User talk:Checco/Archive 3 (July-December 2007)

Please make an opinion at the talk page. take care, Icsunonove 07:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that

there is finally a province of BZ, amazing, eh? :-) Icsunonove 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be founded soon according to [1] -- is that correct? —Nightstallion 15:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly this Thursday, per [2]... —Nightstallion 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newpapapers are full of news about a Freedom Party, but I don't know how likely its foundation. Nothing is sure: it is not clear if PdL will be the transformation of FI or a sister party of FI. What is sure is that it won't comprise AN and UDC, for now. Italian politics is very fluid: the foundation of PD, the Socialist Constituent Assembly, Daniele Capezzone who is switching to FI, the referendum, the growth of The Right, the proposed re-foundation of Christian Democracy under Berlusconi... it is very difficult to foresee what will happen. Very intersting, anyway. --Checco 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: It was correct "Freedom Party" (Partito della Libertà)... why did you change the title the title of the article about it? --Checco 12:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard anything about Capezonne or the CD under Berlusconi yet -- details? And I changed it because the majority of Italian news articles I read stated its name would be "delle", not "della"... —Nightstallion 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Partito della Libertà has been officially registered, or founded, or something like that. There's even an article on it at it: now, though it's rather small... Could you update the English article? I don't really understand well enough precisely *what* happened this month... —Nightstallion 15:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even for my, as for FI members and commentators, it is very difficult to understand what's happening. The only thing I can say now is: we'll see. About Capezzone there are some news: he founded a new libertarian political association (Decidere.net) along with many leading figures, mostly from the centre-right (see list). There are many rumors about Capezzone leaving the Radicals (he already says that he does not support Prodi's government) and joining FI or AN. --Checco 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have now two articles about PdL:

Liberty Party (Italy). It would be a good idea to merge them. Do you think it is better to use "freedom" or "liberty" as translation? --Checco 23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It definitely should be "Freedom Party", compare the translation of Freedom Party of Austria and House of Freedoms. —Nightstallion 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. About Capezzone, someday I will start the Decidere.net or Choose.net article. --Checco 13:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is at it again. I think it is time for the long needed RfC and investigation of his abuses. Icsunonove 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the kind words. :-) But it was really everyone that came up with the compromise solution. Icsunonove 05:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Checco, also I saw this page you guys were working on

I continue to think that "Radical Party (France)" is the best solution. Maybe we can add "current" to that. --Checco 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should likely move the other to "Radical Party (France, historical)" and the current one to "Radical Party (France, current)", as we've done for one or two Italian parties, I believe. —Nightstallion 15:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a good idea. What is important for me is that we change the current situation. --Checco 23:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did precisely what I proposed above. —Nightstallion 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's seems to me a good compromise. --Checco 02:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get that correctly? The UDC wants to be the nucleus of their own new party, the Party of Moderates/Partito dei Moderati? I somehow happened to find something about UDC and PdM, and when searching on news.google.it, I found a lot of news suggesting something in that direction... —Nightstallion 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be some collection of info on the subject... —Nightstallion 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue -- according to it.wiki, MRE will join PD after all...? —Nightstallion 01:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally in Italy the expression "Party of Moderates" is used to identify the Freedom Party, thuse the proposed new party in which FI, AN and UDC would merge. Casini, who was once a keen supporter of the idea, now rejects it and proposes instead an other "Party of Moderates", which is nothing more than the plan to enlarge UDC (maybe welcoming some FI leading ex-Christian Democrats or Mastella's UDEUR) and to find a new brand for it (not "Party of Moderates", anyway, that's sure). I think that his prospects are not so good as he thinks, as witnessed by the last opinion polls showing support for UDC shrinking and FI flying over 30%. Casini bet on the political death of Berlusconi and was totally wrong in his predictions: as of today Berlusconi is again the most popular politician in the country (according to opinion polls) and the centre-right would win by a landslide a general election, even without UDC.

About MRE I don't know very much: it is a tiny unrelevant party and newspapers alomost never mind to talk about it. The source you found seems to me a clear evidence that MRE will merge into PD after all, exactly as you said. --Checco 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Does the MRE give any reason for reversing their decision? —Nightstallion 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were granted of some top posts in primary lists, but this is only a speculation. Sorry if I can't help you very much about it. --Checco 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks! —Nightstallion 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the likely future of Decide!? Will it become a party, and if so, what camp will it join? And does this mean that the DS will likely join the Assembly? —Nightstallion 13:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions, two answers:

1) Nobody knows the future of Decide!, but I guess that it will join the centre-right for at least two reasons: it has more members hailing from the centre right and Capezzone is approching to Berlusconi. Maybe it will become a party, maybe a faction within Forza Italia or the future Freedom Party, for now it remains a political association/movement. The future of it will depend highly on the success of the rallies it is organizing. The number of people who are joining Decide! are very promising, anyway.

2) No no, it simply means that some ex-DS members now in SD decided to join the Socialist Constituent Assembly, although remaining members of SD. The DS will definitely merge with DL to for PD: there are no doubts about it. --Checco 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I confused the abbreviations -- I meant to ask whether the *SD* would join the Assembly. —Nightstallion 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the Liberal Democrats -- just what Italy needed, *another* party split. sighs How likely is it that they'll join the PD when Veltroni has won the leadership? —Nightstallion 10:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: another party, exactly what Italy needs. It is the typical party which can create problems to the governing majority: a party with a significant representation in the Parliament and with no popular support. About your question, I hope that they will join PD, but I think also that the likeliest thing to happen is they will spilt too: Dini (and maybe D'Amico, Scalera and Fisichella) with the centre-right and the others remaining in the centre-left. But these are only speculations... --Checco 11:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, SD won't join the Socialist Constituent Assembly. At least for now. Indeed it is likely that also SD will split between those who joined the SCA and those who want an alliance with PRC. --Checco 11:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least that would mean that there's no *new* party because of SD, just a larger SCA and a larger PRC... —Nightstallion 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that, bit I'm not sure about it. SD and PRC could form an federation not a party, and SCA could well remain a collection of tiny parties with tiny leaders. I hope something different, as you can imagine... remember that I am a supporter of first-past-the-post and a dreamer of an American-styled bipartisan political system! --Checco 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go as far, I'd prefer to have a not-too-large number of parties which could form coalitions with each other like in most other European countries... and I'm very much against FPTP, but I certainly would agree that there's *far* too many parties in Italy. —Nightstallion 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like FPTP beacuse of my support for direct democracy and federalism. About bipartitism I think that it is not as people think: in the United States there are two parties, true, but many different views, factions and orientations. The system is clear and rational, but at the same time it is much more open to different opionions and fresh political ideas than, say, in Italy, where we have many many parties but you can wonder if there is real difference between many of them. In the United States, parties are more like coalitions: the Democrats are a coalition of centrists, liberals, progressives, greens, social democrats, even conservatives; the Republicans are a coalition of conservatives, liberarians, centrists, religious conservatives, even liberals. This is why I like that system. If you think a litte bit, US Democrats and Republicans can be compared more easily with European political coalitions (as The Union and the House of Freedoms) than with single parties (as CDU and SPD). However, this is more a politological digression, not so much pertinent to our discussion. What would be important for Italy, anyway, is to have parties with a larger ideological variety and a broader political base, united on some key-points, as European parties normally are and as US parties defenitely are. --Checco 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with you that the D and R in the US are more like coalitions, but still, it's not something I'd like to have here in Europe... ;) Anyway, yeah, I agree on that last bit. —Nightstallion 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Checco 18:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one more joins. :) —Nightstallion 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but RD was already an isignificant minor party. The real problem is about all those parties scoring between 0.5% and 4%: they *should* merge! --Checco 16:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, yeah. Still, every little bit helps... —Nightstallion 19:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! --Checco 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checco, I have added some references and a keep to the AfD, I hope that you will join me in finding references for the article. C mon 07:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work was fantastic. I will try to find references too. --Checco 11:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so good in conservative liberalism, so I cannot really contribute. On National liberalism, it seems to be a german/austrian current. It might be interesting to have an article. Electionworld Talk? 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can agree with writing an article on the Austrian-German phenomenon: Bismarck's national-liberalism. But I doubt whether an article on it's current use is viable. C mon 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, do you think pages like

Created Socialist Party (Italy) based on it:Partito Socialista (Italia), please expand it. Thanks! —Nightstallion 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If both are no longer named NPSI -- what article currently reflects their accurate names now? —Nightstallion 06:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nightstallion, I am confused about it too. I was away from home for just three days and when I come back I founded new parties and changes. Italian politics is getting very difficult to understand! What I understood is that, as NPSI-De Michelis joined the new Socialist Party (Boselli), it also changed symbol and name (you can see these things at http://www.nuovopsi.com). In the mean time, the NPSI-Caldoro (which wants to be par of the future Freedom Party, instead) changed symbol, while continuing to call itself "New Italian Socialist Party" (http://www.partitosocialista.org). What does this mean? I really don't know. Maybe a court somewhere forbidden the use of the symbol to either groups, or the use of the name to De Michelis group, or simply De Michelis' followers decided to change name and symbol coherently with their decision to join the Socialist Party (Boselli). Moreover, I don't understand what party is the legal continuation of NPSI. Indeed both groups made their congresses in June presenting themselves as the official NPSI. This happened at least twice before in the history of NPSI. Then it is usually up to the courts to rule the issue. This time I don't know. Maybe we can descrive the NPSI-Caldoro as the only, true continuation of NPSI, as it is de facto, but I can't state now how much this is correct. The only thing we can do is to do some research about it and see constantly the websites of the two groups. --Checco 14:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the website of NPSI-Caldoro there is a long post today, in which the author speaks about the "separation by mutual consent" between the two wings and that, as the NPSI-De Michelis started calling itselft "Socialist Party", there's only one NPSI now: that of Caldoro, which is the perfect continuation of NPSI, having not changed goals and coalition affiliation since 2001. Check the websites and the news, and then tell me what you understand about it. This is what I understood. --Checco 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morever, it.Wiki (which is not a reliable source, anyway) states that NPSI is that of Caldoro. I think we better stick to that options, as all the available sources state. --Checco 14:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is

I really don't know and it is difficult to find information about it: newspapers never wrote about the Christian Democratic Federation. --Checco 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate it:La Sinistra into The Left (Italy)? —Nightstallion 15:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that is a bizzare invention of a user in it.Wiki. These are only speculation. And I think that we'd better cancel it in it.Wiki. --Checco 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it in at least one official poll, and it seems to be a likely federation of parties, but fair enough. —Nightstallion 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is a lot of opinion polls proposing non-existing parties/coalitions in Italy. There have been opinion polls with the PD at least since 2004, and sometimes pollsters ask voters if they would vote for the Freedom Party or for a Federation of Centre between UDC, UDEUR and some other parties (sometimes even DL)! As you said: fair enough for now. --Checco 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods We'll see, as soon as they actually form a federation (what's the

20 October date mentioned in the article, BTW?), we can create the article. —Nightstallion 20:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As regards La Destra: Sicilian Alliance just merged into it a few days ago, it seems! I've updated articles and templates already. —Nightstallion 21:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AS will probably retain some of its autonomy, especially before the official foundation of

10 November. For example it is likely tha in Sicily The Right will be named "The Right-Sicilian Alliance". So: ok with the template (AS will be for The Right, as Liga Veneta is for Lega Nord, "Liga Veneta-Lega Nord" in Veneto), but I made some changes to the article. --Checco 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this reform, to be introduced in parliament on

As it seems that the electoral law issue is treated separately -- cf. this --, another question: how likely is it that the German system will be adopted? And when? —Nightstallion 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both reforms are not likely. This doesn't mean we are heading to the electoral law referendum. The President may call an early election for the Spring (this will stop the referendum machine) or the parties can reach compromise on a new electoral system. It won't be the German one because it will be unconstitutional (the number of MPs is set by the Constitution as fixed) and you can't make an electoral law without the support of Berlusconi, Veltroni and Fini, the three major party leaders of the country, who are opposing the idea. Berlusconi sometime flirted with the German system (or at least with a system modelled on this, aware of the Constitution), but now seems against it. --Checco 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Well, it'll be interesting to see how this develops... —Nightstallion 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --Checco 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get the content of this right: The idea is to reduce parliamentarians to 500 in the lower and 180 in the upper house, to have fewer rights for the Senate, and to have a Senate that truly acts as the regions' chamber? —Nightstallion 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. What is a shame for me is that all these good reforms were already part of the constitutional reform that the centre-right carried in the previous parliament and that the centre-left managed to oppose in the consequent referendum. I think that on those issues centre-left leaders made their worse mistake in 20 years time and I understand Berlusconi when he says that there it is not time for refoms but for a snap election. Time is running out for the centre-left now and they could have thought better of his reforms in 2006: now it is too late. That is what Berlusconi reapets everyday. We'll see if it is only tacticts or a true strategy of opposition to the centre-left. I would like anyway to see those reforms approved, but the centre-left is very unreliable on those issues. --Checco 13:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summarise what exactly the institutional reform would do, precisely? Thanks! —Nightstallion 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically:

• differentiation of the functions of the two chambers
• a federal SEante with the regions represented in it
• more powers to the prime minister: he will be able to apponint and disappoint his ministers
• lower treshold for being elected President of the Republic (40 years instead of 40)
• cut of the number of MPs (512 in the Chamber of Deputies, down from 630)

I will check if there are other highlights. --Checco 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What's the new minimum age for the president? You wrote "40" twice... And will the Senate also be reduced in number? —Nightstallion 19:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry... the minimum age for presidents is 50 now. Also the Senate will be reduced but I don't remember the number: I will check. --Checco 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it yet? —Nightstallion 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they will be 206 instead of 315. A good wiki-source is this, but there it is written that the number will be 250 (excluding those elected by the Italians abroad). Now I don't have time to check waht version is correct, but I'm sure that it's the first (200+6=206). --Checco 14:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't find this insulting, but how can you support America and be a liberal at the same time —Preceding unsigned comment added by New4321 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I think anyone can support America, and be of any ideology they want (that doesn't hurt others). That is the foundation of the United States Mr. New4321. Icsunonove (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and I am sorry if I offended you. And I am glad you respect America. This is the greatest country in the world.New4321 03:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You type faster than me.New4321 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well while I was typing my reply I got a message that you typed another message before me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by New4321 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long time no see, nice to see Rarelibra and PhJ back, eh? You should see how they were calling me an Italo-extremist on Francesco's page. ;] It is always nice when you use logic to come up with a good solution, and then you get those who can not reason intelligently to just scream and yell. It happens a lot in life, eh? Anyway, I was happy to see a balanced title come to the BZ page finally, but man I sure get the brunt from that angry bunch. :) oh well. Anyway, with regard to Francesco's suggestion. I believe all that information can be kept in the Tyrol dab page, no? If we make a South Tyrol dab page now, then we must also make a Alto Adige dab page, which is becomes an exact mirror. Sloppy, in my opinion, and not worth it just to appease these people... Icsunonove 05:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, the most beautiful thing has been to see this kicking and screaming at us, but they never can explain why South Tyrol is more neutral than Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I'm just very proud we were not like them and push for only Alto Adige... Icsunonove 05:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you must see what is going on now on the ANI board. [3] Icsunonove 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making a comment. :-) I'm just amazed at what I run into after being away for quite awhile. I still can not believe the comments I find by chance and then these threats and e-mails I get. Anyway, my friend, you definitely have no obligation to agree with my opinion on the South Tyrol dab suggestion. :) My only thought is if we do a South Tyrol dab, then it means we must also do a Alto Adige dab, which becomes an exact copy of the South Tyrol dab. That is why I thought it is less controversial and actually more concise to just use the Tyrol dab, and maybe include more information if necessary. Anyway, I like how we so-called "Italo-centrics" at least even debate internally. It is not like this group-think we get from a certain subset of the opposition. Anyway, have a nice weekend. Icsunonove 22:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Checco! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

So, they're being introduced today. Any idea when it will be voted on? I haven't been able to find much on it on Google News -- maybe because I don't really know what to search for in Italian... —Nightstallion 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are likely to be voted next week in the Chamber, but there is no chance that they coul pass later in the Senate, due to the fact that current senators have little chance of getting re-elected with such reform. --Checco 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Too bad. Still could you keep an eye on that for me? Thanks! —Nightstallion 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviuosly. Anyway, it's not too bad: the more I read about the reform (for example read this), the stronger I oppose it. --Checco 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you summarise that article for me? My Italian is too bad to read its main points. —Nightstallion 13:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It basically says that there is no strenghtening of the role of the prime minister and that there is no improvement of the federal system. Moreover Calderisi criticizes that the Senate will be elected indirectly (by an election of second and third grade, I hope you understand me), that it is not modelled neither on the German model nor on the US one (in his opinion, having senators elected by the regional councils is not a very good idea and would help fragmentation and weak representation of the regions, especially of the regional governments). Finally he says that, as the reform was proposed in the Chamber, it won't pass in the Senate, because senators feel that their chances of the re-election are undermined seriously by it as it is the role of the Senate. --Checco 14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods Thanks! —Nightstallion 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least a reform reducing the number of ministers was approved: http://www.pupia.tv/politica/1636/riduzione-dei-ministri-senato-approva.html Has that one already passed the lower house? Will it be implemented immediately or only after the next election? —Nightstallion 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the constitutional reform and will be implemented since the next cabinet. So, if Prodi resigns, his successor (who can be also himself) will follow the new government organization: 12 ministers, 5 ministers without portfolio, not more than 60 members of the government (including deputy-ministers and under-secretaries). Currently Prodi II Cabinet has 105 members, a record. --Checco 16:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods I know that this is a different proposal. Will likely pass the lower house, as well, I hope? Sounds like a very sensible reform, though I don't know what would keep the next government from simply changing this again if they need more posts to reward loyal followers... —Nightstallion 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will pass in the Chamber, if it is not already passed. I'm not so informed about this. Sorry. I thought that the Chamber already passed it. I will check. I think that the reform is important anyway, and let me give the example of Berlusconi: he respected the law in 2001, his government had only 14 ministers. The problem is that it was the number of ministers without portfolio, deputy-ministers and under-secretaries which was out of control, starting from his third government. Then Prodi has been a recordman. The only thing I can say is that I hope that the rule will be observed. Last thing: I find ridiculous the centre-left setting the number of ministers for the future governments and then not observing the setted rule. I hope also that in the future they will be more coherent. --Checco 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Austrian daily Der Standard, Berlusconi's allies want to constructively talk with the governing coalition over electoral and constitutional reform... http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3114326 Is that true? —Nightstallion 09:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is possible for example that the most centrist parties in the coalition (UDC and LN) will talk with the majority about reforms, but also Fini and (covertly) Berlusconi might be interested. I think that it is very good. I hope that the outcame would be a good constitutional reform and I hope that (although I understand that fresh elections will be necessary at this point) the centre-right will be more constructive than the centre-left has been in the past. You know, revenge is not a good idea! In Italy there is also talk about a new electoral law reform proposed by Veltroni: it is a mix of first-past-the-post and of proportional representation, and it seems to me a very sensible proposal, being a mix of the German, the Spanish and the sstem we had for the Senate between 1994 and 2001. Let me explain you the basics of it.

50% of the MPs will be elected in sigle-seat constituencies, the other 50% with proportional representation. As the repartitition of seats is within groups of 6-8 single-seat constituencies (thus 12-16 seats as a whole), there will be an implicit treshold of 4-8% (it depends on the number of single-seat constituencies). There is no national repartition of the seats and, when a party wins more seats in single-seat constituencies that it would have won with overall distribution, it retains them. So, if a party scores 30% in a group of constituencies but wins all the single-seat constituencies, it will retain all of them and the other parties will have only the remaining seats. Moreover, those MPs elected by proportional representation, are the best losers in the single-seat constituencies, so that party lists will be almost unuseful. Primary system for choosing the candidates will be implemented. This system will help big parties (PD and FI), will fairly represent medium-sized (AN, UDC and PRC) and regional-based parties (LN, SVP, UDEUR and MpA) and will under-represent small parties, without leaving them completely out of Parliament (even if for a party scoring 2-4% of the votes all over the country without strongholds, will be very difficult to get into it).

The new system will have a proportional base, but it can become very maggioritario: it will finally lead us to a two-party system more that a first-past-the-post system based on coalitions of parties (as that we had between 1994 and 2001) would do. I like it. The problem is that for several reasons UDC and small parties will oppose it or will lead to changes which will ruin it.. We'll see. I think that especially Berlusconi and Bossi should think seriously about Veltroni's proposal because it incredibly favors their parties. For a complete documentation of the proposal, see http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/politica/legge-elettorale-7/bozza-vassallo/bozza-vassallo.html and, above all, http://download.repubblica.it/pdf/2007/governo/sistema_elettorale.pdf. --Checco 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the latest news? According to it.wiki, the constituent assembly will be on

Where did you get this information? I'm not able to find it in it.Wiki... --Checco (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it:Silvio_Berlusconi#La_seconda_discesa_in_campo —Nightstallion 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berlusconi announced that during the next weekend it will be possible for the people to join the new party, as happened with the Democratic Party. It will be a bottom-top process. Nothing is clear. As of yesterday it seemed that the new PPL will be only a new name for Forza Italia, now members of UDC, Francesco Storace of The Right and other small parties seem to be interested in the idea. And, above all, Berlusconi said that he will talk with Veltroni about reforms. He is so tired of Fini and Casini that it seems that he wants to reform the constitution. This may lead to a basically two-party system: Freedom Populars and Democrats. We'll see what happens. --Checco (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've added the positive voices of Storace and the pro-FI UDC member to the article. If you find anything else, please add it to the article. Do you thin kthe translation is okay? I'm not sure what the best translation of the name is... —Nightstallion 16:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what article? --Checco (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom People's Party. —Nightstallion 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You made a mistake in confusing the Freedom Party with the Freedom People's Party. The first is something very different from the second, which is practically the continuation of Forza Italia with another name. We should discuss if this deserves a new article or just a change of title for the Forza Italia article. The Freedom People's Party will be an enlargement of Forza Italia, basically leading into the new party many associations which has been very close to Forza Italia: the Circles of Freedom, the Circles of Good Government, the Liberal Circles, the Liberal Reformers, the Craxi Foundation... Maybe some members of UDC will join, as I wrote in the Forza Italia article, but it will be above all a restyling of Forza Italia. We can discuss if this deserves a different article, but we should not confuse this project with that of the Freedom Party, which is supported in principle also by Fini and Casini. --Checco (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, *I* didn't confuse it -- that was someone else. Anyway, I put the info about PPL back in the PPL article. —Nightstallion 16:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry for my rudeness. Anyway, it seems that we have decided to do a separate article on PPL. I am not against it as I was yesterday, but at this point it seems that PPL will be only a different name for FI or a restyling of it. What do you think about it? What did we do in similar cases? Sorry again for misinterpreting you! --Checco (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, misunderstandings can happen to anyone. :) Well, if it's a new party -- and it seems it is -- and not just a continuation of FI, i.e. if it is a new legal entity, which it appears to be, then I think we should have a new article. —Nightstallion 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be a slightly different legal entity, mainly beacuse in Italy parties are not registered. But anyway, having an eye on the news, the change seems more and more evident from Forza Italia and I think that it will be difficult for Berlusconi to abort it. Thus, I now agree without ojection. But, can you explain me why we have a single article for

Democratic Party (Turkey, current) and True Path Party. I ask you this because the two sistuations seem very similar to me. --Checco (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Not quite: DYP and ANAP had PLANNED to merge into a single party -- this would have constituted a new party meritting a new article. However, ANAP decided not to become part of the new DP, and so it effectively was just a name change from DYP to DP.

Clarification needed, though: In the FI article, you state that a UDC faction and La Destra will definitively join PLL -- in the PLL article, we say they are interested. Which is true? —Nightstallion 17:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Indeed I corrected the Forza Italia's article. I think that it is very unlikely that Storace will join PPL, as his opposition to the planned Freedom Party was one of the main reasons why he left AN. Anything can happen, anyway... The new party can absorb many votes of AN and UDC, but, as I said, it will be a better-organized Forza Italia. To what extent it will be something different, I don't know. --Checco (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have any parties *definitely* stated they will join PPL? And the Italian wiki says that Berlusconi stated that the name of the article would be decided by the voters... True? How? Source for that so we can include it here? —Nightstallion 15:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now no party definitely stated that it will join PPL. The name will indeed be decided in a primary: every newspaper state this. There is also a poll in Forza Italia's website. --Checco (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added the name decision to the leading paragraph. —Nightstallion 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now PPL will be a bigger Forza Italia, even if some important members of it decided not to join. Anyway, PPL is cannibalizing the other centre-right parties in opinion polls (see for instance this). --Checco (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Have you seen the AfD for the Transnational Radical Party? What are your thoughts? C mon (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read that Luca Cordero di Montezemolo is reportedly only a few weeks away from founding his own party, and that both the CdL and the Ulivo are doing what they can to have him join their coalition. What's the background? —Nightstallion 03:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about it. They are only rumors surfacing every month or so. Sometimes newspapers speak about a party of the poteri forti (I don't know how to explain it in English) by Montezemolo and Casini with the support of corporate interests, banks and the Church. I don't believe that is possible and if it happens it won't have much success. Montezemolo has not a broad appeal and the star of Casini is fading. Nothing can be ruled out, anyway! --Checco (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, okay -- Der Standard stated that Montezemolo, while regularily denying such plans, in recent times has almost confirmed the intention to found a party (based on what you'd call poteri forti -- businessmen and other influential people with lots of money) and that such a party would certainly have some influence. Incorrect analysis, then? —Nightstallion 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who can vote for him. Small businessmen are already behind Berlusconi and the Lega Nord. Maybe that party will damage more the left-wing, which is notably supported by big business, big corporations, banks and the most important editorial groups. --Checco (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods Interesting, I'd love to know where Austrian newspapers get their info... —Nightstallion 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read that Fini and Casini plan to found a new party as a merger of AN and UDC, and that Montezemolo is likely to join them...? [4] [5] [6] —Nightstallion 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting speculation and I would also like it: that will be the conservative bloc, while PPL the liberal and centrist bloc, but, anyway, Fini and Casini both ruled out the idea, and I don't understand how Montezemolo would fit in it. Their voters would be very unconfortable with it, because opportunist Montezemolo represent all they oppose. Anyway even Berlusconi welcomed Montezemolo in the PPL, but he knows that this will damage its popular support, so even this seems likely to me. --Checco (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And moreover I think that, with all respect, Der Standard has a very partial perspective in observing Italian politics. I don't think it is a very good source, but unfortunately I can't read German, so I can't give you a more precise evaluation of it. --Checco (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange -- all Austrian newspapers (Der Standard, Die Presse, Wiener Zeitung at least) are reporting that Fini and Casini have announced a joint party... ???? I'm very confused, I'd really like to know where they got that idea. —Nightstallion 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm well aware that Der Standard is naturally in favour of Prodi's government, but Die Presse and Wiener Zeitung are right-wing newspapers, so if they're all reporting incorrect news, they've either got the same correspondent or they've got some common source which mistranslates a comment made by Casini and Fini... —Nightstallion 23:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They simply released a jont statement against Berlusconi, even underlining that they disagree on many things, and Berlusconi answered "They have the project, I have the votes", accusing them of being bureaucratic old-style politicians and out of touch from voters. --Checco (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered to you on Montezemolo above. --Checco (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sighs Too bad, a merger between UDC and AN would have been a good idea in my opinion. —Nightstallion 00:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you why do you think so? --Checco (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I would prefer a non-Berlusconi-led opposition -- and a merged AN-UDC could be a strong counterinfluence to PPL, I believe. —Nightstallion 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can'y understand why you would prefer hard-conservatives like Fini and Casini rather than Berlusconi, but I imagine that you don't like his polarizing figure. Anyway a merge will be another simplification of the party system (so I would like it too), but a jont Freedom Party would have been even better. Anyway, why do you prefer Fini-Casini to Berlusconi? --Checco (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because I believe the way Berlusconi does politics, including his strong media empire and his populist policies, are dangerous for democracy in the long run (a view shared by many other non-Italians, BTW, even in conservative newspapers commentaries). —Nightstallion 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike populism, but I think that Berlusconi is a liberal not a populist. And I think also that Berlusconi is too understimated outside Italy, while in Italy even centre-left politicians praise his courage and the way he does politics (so that they copy him, for instance think about the creation of the Democratic Party). --Checco (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is not underestimated, he is considered populist, in control of too large a part of the Italian media and dangerous for democracy. —Nightstallion 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and this description is very exagerated. There is a strict control on television in Italy and his network anchormen and showmen tend to be leftish, always criticizing him. That could seem strange, but that's the reality. There is more freedom of expression in Mediaset than in RAI, although I personally prefer the latter and La7 instead of Mediaset channels. I find difficult to understand how he can be dangerous for democracy, but I also think that we need more competition in tv sector. There are basically 7 national channels in Italy and only 4 are completely free (those of Mediaset and La7). --Checco (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to German and English media, Berlusconi uses his media empire to increase support for his populist measures... Doesn't he? Regardless of that, though, I personally find his personal style (the kinds of jokes he makes at EU summits, for example) despicable. —Nightstallion 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does not in fact. About his personal style, he somtimes seems very American and Italians love America, but he is more reliable than other politicians and less gaffe-prone than you may think by reading The Economist or other European journals. --Checco (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. That may be why I dislike him -- I've little sympathy for half of the American political spectrum (mainly because the whole of the Republican spectrum is rather close to "far right" in European contexts in many regards). And what about the condescending way he jokes at European summits? —Nightstallion 14:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did it once, but I think that he is not less reliable than Prodi or other Italian politicians. Instead his problem can be that he is too much interested in making deals, even if the resulting compromise is not good for the country or his voters. He wants everybody to love him, because he is so peaceful that he does not want to be at war with anyone. This seems to me the biggest problem with him: he is not bold enough to carry reforms and he is too suited to compromise. He does not understand that everything he does, good or bad, won't change the minds of left-wingers and trade unionists about him. He does not apply the three thirds rule of Lula, he instead tries to reach everyone and appeal to everyone. You can consider this populist, but in fact I call it moderate. He's not bold enough and too moderate: that's the problem for me with him! --Checco (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not speaking about reliability, I was speaking about personal respect and style, but going back to politics: I call that populist, not moderate -- moderate politicans go through with moderate reforms, populist politicians go through with whatever the public seems to like best currently... —Nightstallion 07:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to share similar opinions on everything and in fact I continue to think that people outside Italy find difficult to understand what kind of politician Berlusconi is because of bad comments on him by leading journals as The Economist(exactly as de Gaulle's comeback to power in 1958 was misunderstood and the fact that we in Europe find difficult understand why Bush has won two elections, and why a Republican, any Republican, is more likely to become President in 2008). Berlusconi is not a populist by any means: he was very stauch and strong in his positions even if he knew that they may cause him damage to the polls (it is the left-wing which governs in a populist way in Italy, think just about the goverment's reaction to the killing of a woman in Rome by a Roma illegal alien: in Italy the left-wing has not strong values, it simply does what may keep it in power, but anyway...). The problem with Berlusconi is not that he is populist (he is not and most of those who accuse him of being populist are very populist, even The Economist is demagogic when speaking of Italy), but that he is a too moderate reformer beacause he would like to have trade unions on his side, something which is impossible as the trade unions and the left-wing hate him. He is a liberal reformer, not a populist. You can call him a populist only because of his attitude to criticizize the poteri forti, differently from the left-wing which is very close to big corporations and banks. Berlusconi's electoral base is mostly in the more developed North and in Milan (it is very difficult to think that the people from this regions like populist populist politicians, very difficult), while the left-wing's stronghold are in the most conservative parts of the South, in the populist Centre and among elitary urban voters. That's what it is in my opinion, you may believe or not... --Checco (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. I suppose we'll simply have to agree to disagree on Berlusconi, then. ;) —Nightstallion 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is wise to do so, but I'm convinced that history will give a better place to Berlusconi than most people outside Europe may think. The fact that now many people from the left-wing are praising Berlusconi for his recent moves can be a start of this. He is a formidable contender and modernizer so that the left-wing tend to copy him, but in this case it is Berlusconi of having followed the left-wing on its new course and indeed Veltroni and Berlusconi praise each other these days. I'm not so confortable with that (mainly because I'm strongly against proportional representation, another issue about which we agree to disagree), but if this will led to a two-party system (something which both Veltroni and Berlusconi would like) I will be very satisfied with the new course of Italian politics). About Fini and Casini, the original subject of this discussion, I want you to know that in the newspapers today there are some editorials in which columnists say that the possible partnership between the two is very awkward because they are on the opposites when talking about almost everything, and especially about reforms. --Checco (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mh, we'll see, I suppose... They started talks on reforms this week, I've just read? —Nightstallion 20:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today Veltroni met Fini. They agreed on some constitutional reform, but they were not able to reach an agreement on the electoral system. Fini wants a first-past-the-post or winner-takes-all system or even a system based on proportional representation with a mojority premium. According to Fini, parties should gather in coalitions before the vote, choose a platform and a candidate for prime minister, who sould be directly elected. Moreover, Fini continues to favor the referendum. --Checco (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veltroni favours the German system, I suppose? What's the likely outcome? —Nightstallion 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veltroni favours the system I described you somewhere in your or my talk page. Remember that the German system is unconstitutional. I don't know what is the likeliest outcome. A Veltroni-Berlusconi agreement maybe, leaving Fini and Casini out in the cold. Anyway, Veltroni continues his meetings: by Friday he will meet with Casini-Cesa, Maroni-Calderoli and Berlusconi. --Checco (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods Okay, thanks! —Nightstallion 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more back to CdL and Fini-Casini: According to Der Standard (http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3126515), CdL is on the verge of splitting between pro-Berlusconi and anti-Berlusconi, Fini and Casini are accusing Berlusconi of propaganda and populism while Berlusconi is accusing them of bickering and being at fault for having made Prodi survive for so long through the constant opposition coalition troubles... And they report *again* that there are rumours of a Fini-Casini party. Just FYI, and just in case you have any idea where they're getting the rumour from... —Nightstallion 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there has always been a split among the so-called "axis of the North" (FI-LN) and the "axis of the South" (AN-UDC). Despite the mutual accusations, I think that the first one supported a liberal and reform-minded line, while the second one a conservative line (The Economist agrees with that). In five years of government AN and LN halted every reform and worked aimed at moderating it. I would like a Fini-Casini party but there's almost anything on which they agree if not stopping Berlusconi, replacing him as centre-right leader, opposition to euthanasia and support for restrictive laws against drug consumption (including jail for marijuana users). The core values of their parties are a little bit different and for instance Fini has a socially liberal agenda on stem-cell research, while Casini is the most conservative political leader on it. Above all they disagree about constitutional and electoral reform. --Checco (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange -- why do Austrian newspapers keep reporting rumours of a Casini-Fini merger? —Nightstallion 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another question: What will the Margherita splinters do? Merge and form a party? Become part of PD after all? —Nightstallion 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberal Democrats and the Democratic Union may form a joint parliamentary group in the Senate with Domenico Fisichella and some members of Forza Italia. The may also break with the centre-left soon, but it is not clear if they will join the centre-right or not. Their role can be diminished by reforms. They are in favor of a first-past-the-post system, anyway. I don't know where Austrian newspapers find their sources, but I can only say that I hope that these rumors are correct: a centre-right composed by three parties will be very interesting. In the meanwhile, Capezzone is almost sure of joining the PPL, while Adornato and Sanza (both members of FI) decided not to join it and they may be interested in joining UDC. --Checco (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought LD and UD had considered joining PD after Veltroni was officially elected...? Too bad. Will all those changes (Capezzone and other non-FI members join PPL, some FI members don't join PPL) become apparent on

2 December? —Nightstallion 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I really don't know, even because somewhere I read that Berlusconi spoke about a constituent assembly or of a founding congress in January. Everything can happen, but the things I wrote you are very likely and for Berlusconi young Capezzone is far better than Adornato and Sanza (an old conservative with some corruption charges... he will fit well in the UDC! - sorry for the POV joke). Even LD and UD may eventually join PPL as they are very moderate and respectable liberals, what is sure is that they wont't join the PD. Giovanardi and others are very very likely to join the PPL. Nothing new for now. --Checco (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. —Nightstallion 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• will they ever leave me alone? [7] Icsunonove (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

Yeah, I read... thank you, I did not know about it yet. --Checco (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an article, perhaps? ;) Is it likely to be a joint project with the Democratic Left and other leftists, or rather a singular effort? —Nightstallion 19:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A singular effort since they are breaking with PRC because of a vote on a welfare reform. And also PRC leader Franco Giordano said that his party may break with the government if it does not change direction and its composition. --Checco (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely time for an article but I don't know very much about it. In any case there is an article in it.Wiki: it:Sinistra Critica. --Checco (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it's likely to go down the drain, I suppose. sighs Like Italy needed another party split. —Nightstallion 20:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly what we need is another party. Sigh. --Checco (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you translate it, please? Also Sinistra Critica...? Thanks! —Nightstallion 17:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on The Left in it.Wiki because it was full of POV statements. When I have the time I will work on these two articles in en.Wiki. I don't know how to title the article on the afr left federation, indeed if you see the symbol L'Arcobaleno seems only a sub-title. I am undecided between "The Left" and "The Left – The Rainbow". I actually prefer the first option for the same reason we have an article titled "Lega Nord" and not "Lega Nord for the Independence of Padania", "Democratic Left" and not "Democratic Left for the European Socialism", "Communist Refoundation Party" and not "Communist Refoundation Party – European Left", "Democrats of the Left" and not "Democrats of the Left – Party of European Socialism" and so on. I will write the same thing in it.Wiki later. What do you think about it?

Mh. I'm not sure -- we've got the article on the Austrian Greens at the full name, not at the short form. I suppose it depends on what they use in official statements -- if they call themselves just "The Left", then it should be just "The Left" in the title, but if they call themselves "The Left – The Rainbow", then we should use that. —Nightstallion 17:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The case will be completely the same of that of SD. Both journalists and politicians refer to SD as "Sinistra Democratica" and in the future they will definitely refer at the new federation as "La Sinistra". For now I will start the article as The Left (Italy). --Checco (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I hope you could help med with the following question. According to an old book I have (from 1992) the DC had been continously in government from 1945 to that point in time. But what is the end point of this continuous time in government? Were they part of the government all the time up to the formation of the first Berlusconi-government (in 1994)??--Oddeivind (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try as I might, I'm not able to source numbers listed here from the linked page. Can you explain why you reverted my removal of them?

How likely is it that after the Popular Liberals leave UDC to join PdL, the rest of the UDC will form the "white thing" mentioned at

It is likely because the party is now lagging behind in opinion polls and, if a new electoral law based on either 5% clause or single-seat constituencies is approved, the party will risk extinction. Obviously it will depend on the electoral law. With the current one, a party can eneter parliament even with less than 2% of the votes. The big-bang of Italian politics is not finished... AN may either transform itself in "Alliance for Italy" or finally join the Freedom Party, while UDC may join forces with either IdV or UDEUR. In the end there is always talk about a Casini-Montezemolo-Monti-Pezzotta-Di Pietro(-Mastella) party, but I find difficult to understand what they have in common and thus I don't think it is likely... Maybe the "white thing" will be formed by not by all the mentioned actors together... --Checco (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Alliance for Italy" would obviously not ally with Prodi, but the "white thing"... would it? —Nightstallion 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what's the status of the electoral law/constitution reform talks? —Nightstallion 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Alliace will be the second major ally of the Freedom People party (now it'official... sigh: orrible name in my opinion), along with Lega Nord. Casini is going nowhere and seems to me pretty desperate, as Fini will be if he does not make peace with Berlusconi. My sense is that Fini is slowly returning back to Berlusconi. The fact that today Berlusconi was again put under investigation for corruption will unifiy the centre-right against what they call "red judges". Also UDC President Buttiglione spoke of "democratic emergence" as Berlusconi is again "under attack", as they like to say.

Talks on the electoral law continue this week, but I don't know if there will be any result as every party has a different position on the issue and small parties are threatening to let Prodi's government fall if there is any reform putting a treshold of 2% or more. Yesterday Enzo Bianco, the Senator who superviews the reform, proposed a system very similar to the German one, obviously respecting the Constitution. --Checco (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods We'll see, I suppose... —Nightstallion 23:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

You have recently removed this image from a number of articles with the explanation "not here please". This image was not created by myself but was, for at least 12 months, an integral part of the

What's the latest news on the electoral reform referendum? —Nightstallion 10:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No news. We are waiting for late January (around 20th maybe) to see what the Constitutional Court decides about its legitimacy. --Checco (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? Why's that? —Nightstallion 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is a country where democracy has never been there completely, not to mention direct democracy... Citizens can propose referendums (only abrogative ones), but then there are a lot of tresholds to surpass for the proposal to survive: the fist is the Supreme Court, the second is the Constitutional Court, the third is that the referendum is held after more than a year since signatures has been collected, the fourth is that the government can choose a bad date for it, the fifth is that the parliament cand decided to stop the referendum by passing a single-article bill changing a single article of the bill which risks to be cancelled by voters, the sixth is that parties can ask the President to call fresh elections (halting the process), the seventh is the 50% quorum (almost impossible to reach beacuse parties tend to ask a no-vote), the eight is that (even if the referendum is approved) the Parliamente can change again the bill making it very similar to the previous version. What is bad about the quorum is that it is designed to make very difficult a referendum to pass, not to mention that on voters' lists there are many dead people (who are anyway counted for the quorum). Our "founding fathers" were so scared of people's will that they decided to introduce thr 50% quorum for abrogative referendums and no quorum for the confermative referendums on changes to the Constitution: in that case even a 10% of voters will be able to change it. --Checco (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nods Sounds quite horrible. Any chance this proposal will pass, then? —Nightstallion 01:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any chance of success for the proposal and I am sick with that because, if if I don't like the final outcome, I think that it will be a useful shake up to the system which seems in crisis as ever. --Checco (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most information you can find on

But here's the deal: the Belgian elections were in June, but they still had not been able to form a new government in December. The main problem was the reform of the state, and specifically moving responsibilities for taxation and social affairs to the substate level and problems with the suburbs of Brussels (which are Frenchspeaking but lie in Flemish territority). The parties involved in the discussion were MR, VLD, CD&V en cdH, they would form a centre-right coalition of liberals and christian-democrats.

Without a government the Belgian government can not function, important decisions and appointments needed to be made. So they formed an interim government to take care of pressing matters. The talks on the constitutional issues are still continuing. The government will last until April next year maximum. There were two options for this interim government: a tripartite consisting out of all major political families from both sides of the language border (MR/VLD, PS/SP.A, cdH/CD&V) or a cabinet consisting out of the four largest parties (MR, PS, VLD, CD&V).

In the end, an amended version of the second government is formed. The PS refused to be the only leftwing party in the cabinet and favours inclusion of the centre-left cdH, rather than sp.a, who has already been vetoed by the VLD and wants to implement socio-economic reforms which the other parties do not favour. So a cabinet is formed by the four main parties and a leftwing "buddy" for the PS. The composition of the government is indeed very strange, because it is very broad from left to right and assymetrical (with the sp.a not participating). It is important to note that this is an interim cabinet like the cabinets of Dini and Ciampi in Italy in the 1990s.

I hope this clarifies. C mon (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation was very precise (and I think that we should clarify those things in the page about the cabinet formation), but there are some other things left that I do not understand. First, why does VLD refuse to govern with Socialist parties if it has done this for the past 8 years? Second, how is it possible to implement liberal socio-economic reforms with PS which is probably more to the left than SP.A? Third, can you explain me a little bit the ideological differences of Belgian parties, especially those within the same political family? --Checco (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, what are the real chances of a division of the country in two States? How will the planned reform affect the unity? Will they take Flanders on the road of independence? You know, words like those prounounced by Leterme after the election seemed to me a little bit secessionistic. --Checco (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1): VLD does not refuse to govern with the socialists, but the results of the election made it clear that the ruling government was not welcome for another term... Regarding 4): I don't think there's any chance of Belgian division in the next twenty years. There'll likely be some kind of reform giving the regions even more competences than they have now, but that's it. —Nightstallion 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting on slippery ground now, because I'm not a real specialist on Belgian politics.

• The current Belgian government will not implement liberal socio-economic reforms. It's ten point plan is centrist and oriented at both business and social interests. The sp.a overstated its hand by demanding the new interim government to have a clear leftwing agenda. The government which will be formed in June will have a clearer long term vision and it is unknown which parties will participate.
• My guess is the VLD refuses to govern with the sp.a because it is committed to the centre-right coalition with the christian-democrats. Reason being that it recently lost a lot of ground to the rightwing
  Lijst Dedecker
  a split from the VLD for being to social-liberal.
• I agree with Nightstallion: Belgium will not split only a minority of the population and the political parties support it. The powers of the substates will be increased in the coming reform of the state.
• The differences between the political families is growing since the parties split in the 1970s.
  • The CD&V, the Flemish Christian-democrats, are centre-right and committed to further autonomy for Flanders. The CD&V is allied with a separatist Flemish party N-VA.
  • The cdH, their Walloon counter-parts are centre-left and committed to Belgian unity.
  • The PS is a socialist political machine in Walloon. Comparable to Democrazia Christiania in Italy before 1993. It supports reform of the state as long as it benefits its own powerbase and does not worsen Wallonia's financial position.
  • The sp.a is trying to dissociate from the PS by emphasizing its programmatic and less power-oriented nature.
  • The VLD is a moderate party, right of the political centre, and committed to federalism.
  • The MR is comparable to the VLD: centre-right and federalist.

- C mon (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you. I understand the sectionalist/regionalist nature of Belgian parties, but I still continue to find difficult to undestand why CD&V and cdH are so ideologically different. If cdH is a centre-left party (a centre-left christian-democratic party? strange thing...), does this mean that there is no truly centre-right party in Wallonia?

Second, I don't understand how is it possible to define centre-right VLD and MR which basically pursued a centre-left agenda (someone of you spoke about social liberalism)? It was because of the coalition, I guess? But why the Socialist parties want now socio-economic reforms? For what did they stay for during the past 8 years?

Third, I would like to ask to C mon in what sense PS is comparable to Italian Christian Democracy? Beacause of its political machine which makes it the always-winning party in Wallonia?

Fourth, the division issue. Nightstallion, do you mean that in 2030 it will be more likely? Can any reform guarantee more unity to the country, especially if this reform is aimed at giving more powers to the regions? What is the glue that can keep Belgium united if the possible future prime minister Leterme doesn't know the national anthem and says that Walloons and the Flemish have in common only the king, the national football team and some kinds of beer. Even The Economist spoke in favour of a division of Belgium in two States... why are you both so sure about the future unity of the country? --Checco (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The two christian-democratic parties split in the 1970s. Since then they do not have any formal links and thus were able to evolve in different directions. Considering that (in general terms, historically) Flanders was more to the conservative side of the spectrum and Wallonia to the socialist side, it is not surprising that the CD&V became more conservative than the cdH. My guess is that the cdH is very similar to the
  Democracy is Freedom – Daisy
  which are both (formerly) Christian-democratic and centre-left. The cdH has got good contacts with the Catholic labour movement.
• The MR is the right of centre party in Wallonia but it is indeed close to the centre, just as the cdH is close to centre but more to the left.
• The MR/VLD are centrist liberals, who lean to the right and they have claimed to be social-liberal. They espouse a traditional classical economic liberal program (lower and non-progressive taxes, liberalisation of the labour market, privatisation, entrepeneurship), combined with a commitment to an open and multicultural society. It all comes down to what you define as left and right, which is really tricky business.
• Indeed the PS and DC are similar in that they are political machines. Therefore they seek power and appointments over implementing their policy. Within the classification of parties there are several models: office-seeking, policy-seeking and vote-seeking. The PS is certainly the first
• When their was a government of socialists and liberals the speeches in parliament of the (Walloon) socialists were passionate and ideologically charged "as if they wanted to redo the class struggle verbally" or so a Belgian journalist once wrote. Still the social-liberal government was in place for 8 years. There is a lot of verbal conflict in Belgian politics, much more than in Dutch politics fi. So when the formation took a while and Leterme said strange things it fit my picture of Belgian politics: a lot of verbal conflict, but underneath they are negotiating, wheeling and dealing. The Belgian state is not gonna fall apart in reality (at all) but it might have fallen apart already a few times verbally.

- C mon (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- outside observers tend to overdramatise developments just about everywhere in the world, and Belgium is no exception. Belgium has state crises about once every ten to fifteen years, so it's nothing new. —Nightstallion 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can I ask you just two more questions? It seems to me that, among the three political families, the Christian Democrats from the two regions have more ideological differences, while the Liberals are quite the same. Is that true? And what about the Socialists? --Checco (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer I would say the same: large differences between the Christian-democrats, smaller between socialists and liberals. It is important to realize that the MR is an alliance of four parties (Walloon liberals, German liberals, centre-right Christian-democrats and Walloon regionalists), while the VLD is allied with progressive and conservative liberals (which are much less important than the component parties of the MR). This makes the MR decidedly less liberal and more regionalist than the VLD. The PS and sp.a also have their differences: the PS is a democratic socialist party ("old left") and sp.a (allied with a progressive regionalist party) has a more progressive and Third Way social-democratic profile ("new left"). C mon (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand is that Walloon politics is more left-wing and France-like and Walloon parties are more to the left than their Flemish counterparts (is it correct also for VLD and MR?), while Flemish politics is more conservative by average, even if talking about the Socialists. Is Flemish politics also more similar to that of the Netherlands? And if yes in what sense?

What I continue not to understand (and I hope that this will be the last question I ask you) how was possible to leave SP.A (which scored 10.3%, only 0.6% less than PS, and which seems to me to be more reform-minded and more centrist than PS) out from the governing coalition. Why did Flemish Liberals want so strongly to leave out SP.A and to accept the presence of PS? --Checco (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would vehemently disagree with a characterization of the sp.a as more conservative than the PS. The sp.a is more centrist than the PS but also more libertarian and socially progressive. Consider this image (which I disagree on points but is a visualization of the European political space). The sp.a is somewhere between social-democracy and social-liberalism here, while the PS is between social-democracy and democratic socialism.

But there is some logic to what you are saying in the comparison between Netherlands, Belgium and France:

• The CD&V and the CDA are both centre right and conservative
• The sp.a and the
  PvdA
  are both Third Way social-democratic
• Green! and GroenLinks are both multicultural greens
• D'66
  are both progressive liberals
• Open VLD is however more progressive liberal, than the Dutch
  VVD, which is really conservative liberal
• The Flemish Nationalist Vlaams Belang and the Conservative Liberal Lijst Dedecker are different from the PVV of Geert Wilders, although the Lijst Dedecker was a similar kind of rightwing split form a liberal party.
• The
  ChristianUnion and SGP
  are lacking in Flanders however.

For France

• The PS is really similar to the PS, both are parties of power and were less sympathetic to the Third Way.
• The cdH is similar to the MoDem, the new UDF, in that they are centrist Christian Democrats, but the cdH is more leftwing than MoDem.
• The MR is a liberal party, while the
  Gaullist Union for a Popular Movement
  is far more conservative and nationalis.
• Ecolo is similar to Les Verts, but far more successful.
• The Front National even has the same name in both countries...
• Typical French parties as the Trotskyists, the Parti Radical, the Parti Communist are however not present in Wallonia.

About the coalition finally: I read up a bit and the sp.a was really playing hard to get and it was sending ambiguous messages. If I had been the Open Vld I would have excluded the sp.a too, it was overplaying its hand. Moreover the original idea of the interim government was a government of the two largest democratic parties per region, which also happened to be the largest parties nationally. Consider the fact that the PS has 20 seats, more than the Open VLDs 18 and sp.a 14, what counted was seats and not votes. C mon (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting classification, thank you. There are only two points about which I don't agree with you: the cdH-MoDem comparison and the MR-UMP comparison. I don't know anything about cdH but for what you told me, but I am sure that it is very difficult to classify MoDem as either centrist or Christian-democratic: it has so socially liberal policies that it does not fits the Christian-democratic category. On the second issue, I think that MR and UMP are completely different parties and actually there is no counterpart for UMP in Wallonia. Am I correct anyway if I say that MR is more to the left-wing than VLD? --Checco (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of these comparisons do not work, but they are the rough equivalent.

To answer your last question (is the MR more leftwing than the VLD): that really depends on what you think is leftwing or rightwing. All in all, I would place them on the same spot in the political space. If you look at the component parties there would be reason to claim that the MR is more to the right than the VLD.

• Open VLD is an alliance that consists out of the VLD (classical liberal, leaning to progressive liberal), the Vivant (progressive liberal) and Liberal Appeal (conservative liberal)
• The MR is an alliance that consists out of the MR (confusingly a party on its own as well as an alliance, the former liberal
  PFF
  (germanophone liberals).

While the VLD has both allies on the left and the right of its classical liberal position (leaning towards progressive liberalism), the MR has two allies, which are more rightwing. Making the MR more rightwing than the VLD.

C mon (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely right, indeed MR and VLD seem to me to be the most similar couple of parties in Belgium. Differences are not so relevant to describe one more to the right of the other one. Anyway, I did not know that FDF and MCC were centre-right, until some days ago I would have described them centre-left. Thank you for your dissertation. The problem with MR is that, as its former leader Michel harshly criticized the three major parties of the Italian centre-right as extremist (which is hardly true), I, and with me most people in Italy, thought and think that MR is a left-wing party. That's all. Thank you again. --Checco (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]