User talk:Checco/Archive 5 (July-December 2008)



IND/DEM done
IND/DEM now upgraded as per your request. Now working on Independents for a Europe of Nations. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I-EN done
Independents for a Europe of Nations now upgraded as per your request, although not as well as IND/DEM was. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Europe of Nations done
Europe of Nations now upgraded as per your request, although not as well as IND/DEM was. Anameofmyveryown (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

left-right axis
Hi. Its not my intention to impose anything. Both of us been working long time enough at wikipedia to know the process of editing. We disagree on how the term 'far left' should be applied, we've both reverted each other's edits at several times. We have also discussed, and so far not yet reached a compromise.

My rationale is as follows; Left-right descriptions are contextual, and I think they should be avoided when other definitions are available. Most of all, I'd like to remove 'Political position' altogether from the infoboxes of political parties. I think left-right axis positioning should be reserved for uncontroversial descriptions.

If it possible to use the labels such as 'social democrat', 'communist', 'socialist', 'conservative', etc., that is more precise and less contextually dependent than left-right. 'Far-right' is a bit complicated, since just using the term 'nationalist' is not a perfect solution.

There are 2,5 million articles at english wikipedia, and not all are on my watchlist. PdCI and PRC are on my watchlist, FPÖ isn't. At some point I have to limit my own scope of subjects that I monitor. But I do think that the passage "The far-right FPÖ and right-wing BZÖ" in the Austrian legislative election, 2008 article illustrate the problem quite well, namely that using separate terms for the two parties is highly abritrarily. One could, depending on pov, also label BZÖ as 'far-right', and with another pov neither would be 'far-right'. --Soman (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy summer to you too. Perhaps we should invite a third opinion at some point, in order to move forward. As per the PRC and PdCI I suppose that we have different analysis. My own encounters, with people from both parties, haven't given any impression that they would be significantly more radical than the other mainstream european left parties. --Soman (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics sidebars
Hi. Sorry to hear you're not happy with the above, which I can understand if the "edit" links no longer work. However, I tried to ensure I amended the links so these links would work -- did I miss one or two? The ones I've just tried now seem to be working okay. I was going to rename the templates in United Kingdom subcategory and then the main list, unless people started objecting. (There are a few "Politics of" templates that aren't sidebars.) Is that okay? Thanks for your message. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PS I just noticed that I missed one of the Italy templates (Politics of Trentino-AA/ST). Maybe that's what you spotted..? Have now fixed. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that uniformity is a good thing. I also think identifying when templates aren't horizontal navboxes by using "infobox", or, in this case, "sidebar", is a good thing. So, rather than reverting the moves, how about I start renaming the other "Politics of" templates? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "Abkhazia politics sidebar", "Afghanistan politics sidebar", etc (so, "Abruzzo politics sidebar", etc)..? After all, these templates already use the longer "Politics of X" rather than "X politics". Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I begin renaming the templates again, is there nothing you can suggest that might incorporate a place, "sidebar" and "politics" in the names? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry -- I meant restoring the template names. Unless you have a suggestion about incorporating place, "sidebar" and "politics", I'll start doing so. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I realized that it's only worth including "sidebar" when there might be ambiguity or there is more than one version of the same template, so that's what I'll do in future. Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam
Checco: I talked to KyZan about his uncivil behaviour, but he just continued insulting people. I'd just ignore his unconstructive, uncivil behaviour. Anyway, I think you're right in removing his link and about the need to add more sources. Sadly I don't have much time to do this, on the short term, either. C mon (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberalism, radicalism, LO/LCR
Firstly, thanks for linking me to that article. I'll dive in and do my best to it. Thanks a lot.

Secondly, the ministry of Interior didn't breakdown the far-left vote as they did in 2007. So no separate LO/LCR figures. However, on a local level, most newspapers were able to break down the candidates and from those results, the LCR did much better than LO.

Take care.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
{| class="plainlinks"
 * colspan="3" valign="left" style="width: 100%; background:Navy; padding: 10px;" |

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]


 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " | Hello Checco,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier   Bot    (talk)   21:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.

You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.

Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier. Help us get the project off the ground and flying.
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " |[[Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg|200px]]
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

National Liberalism
Checco: I edited your National Liberalism article to add in a bit about a variant of NL in the UK. They were created by a previous party called the Third Way which has gone back to being a think-tank (their page will have to be edited). I have written an article about the NLP for Wikipedia but really don't have the skill or experience to post it. I was wondering whether you would be interested in doing so? One way or another could you pm me via my log in? --Benningson (talk) 12:46, 07 August 2008 (UTC)

Sally Kern
If you don't mind, may I ask you for examination of article about Oklahoma Republican Representative Sally Kern? She is currently an object of continuing smear campaign for her critical statements about homosexuality she made few months ago. Is a biblical stance towards homosexuality a sign of "homophobia" or not? Currently one of the administrators have taken side on the issue, which I believe is unfair and biased. Could you take a look at the discussion on the article talk page? Regards. Ammon86 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservative liberalism
The article was originally unsourced, and constains may contradictory statements that are synthesized by you. I changed this article to reflect the official definition of conservative liberalism. CounterEconomics (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Checco, I think the merger you made was lovely. CounterEconomics, I appreciate your well-sourced edits as well, but they missed some important facts.
 * One thing puzzles, what has conservative liberalism got to do with positive freedom I really do not understand it all. The article also does not explain at all currently. (That is, after spending a considerable amount of attention on both liberalism and positive freedom in my BA and MA philosophy). C mon (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:European-political-spectrum.png
The image contains many original research terms. Conservatism means both authoritarianism and right-wing. Progressivism means both libertarianism and left-wing. Could you cite anywhere that the terms have two definitions? Perhaps you are confused with the conservative liberalism article is that you define conservatism that erroneous way. The official definition of conservatism means cultural tradition and resistence to change. It does not mean anything other than that. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Your definitions of left-wing and right-wing are wrong. Left-wing means equality and right-wing means aristocracy. They do not have anything to do with economic liberalism. And also economic liberalism and economic conservatism are NOT antonyms. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you give me a definition of conservatism, then you give the same exact word conservatism. This means that you do not know the definition of conservatism, and you use conservatism as a catch-all term. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You also do not know the real definitions of progressivism and liberalism. 65.75.189.67 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what are you talking about. I agree with removing the image anyway. --Checco (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Factions in the U.S. Democratic Party
Please do not start by insulting my knowledge of the U.S. political system. Your comment interrupted me from watching part of the DNC.

More importantly: as long as the statement is unsourced, it is original research or speculation, which should not be on wikipedia. My greatest concern is however that the statement currently reads that there is a similarity between Progressives in the Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists. Democratic Socialists are distinct from social-democrats. Democratic Socialists believe in the establishment of some form of socialism with democratic means. No progressive in the U.S. Democratic party wants to establish any form socialism. That's Bernie Sanders' position. Find sources, change democratic socialism to social democracy and I'm happy. C mon (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can answer your three questions with just one word: I'm not sure.
 * First about social liberalism. I think the source in the article is a poor source about social liberalism since it is a source about Howard Dean in which social liberalism is discussed on the side. I think that there are better sources about the factions in the U.S. Democratic party. Robert Singh's 2003 American government and politics uses Rae (1998) "Party Factionalism 1946-1996" in Shafer (ed.) Partisan approaches to post war American Politics. This source, independent of what it states does not provide a solid reference. The term social liberal is used differently in U.S. English than I would use it. Social liberal in U.S. English denotes some one who is liberal about social issues (gay marriage, abortion), while in my understanding a social liberal is a position between social-democracy and classical liberalism: an economic centrist.
 * Then about social-democracy vs. democratic socialism. Tricky stuff, I think that it will differ from language to language. Dutch, U.S. and English politics politicians from the centre left won't call themselves socialist easily, while in Italy and France the centre-left parties are/were the partis socialistes. But even then stuff can get confusing the moderate, pro-U.S., fiscally conservative split from the Dutch PvdA was called Democratic Socialists 1970, in 1905 the proto-communist split from the Dutch SDAP was called Social-Democratic Party, the clearly third way social democratic U.K. Labour Party defines itself as democratic socialist. These naming issues always give my headaches and, sadly I know of no good sources to help you. Perhaps you can take a look at Andrew Heywood 's Political Ideologies, whose chapter on socialism makes some interesting distinctions as I can remember
 * Third, about McCain vs. Obama: I'm getting worried, as some one who is slightly to the left of Dennis Kuchinich on most issues a McCain presidency is really rather unappealing. But McCain is currently doing very well in courting Clinton-Democrats and appealing to independents. While Obama involved in a row with the Clintonistas is not performing as well as he should. I'm no fortune teller but if I would have to take a guess his lead will only improve over the following months. C mon (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Making cross-country comparisons on political position, especially under different types of party systems is extremely difficult. I think that in general the U.S. Democratic party is to the right of most EU social-democrats and much closer to EU social-liberals. The U.S. Democratic Party has a stronger faith in the market as a tool for solving social problems than EU social-democrats. Moreover the levels of distribution EU social-democrats advocate is much higher than those the U.S. Democrats want to see (with their consistent emphasis on people's self economic reliance). Moreover look at the international alignment of the U.S.Dems formed an alliance with the European Democratic Party, the Alliance of Democrats which emphasized that the party was neither social-democratic, nor conservative. Finally the U.S. Democratic Party comes from a liberal tradition, it's policies helped define American Liberalism calling them social-democratic is odd to say the least.
 * Perhaps the most interesting thing to say on the subject is that since the 1980s the European social-democrats -the Third Way- has become more like the U.S. Democrats than vice versa.
 * - C mon (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Civica
Is it a former party now? If so, the article should be updated... — Nightstallion 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More or less yes as it was replaced by UpT. I will update the article ASAP. --Checco (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. — Nightstallion 21:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Politics of Italian regions
Hello Checco, I've seen that you are the main contributor of a number of articles concerning the politics of Italian regions. Frankly speaking, I completely disagree with what is currently written there. Italy is not yet a federal republic and it does not have sense to speak about ministers or ministries in regions, as well as of constitutions or similia, without even mentioning the fact that the regional laws and governments are subject to the rules issued by the Italian republic government and parliament. Is there any existing discussion on this matter that has been carried on and that I missed? --Cantalamessa (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello
You seem interesting. Care to add me to your MSNM? Thanks. Siúnrá (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC) MSNM=MSN Messenger, also can mean Windows Live Messenger and all variants. Siúnrá (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ciao
Hello Checco. I noticed you are a native speaker of Italian. Would you be able to help at WP:PNT? There are a few articles that need cleanup after being roughly translated and some which still need translation. Regards,  Balkan Fever not a fan? say so! 11:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MRC
I don't have figures for the MRC available. The categories used in the results page are those given by the MoI on election night.

--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Italian newspapers and much more
Hi Checco!First of all thank you for correcting me.You are right when you say that political allegiance does not mean strickly ideology.But let's analyze these Italian newspapers:1)If Corriere della Sera is centre-left,it cannot be liberal,but social-liberal.2)The same thing is worth for La Stampa.3)You've written in the political allegiance that Il Giornale is centre-right,but in the article you've written right-wing;maybe centre-right is the best answer.4)The same thing is worth for Il Foglio.5)La Repubblica cannot be left-wing,but centre-left.Social democracy and Progressivism are centre-left,it is written also in the Centre-left page.Then I would like to precise something:1)You've written that Italian Socialist Party (2008) cannot be democratic socialist if it is already for the Third Way.Let me tell you that there are parties in Europe,which have these positions:Democratic socialism,Social democracy,Third Way.There are three factions in the Socialist Party:the Angelo Sollazzo one(democratic socialist),the Pia Locatelli onw and the Riccardo Nencini one.2)Are you sure that PDT is democratic socialist?It adheres to Socialist International. Itanesco (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Political ideology sidebar templates
Hi again, Checco. Would you mind reposting your objection here, a thread I've just created at C mon's suggestion? Hopefully the ensuing discussion will then remain in one place. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just realized I supplied an incorrect link above -- it should've been User:C_mon/template -- so I've moved your post there (and've responded with a confirmation/clarification for everyone's benefit). Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agrarian parties
I honestly don't know the answers to your questions. C mon (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

San Marino
Why the early elections? There must be some reason, and it should be mentioned, no? — Nightstallion 21:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, which parties are in favour of EU accession? I believe at least part of the left is (the Christian Democrats claim this, at least), but who precisely? — Nightstallion 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm not able to answer to your questions.
 * Today morning I incidentally took a look to a Sammarinese online news website and I understood that there will be a snap election in November. I don't know what triggered the election, but I'm sure the ideological differences between the parties forming the governing coalition had made difficult for the government to continue. It is interesting that the election will be held with a new electoral system, including: coalitions, two-rounds, a majority premium for the winning coalition, a 3.5% threshold. The governing parties split between the two major coalitions, an evidence that they did not get along well together anymore.
 * About EU accession I really don't know. I'm sure that the centre-right coalition wants to strenghten its ties with the EU but their program is not so clear to me. Moreover the centre-left does not differ too much from the centre-right on the issue, even if, by reading their program it seems to me that they are a little bit colder on the issue. In particular they do not say if they actually support the accession or not, but simply that on the accession there should be held a referendum.
 * The programs of the two major coalitions are available at a website named "libertas.sm". It seems to me to be a fine webiste, but unfortunately it is in the blacklist of en.Wiki.
 * For now this is all I can tell you about San Marino. Today I did some research on Sammarinese politics, but mostly on political parties. Even if San Marino is so close to Veneto, I know few things about the political system. Anyway, I will be glad to answer to any other question if I am able... --Checco (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: In some articles about Sammarinese parties (Party of Socialists and Democrats, Popular Alliance (San Marino), Sammarinese Populars and Sammarinese Democratic Progressive Party) there were some images which had been cancelled. Is it possible to re-upload them correctly? --Checco (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the summary. I'll try to look into the images, but if I forget, please do remind me. — Nightstallion 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Haider
I'm sure you've heard -- I really can't say I'm sorry about it... Apart from that, he must have been going at far more than 100 kph for his car to be that badly wrecked. — Nightstallion 17:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Christian and as a liberal I'm very sorry. Anyway, I agree with you that his death was his fault to some extent. You may be very interested to know that these days Haider is praised by many Italian politicians and political commentators. In some newspaper's headlines he has been described as a "liberal" and as a "true bottom-top Europeanist".
 * Anyway, I would like to know from you how was the reception to the event in Austria, in the news and in the political arena, and what kind of consquences his death will have in Austrian politics. Finally, how will Haider's successor be? --Checco (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I take this occasion also to inform you about Italy. Italy of Values is very high in opinion polls: this is badly damaging the Democratic Party, but also the Communists and the Greens, as Di Pietro's rise means that those parties are losing their chance to have a political comeback in the short term. In fact, although Di Pietro is a populist-conservative (some days ago, during a talk show, Veltroni accused him of pandering to the far right on immigration), his party, which is a mixture of people coming from anywhere in the political spectrum, is seen as radical and is thus liked by many left-wing voters. So, it is my sense that Di Pietro's true victims are not the Democrats but PRC, PdCI, SD and the Greens. Moreover more and more Socialists (PS), Communists, Greens and SD members are joining the PD and others will come. So, although the PD is shrinking in the opinion polls, as the surge of Di Pietro won't last forever (IdV exists only because of Berlusconi), it may become much stronger by 2013. I hope so. --Checco (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the rest of the BZÖ will die off in a few years. There's not a single competent charismatic politician among them, and I expect them to merge back to the FPÖ. Haider's death will decrease the potential of the extreme right from thirty percent down to twenty percent. — Nightstallion 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. --Checco (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of PD, is it known if the party has gotten round to deciding a European affiliation? --Autospark (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi :)
You're from Veneto so maybe you can help me with this question. I'm researching the Northern Italian surnames Costelli, Costello, and Costella. They are surnames of Northern Italian origin. I'm trying to find out the etymology of the names. They look like the Romanian name Costel, which is a diminutive of Constantin. Might Costelli, Costello, and Costella also have originated from Northern Italian diminutives of Costantino? A is putting the smack down (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you anyway :) I would like to find out but the internet does not seem to have the information about the Italian diminutives of Constantino. A is putting the smack down (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

hey
hey there, long time no see! i saw what is going on with poor supparluca. Icsunonove (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
There is a strict protection policy I have to respect, so I'll consider protecting these articles separately rather than as a whole. In addition, keep in mind that semi-protection can be justified only by heavy and persistent vandalism from IP users. I'll look at it. --Angelo (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Israeli election
No worries - quite a lot of sources seem to be getting it wrong. Although it is very likely that the election will happen in February (and there are still two possible dates), most parties do agree on February 10. However, by law there is still a three-week period in which another party could form a government, and only then can the election date be officially set - see this news article. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

PD-IdV
I thought the alliance had been broken? — Nightstallion 23:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual it is not clear what is happening. How to understand if two parties are in alliance? Usually alliances at the national level are decided some months before the general election (with surprises: remember 2008!). As they are in opposition, it is not clear what kind of relationship the two parties have, so, at least, let's look at the facts. Di Pietro is protagonist of a populist campaign in order to make a hard opposition to Berlusconi (in fact, in order to steal votes from the Democrats), while Veltroni is trying to reassure his leadership over the centre-left, both by distancing from Di Pietro (whose policies are, in his view, right-wing) by wooing some small parties and groups. Then there are regional, provincial and municipal elections: for now the PD and IdV had always been in alliance. What is sure is that, at this point, there is much more competition between the PD and IdV than between PD/IdV and PdL/LN. --Checco (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Notification of DYK
A discussion is going on Template_talk:Did_you_know to nominate articles to appear on WP:DYK. One of the nominated articles is Political foundation at European level, which I have just written. Given that you have expressed an interest in this subject or related ones (Europarties/Eurogroups) over the past year, I thought you might wish to go there and comment, either for or against. This is a neutrally worded message falling under the "Friendly notice" clause of WP:CANVASS. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ortisei
Hi, similar to the request made for Val Gardena, can you provide an opinion for this page request? I'm familiar and have visited this town a few times, and even the local inhabitants use "Ortisei" for basic promotion in English. Icsunonove (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

SD
It's actually forming a left-wing party now? Who's going to join? — Nightstallion 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that information?
 * SD is trying to form a "united left" with all the parties of the Rainbow Left. In fact neither the PRC nor the PdCI nor the Greens are likely to join, but a large faction within the PRC, the Refoundation for the Left led by Bertinotti and Vendola are likely to leave the PRC soon and to join forces with SD. Also some dissidents of the PdCI and some Greens may join. --Checco (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, so it's still not a single left-wing party? Too bad. — Nightstallion 12:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Referendum
Will a referendum on the electoral law now be held in April 2009 or not? — Nightstallion 16:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, between April and June. --Checco (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And what precisely will the question be? Have you got a source for the date somewhere? — Nightstallion 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the referendum which was postponed last April. You can go to the official website of the committee proposing the three questions, http://www.referendumelettorale.org/ (unfortunately it is only in Italian). The three questions will be about:
 * 1) majority-premium to the most voted list instead of the coalition (Chamber);
 * 2) majority-premium to the most voted list instead of the coalition (Senate);
 * 3) no more multiple candidatures (a politician will not be able to present his candidature only in a constituency).
 * If the Parliament approves a new electoral law (which is not likely) the referendum will not take place at all.
 * Unfortunately there was no agreement on a new electoral law for European elections and we will vote in June with the current system.
 * --Checco (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What's this talk about a PD del Nord? — Nightstallion 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Italy is some way on the verge of splitting and regional tensions between North and South, and in general regions, are strong. Lega Nord is growing stronger in the whole North (with Lega Lombarda and Liga Veneta being the largest parties in Lombardy and Veneto, respectively), in Aosta Valley, Trentino and Alto Adige regionalist parties control 60-70% of the vote in regional elections, Sardinia and Sicily have their separatist or regional parties too. In this context, also the national parties are discussing their organization in order to be good competitors of regionalist parties in the regions.
 * Both the PdL and the PD will probably give a lot of power and autonomy to their regional sections, especially in places like Lombardy and Veneto. Some local leaders want more because they see that their parties are losing the battle for the control of some regions. In particular, Sergio Chiamparino (mayor of Turin), Maurizio Martina (PD leader in Lombardy), Massimo Cacciari (mayor of Venice) and other Northern key figures are proposing the formation of a "PD of the North". This could be an autonomous entity within the national PD or even a separated party. Chiamparino even re-launched the idea of an alliance with Lega Nord. I don't think that such things will happen in the short term, but maybe in the long term yes. For now I think that the PD will have a federal structure like the PdL (in the PdL this was an answer to people like Giancarlo Galan who wanted an independent PdL of Veneto). In the future, anyway, especially when Berlusconi goes, everything could happen. Even that the PD and the PdL will divide along regional lines. We'll see. --Checco (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Politics
The best poller is probably interview/nss which can be found here. It posts a bi-weekly poll. More sensitive to shifts in public opinion, but less accurate is peil.nl (found here. The recent polls indicate that the social-democratic PvdA, which was doing very bad, is winning voters, probably due to the way their leader and our minister of finance Wouter Bos is preforming in the financial crisis. their good performance comes at the expense of the socialist SP. Other strong performers are the leftwing liberal D'66 and the rightwing liberal PVV of Geert Wilders. They are winning because of continued polarization on the migration issue, with D'66 taking a tolerant position and the PVV a nationalist one. This at the expense of the main liberal party VVD and Rita Verdonk's Proud of the Netherlands. Verdonk's movement is falling apart, as even her trusted campaign advisor recently left the sinking ship.

Instability will probably characterize the Dutch political system for the forseeable future, especially in electoral terms. As for an explanation of this: I should refer you to Pellikaan et al. (2007) it explains the electoral changes by a change of the dimensionality of the political system. Where traditionally the political parties and electorate were divided along religious and economic lines, a division between along economic lines and a migration/integration cleavage is developing. The LPF, and recently the SP, D66 and PVV all benefited from this new cleavage. Kriesi et al. (2006) place this change in a larger change of European electorates due to the impact of globalization on the political system. (I recently started my PhD research on a related subject, so sorry for the footnotes).

As for a prediction for the Netherlands after 2010: the PvdA will win the election, but will continue to govern with the CDA and one of either the Socialist Party, GreenLeft or D'66. The VVD will continue to see instability and will loose voters to the far right, which will be dominated by the PVV (Verdonk is on her way out).

I hope that answers your question. C mon (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @"rightwing liberal PVV": That's really not what I call "liberal" -- the VVD is rightwing liberal, but the PVV is national conservative at best and rather nationalist according to many politologists... — Nightstallion 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would call it conservative-liberal or national-liberal. I believe that also in the Netherlands the party is considered to be part of the liberal tradition if VVD's honorary member Hans Wiegel "opinioned that the VVD should become part of a larger liberal movement, that would encompass the social liberals D66, the Party for Freedom of Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk's Trots op Nederland movement" as it is written in the VVD's article. Would these parties or at least some of these parties actually reunite some day? --Checco (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1.a The VVD shrunk because it was most profiled on the migration issue before 2002. Frits Bolkestein already called for limiting migration in 1994. The boost in seats it got back then (38 out of 150 in 1998) was probably part of that appeal. Now other parties are more profiled on the issue attracting those votes. 1.b D66 is winning for two reasons: one D66 was unnaturally small in 2006 (3 seats out of 150) because it was in the Second Cabinet Balkenende while it should not have been. Core D66 voters did not vote for the party. Now they do. Second, D66 is very pronounced anti-Wilders, a conscious strategy by the party to attract those voters who have positive feelings about multiculturalism. The GreenLeft did not make that choice.

2. The Socialist Party (Netherlands) can perhaps best be compared to the Die Linke in Germany, specifically the WASG-part: a party of people leftwing to the social-democratic PvdA who want to preserve the welfare state and protect the public sector. The SP combines this with skepticism towards European integration and conservative positions on migration and integration.

3. The Dutch grand coalition is not much different from the one in Germany, Austria or Belgium. The cabinet does not have many ambitions. But the parties may get better along because the CDA is more centrist than the OeVP, CD&V and CDU/CSU which are all quite rightwing Christian-democratic parties.

4. Verdonk's fall is coincided with two negative news moments: she lied publicly about being a member of a radical socialist party in the 1970s (Pacifist Socialist Party); and she got in a public fight with one of her financial backers. But the main reason she performs much worse than Wilders is that she has a larger ambition. She wants to enter government while all Wilders wants to do is tell people Muslims are evil. This ambition also caused her fall, because she needed more money, better campaigners and more voters. The higher you reach, the lower you'll fall.

5. Nobody is discussing changes to the electoral law currently and any change is very unlikely to happen.

If you have any questions please let me know. - C mon (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. To Nightstallion's response: could you show a political scientist which calls the PVV nationalist. It is part of a liberal tradition, and offers a liberal program which emphasizes secularism and low taxation. It might not be my kind of liberalism ...


 * The Socialist Party is very in-tune in what happens in working class neighbourhoods, because it has an extensive set of well organized party branches. Therefore it sensed very early that Dutch working class people and migrant workers did not mix well in these neighbourhoods. So since the 1980s they have been calling for integration policy that is more demanding on migrants: let them learn Dutch, integrate into the Dutch culture. One of the more controversial policies they proposed was that in municipal housing and schools the percentage of migrant tenants/students would be regulated, in order to prevent segregation between migrants and Dutch. They combine this with a though anti-discrimination policy. They are also opposed to labour migration (like you said because there are enough Dutch unemployed people who can do the job), while opposing stricter laws for asylum seekers. C mon (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a few links for PVV:, , , -- I know those aren't analysts per se, but my point is that quite a few people consider him to be very nationalist and Fortuyn's heir, more or less. — Nightstallion 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Romanian legislative elections results
Yes, I know. The BEC announced the final results for each Chamber, that can be found here, and here. (if you don't speak Romanian, the last column represents the party of each MP, if it run as a member of an alliance) --ES Vic (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a bit more complicated. PNL and PNŢ-CD had a protocol of collaboration, not an alliance. Their members run as PNL members, and still are formal PNL members. As soon as they will return to their party (witch they are not obliged to do), I will add the respective numbers. Furthermore, you should note that the protocol was, and still is contested by part of PNŢ-CD. The PNŢ-CD has a leadership issue: there is an ongoing trial between Radu Sârbu and Marian Miluţ, the pretender and incumbent respectively president of the PNŢ-CD. --ES Vic (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I must be tired, if I wrote 4! I have no idea how many National-Peasant's won a seat. For now nobody knows who what will do! there is still time to form a governing coalition. no need to hurry! ;) --ES Vic (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Swiss People's Party
Hi, in spite of some disagreements we had, I'd appreciate if you could comment on this issue. --Pan Miacek (t) 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection requests
Law and Justice is semi-protected now; about Forza Italia, there is no sufficient recent activity of vandalism to justify another semi-protection, and additionally I think the concerns regarding some of the party's ideology definition could make sense (especially regarding its definition as populist, and the actual sense of defining a full PPE member and a centre-right party as "partially social-democratic". --Angelo (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Party for Freedom
Hi, do you happen to have a idea as to (on-line) sources about this party's 'position'? I have a dispute with another user there who wished to give the position as '(Far-)Right', based on one source by Leiden scholars. I really couldn't agree with that, based on what I've read, though right now I lack good sources, too. Any idea? --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles related to Lega Nord
Hi checco, remember me, Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso? We discussed about the Italian regional templates a couple of weeks ago. This time I'll try and write in English, hoping I won't make too many mistakes ;) Anyway, I noticed some problems with some Lega Nord-related articles, and since you're by far the most active contributor for all of them I thought I'd drop you a line or two; beginning from the main article itself, Lega Nord. After reading the section about the factions internal to the party, I couldn't help but think there was some kind of original research behind it, as I've never officially heard of anythig of that kind, and I also failed to find any reliable source about them; It'd be great if you could fix this, as you are surely more knowledgeable about the subject than I'll ever be. Other than this, two related articles suffer from the same issue: they both use neologism as titles. They are Padanism and Venetism. You can find more about the concerns I expressed on the relative talk pages. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)