senate, a federalisation, more rights for the premier, and a new electoral law. All of that true/likely? —Nightstallion 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is all true and normal, I would say. There is nothing new. I think that a constitutional reform is very likely, but difficult: the Democrats made acid remarks on all the things that centre-right people said and did, as Der Standard tell us. --Checco (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any timetables for the merging of PdL and UdC, or for developments in the extraparliamentary left (like a new "Communist Constituent Assembly" which has been mentioned by some communist politicians)? —Nightstallion 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No timetables yet. FI (Formigoni became Vice President of the party yesterday) and AN leaders (La Russa is likely to temporarily succeed to Fini) are very vague on this. Probably the dissolving congresses of FI and AN will take place in late 2008 and PdL will be officially founded in early 2009. No more news about UdC, apart from the fact that many UDC members and even MPs are considering to leave the party and some White Rose leaders are less keen about merging into UdC with UDC. No news about the communists and I think that nothing will happen until autumn. But, remember, in July there are some important congresses: PRC, Greens and PdCI. --Checco (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect to happen with UdC and the Left, after the statements of the different politicians? —Nightstallion 14:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that, if UdC will ever ben founded, it will be simply the continuation of UDC with some new members (mainly Pezzotta and that's all) and the exit of many long-time members. Casini is very worried about the future of his party which could collapse (most of its voters are left-leaning and most of its members are interested only in power, something which is achievable only through alliances) and could become secretary in order to have a better control on it.
About the far left, I really don't know: they are very few and divided: I expect more division than unity. PRC could be taken by hardliners, PdCI is led by hardliners too... I think that there will be a shift to the the far far left of these parties (even if Bertinottiani could prevail, but they will no longer dominate the party as they did before with only 59% of delegates behind them, which was fairly undemocratic!), while the Greens could split (some going towards PD) and SD will probably join PS. --Checco (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. So, more or less, the UDC will fail sooner or later, while the left may reform, but not in the near future. —Nightstallion 15:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if UDC will fail, but it has defintely a difficult road ahead. Its future depends to many things and Casini could even be successful in maintaining his party alive, as Berlusconi, Bossi and Fassino did in very difficult times with their parties, FI, LN and DS. Also Veltroni has a lot of work ahead and many within party ranks would like to replace him. On the far left almost everything can happen... --Checco (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it vaguely likely that any groups will splinter off from PD in the near future? --FreeSocialist 23:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the near future not at all. --Checco (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Checco,
sorry for replying that late but since my laptop is broken i dont have many possibilities to access the wikipedia. it's nice to hear that there are some guys who are actually interested in south tyrolean politics. i will see what i can do to contribute the english wikipedia and try to translate the vast articles you mentioned. however as i already mentioned atm i am w/o laptop and quite busy with work to do... i guess i can begin working on it in 2 weeks or so.
Ciao --AWak3N (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with Progressivism (Majority) [although I dislike both the term progressivism and using majority/minority]. But the EFA has expelled parties for being xenophobic or suspended their membership, examples are the Italian Lega Nord, Union Valdôtaine and Union für Südtirol. But I can also live with the current version. C mon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same Lega Nord? Well at least my source (the sole source on the EFA article) calls it a "Nationalist parties of the right" and Gallagher, Laver and Mair in their handbook on European politics have listed it under the "extreme right".
The point is when we start listing what a party is not, and not what it is we will be busy for very long, because more parties are not a member of the EFA, than parties are member.
We could which parties are separatist, I think it is the minority. Give me a sec. I'll count. C mon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings my friend, long time no see. What the heck was going on the Trentino-Alto Adige page? -amazing-.. :-) Icsunonove (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A question has arisen concerning classification of groups in the European Parliament. A discussion has opened up in Talk:Political groups of the European Parliament. Your input is requested there. This is a neutrally worded notification sent to a small number of informed, but uninvolved, editors and is intended to improve rather than to influence the discussion. This notification falls under the "friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the UV but the Union for South Tyrol which left the EFA over the Brussels Declaration, according to our own wiki: "The UfS, once a member of the European Free Alliance, has been expelled from that organization in 2008 after it has refused to condemn islamophobia and insisted upon the defense of "European Christian values"." C mon (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Know any details on this? —Nightstallion 11:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For truth there is already a Democratic Party in Trentino, although not organized as in other regions, and Daisy Civic List is already an autonomist and regionalist party. Actually what will happen is that Daisy will continue to exist, even if some members will switch to the regional Democratic Party. Some Daisy leaders would like to form a new party with PATT but this is very unlikely for now. What is certain is that Daisy will continue the alliance with the regional Democratic Party. Remember that all Daisy leaders are members of the national Democratic Party. What about PATT? Some members, including former leader and MP Giacomo Bezzi, had left it and are promoting an alliance with the other regionalist party in the Region, Lega Nord Trentino, which won more than 16% if the vote one month ago.
The centre-left in Trentino is very different from the national one as it is composed by a larger number of centrist and conservative figures and that's why it is so strong. The centre-right might become stronger but it will never win in Trentino, I guess, because it supports a more equal version of federalism, which could limit the privileges of autonomous regions. In any case what has happened and is happening in Trentino is one step more toward the regionalization of Italian politics. Also some of those who remained within PATT are more keen to support the centre-right that the Democratic Party in the future.
In general, also regarding our debate about Forza Italia, I would like all of you to understand that Italy is more understandable by using American standards: we elect directly almost everything and, in some way, also the prime minister (even if the electoral law includes the heads of coalitions), we'll use more and more primaries to select candidates, politics is very regionalized, and our two big parties and Lega Nord, their organization, their ideas and their rethorics are often easily comaparable with United States parties. PdL, PD and LN are big parties all including both conservatives and progressives in their ranks, and generally a Liberal politician from the North agrees on more issues with a Northern Democrat than with a Southern Liberal. Moreover, differently from France, Austria and many other countries, in Italy there is almost no far right and since last month also the far left is very small compared to most European countries.
Both what I called "regionalization" and the Americanization of Italian politics are very interesting phenomena. You can agree or not with my analysis today, but I assure you that in the coming decades all of this will become clear and evident also for people outside Italy. --Checco (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message on my talk page here. There is no need to apologise: greater interest in the groups is to be encouraged, your enthusiasm was welcome, and it is pleasing to see seven editors try to come to consensus. I do need to point out that enthusiasm must also be tempered by due regard for recentism, sources and the real world, and to the work that nonconsensual changes can cause for other people. As for your request that I work on Union for Europe, Europe of Nations and Independents for a Europe of Nations by adding group members and update Independence/Democracy, I would be pleased to do so: they are already on my list of things to do. I do need to point out a personally difficult and frustrating thing for me: I do not have access to a computer that I own and have to use those of others during the times which they permit. I will have good access to the Internet until 20:00 UTC May 12 2008, then limited/no access thereafter until approx 21:00 UTC May 18 2008. I would like to devote the time until 20:00 UTC May 12 2008 to implementing the consensual changes on Talk:Political groups of the European Parliamentif consensus is achieved before then. Once consensus is achieved and the consensual changes implemented across the multiple relevant templates/gifs/pngs/pages, then I will be able to work on the areas you suggest and will do so in the time available to me.
On an associated point, I note that the European Free Alliance article identified the Canarian Coalition as a member of the European Radical Alliance. That information helped me identify the Canarian MEP that I couldn't track down (Isidoro Sánchez García). So thank you for that.
Sorry, I'm a little confused regarding what precisely you asked me. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SRS - 54.2%
DSS - 18.5%
EU - 14.39%
SPS - 7.49%
LDP - 0.93%
This are preliminary results for the parliamentary elections on the territory of Kosovo from yesterday. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Np. Oh and I forgot to tell you the turnout - 31.25%. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turnout of all voters or of Serbian voters only? —Nightstallion 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the a hundred and fifteen thousand and some more applied registered voters. Yes, I guess most are Serbs. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are being recruited by the WikiProject Political Parties, Emphasizing consistency, global perspective, and neutrality, the WikiProject aims to create good articles about political parties worldwide. Join us!
Let me start by stressing one thing: I have no personal problems with you. I think that on some occassions (Conservative liberalism f.i.) we did good work together. I do not think that you are a bad editor, or a bad person. I just disagreed with several decisions you made:
Forza Italia: you removed a source contribution and added unsourced contribution. My quarrel stopped when you added the references, although I would like to see your contribution the debate on talk:Forza Italia
Vlaams Belang: again the sourcing of the VB ideology is crucial, because it is so contested. I disagree with the characterization of VB as national conservative. Furthermore you seem to imply that national conservatism is somehow more extreme than liberal conservatism or conservatism without adjectives. I don't see this in the definitions on wiki or in Mair.
EFA: I think the huge list of non-member parties in the EFA is getting a tad ridiculous, adding what I thought were branches to the list was unnecessary IMO, but if they were existing parties before, inclusion is warranted.
In each case I had quarrels with your edits, not you as a person. In the case of FI, you provided the referenecs and in the case of the EFA you convinced me that the inclusion is okay. C mon (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made the list into two collumns. C mon (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do :) Probably depends on browser/screen size. C mon (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering what this comment is caused by, my characterizing Forza Europa as conservative here? In that case, I provide a strong argumentation why that is preferable over liberal conservative below. If that is not the case: I know too little about Italian politics to have my own nuanced views about Forza Italia. In my POV Forza Europa is not an American style party or an exception in Europe, but it belongs to a class or family to which the Spanish PP, the Portugese PSD, the Greek ND, the French Gaullists (from UDR to UMP) belong as well: broad conservative movements of the centre right, which are all patriotic or nationalist. But my opinion does not matter I have to rely on verifiable, external, reliable sources, written by academic political scientists.
If that is the case: I am not very inclined to discuss the issue with you in detail, because we have different views on how wiki should function, while I think we should use sources to base our statements on, you believe that your own opinion about Italian parties is more important. While my view is based on wikipedia policy, yours is not.
I could be done here. I based my edit on a publication of Simon Hix, professor at the London School of Economics, who wrote several books and tons of academic articles about European parties and who specifically characterizes Forza Europa as conservative. That is how far wikipedia goes. Our friend Nightstallion will agree with me on that one.
But I think your argument shows a promising weakness: if Forza Italia is a broad heterogeneous rightwing party and if conservatism is used both in Europe and in Italy to refer to the main parts of the ideology of FE/FI (religious conservatism and economic conservatism), what is wrong with characterizing it as "conservative"? All the factions or subgroups of FE/FI are conservative. That is what they share! The current classification (esp. where all the minority ideologies are mentioned) imply that Forza Italians don't share anything, but they do, namely conservatism! C mon (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checco, I think you misinterpreted me:
I left three lines of argument
LSE professor Simon Hix calls FE conservative. So FE should be considered conservative unless you can provide a source that does that. Until now you have provided blogs, sites operated by amateurs etc or books which touch only for a limited extend on the subject at hand. Provide sources for FE and we can have a discussion. Hix, Mair, Laver and Gallagher are experts on European politics. Mair lives in Italy, Hix has written the book about European party politics and Laver is continually working on new ways to measure party positioning. You can't just say "you are trying to prove your own opinion by citing these sources." I just grabbed the first book on comparative politics I saw. You are still a student at university right? Go the university library and prove my sources wrong! There are tons of books written about Italian politics lately:
Shin, Michael E. (2008) Berlusconi’s Italy : mapping contemporary Italian politics
Bull, Martin J. (2005) Italian politics : adjustment under duress
Andrews, Geoff (2005) Not a normal country : Italy after Berlusconi
I think that there is good reason to, in a global context, call FE conservative. Its member groups share conservatism, as it is used internationally. The liberals would be economic conservatives and the Christian-democrats would be religious conservatives. Though one is secular and the other religious, they both share conservatism. Just like the members of the Republican party BTW.
I personally hold the view that FI belongs to a brand of Southern European conservatives. I can't prove that, so I am not putting that on wikipedia. But I think as an intellectual exercise, it would be interesting to compare Gaullism with Forza Italia. Let me, just for fun mention eight similar characteristics:
a. They both are highly personalistic movements around charismatic leaders De Gaulle and Berlusconi respectively;
b. They are home to a range of different conservatism, with Christian-democratic and liberal flavours;
c. They both came to power as the result of the previous party system, which was characterized by large Christian-democratic party, collapsing;
d. They both do things which seem contrary to the direct national interest (De Gaulle giving up Algeria; Berlusconi implementing fiscal federalism in Italy) out of a vision for the future of Italy/France;
e. Both parties are typical cadre parties, which are organizationally weaker than mass parties;
f. Both support moderate level of European integration (more Europe of Nations, than a Federal Europe);
g. Both parties supported wide ranging governmental reform oriented towards a majoritarian/presidential political system;
Just a fun fact: Did you know that the PSD in Portugal tried to copy Forza Italia's success with Forca Portugal? C mon (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A (very) draft discussion on the policy on political parties has been started by me here - User:Doktorbuk/pp. If you can assist with this discussion, or know how to help me get this policy looked at, advanced, and accepted by the larger Wiki community, please let me know. Many thanks doktorbwordsdeeds 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration of the Month nominations are currently open for WikiProject Political Parties's Collaboration of the month. So far there is one nomination. You can nominate and vote at June's Collaboration page (link). --Megapen (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate more than one article, but I don't think you can vote for both. - DiligentTerrier(and friends) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed your comment on Megapen's talk page. I'm curious as to who you think McCain's VP choice will be? - DiligentTerrier(and friends) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very annoying. And he doesn't even answer our questions on why, he just keeps on trolling with his stupid edits. I recommend that we contact an administrator about this. It's very annoying. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why you have created a template with this content instead of just putting it in the article? I am struggling to see the benefit. Regards, MSGJ (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brazilian PPS Party as "social-liberal mutation"?[edit]
At the footnotes of that page, the PPS is described as a "social-liberal mutation". Although I do not subscribe to the ideology of that website, that particular point seems true to me. You only have to listen to one of the podcasts of the PPS candidate for mayor of São Paulo, "Soninha", to see that she is not socialist, she is social-liberal and pro-social market. Check it out!
Diligent Terrier would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Diligent Terrier to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Checco . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Hi Checco. Yep, you can download at WP:HUGGLE, and follow the instructions on that page. I've never used it...but I don't think you have to be approved any more. Best, PeterSymonds(talk) 10:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm told so! It reverts, warns users and, if you're making reports to WP:AIV, it automatically allows you to provide diffs of vandalism edits. It's pretty cool. :)I always wondered how people could have the patience to provide sometimes up to 8 diffs at AIV...I only realised it was automated a few days ago!! On an aside it's colourful as well. =D Best, PeterSymonds(talk) 10:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your things with the PCF being far-left. It kind of is, in some ways. But the bottom line is, the PCF has nothing in common with the LCR or LO. It has more in common with the PS, MRC and so forth. It participates in the Union of the Left/etc, unlike the LCR or LO. It is a parliamentary left party, and that's why I changed the template to say 'parliamentary left' to better reflect the nature of parties. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the LCR and LO were in parliament and were in the Union of the Left, then yes they'd be Parliamentary Left parties. But they're not and don't want to be. What's your point there? --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up to the political parties policy debate, I have updated the page User:Doktorbuk/pp for your comment. Cheers doktorbwordsdeeds 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need an article on the new Unione per il Trentino... Who will join them, BTW? Or will PATT and TA remain separate? —Nightstallion 08:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TA and PATT, or at least the Bezzi's wing of PATT, are likely to merge soon but definitely not with Unione per il Trentino. I will write the article when I will have the information. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nods Thanks! When will the election be held? —Nightstallion 09:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in October, don't know the exact date... --Checco (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is Daisy Civic List dead now, or will it continue to exist? I'm a bit confused about the political parties in Trentino right now... —Nightstallion 09:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can say that Union for Trentino will replace Daisy Civic List, whose members divided among those who wanted to joined PD and those who wanted to form a new regionalist parties. It will be rather interesting to see what the other regionalist parties will do? It seems likely that TA and PATT, or at least Bezzi's wing of PATT, will support Sergio Divina, leader of Lega Trentino, as their candidate for President, even if FI is divided on the idea. --Checco (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lega Trentino is gathering a regionalist coalition, but it needs to join forces with FI and AN (allies of Lega Nord both in Rome and in Trento) if they want to win the election. FI leadership is anyway divided on Divina as candidate: some of them support him, others consider him a bad choice. What is sure is that Lega Trentino jumped to 16.5% in the last general election in Trentino and that Divina is supported by other regionalists, notably Bezzi, former leader and MP of PATT, and possibly also by the rest of PATT. Is it clear, now? --Checco (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. So
Lista Civica --> Unione per il Trentino
PATT + TA --> "autonomist merger"
PD and UpiT will support a joint candidate
FI, AN, LT and the "autonomist merger" might support a joint candidate
Yes, but pay attention to the fact that PATT could either support the centre-right or the centre-left. It depends what the leadership will decide. It is also very likely that PATT will split among those supporting the centre-right (who would form a joint list with TA) and those supporting the centre-left (who could either make an alliance or merge with UpT). I actually don't know who will retain the name (PATT) in the case of a split. --Checco (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, what exactly is so great about Berlusconi's politics? Giving himself amnesty from prosecution for a crime he very, very probably committed doesn't sound like he's got Italy's interests in mind. Not at all. —Nightstallion 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very different from what you described and I'm sorry you don't know exactly how Italy works. It's better, for our friendship, if we don't discuss on the issue... I hope you will excuse me for this. I'm however always here for answering to everything about Italian politics, parties and elections, but I prefer not to talk about politics itself. Sorry again. --Checco (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but if you really believe the law is being passed because PdL wants the important trials to have more attention, then I really can't help you. ;) —Nightstallion 22:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was defintely something important for Italian judicial system and a similar measure was proposed by Prodi's government some months before. People outside Italy find difficult to understand how strange the judicial system is in Italy and how judges are not independent. The fact the they are organized in factions linked to political parties is not a good thing and the it:Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, as far as I know, has no equals in other countries. Magistrates had and have an active role in Italian politics (and not only because of Berlusconi, remember Mani pulite or the fall of Prodi's government) and this resembles me some South American countries not democracies such as Austria, Switzerland, Germany or France, where the President is granted of immunity during his term. Italy is a mess, on this I agree with you, even if we may not agree on the causes of the problems and the solutions to enact. I'm not a jurist and I find very difficult to explain myself in such techincal issues, sorry about that. Berlusconi is definitely a controversial figure, but his approval ratings are the highest ever for an Italian prime minister and his government is doing a lot of things. We'll see what happens and what will be known outside Italy. --Checco (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more important question is why you removed the references and templates! We both agreed with this SQ, and then, without any argument or new sources, you change it!
On the issues: there is nothing wrong with having the same references for something which is debatable in the article, the article on the Dutch conservative liberal VVD does the same. Moreover I still consider most of what is written under ideology to be OR. Especially the sentence "The "Secular Creed" of the party explains that FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual, as it is considered by liberalism and the Catholic social teaching:" Because the secular creed text says nothing about liberalism or Catholic social teaching. The relationship with liberalism and catholic social teaching is infered by the writer, without sources. C mon (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of my OR/SYN related issues are in saying that: "The "Secular Creed" of the party explains that FI is a party which primarily underlines freedom and the centrality of the individual, as it is considered by liberalism and the Catholic social teaching."
You have source 1, saying that FI values the individual, and assumption 2 and 3, that these matter in liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching (CST), and from this it is inferred that FI lives up to liberalism and catholic social teaching. Nowhere does the secular creed say that the party lives up to liberalism or CST.
Second, what is wrong with providing sources for the same, controversial and debatable, assertion on multiple places in the article. It just gives readers in different places in the article a chance to look at your sources. There is no WP rule either way, moreover this is the consensus version we agreed on. The burden of proof is on you to convince me this change is necessary. C mon (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that you have added references but it does not remove my problem. Please read WP:SYN for the exact nature of my problem. But it goes a little like this:
You cannot say on wikipedia that A has characteristic B, because source 1 says that A has characteristic C and source 2 say that all C are B. This looks like a good piece of logical reasoning (but it is not), but as long as you do not have a source that A has characteristic B, this is not allowed on wikipedia.
So your assertion that FI is both catholic and liberal, because you have source 1 that states that FI is individualist, and source 2, that states catholicism and liberalism are individualist, is not allowed on wikipedia because you are synthesising new information from old information, which is original research.
Moreover, but this is a secondary argument, the reasoning is flawed. You assert that:
FI is individualist
Catholic social teaching is individualist
Liberalism is individualist
Therefore FI is catholic and liberal.
This reasoning is flawed, take for instance this example:
Radicali Italiani are individualist
CST is individualist
Radicali Italiani are catholic.
That A has characteristic B, and all C have characteristic B does not mean that A is C. (All tomatoes are red, this Ferrari is red, therefore this Ferrari is a tomato). Because there can be things that have characteristic B, but not be C. There are more individualist ideologies than CST and liberalism, socialism, republicanism and anarchism for instance.
