Italy the government has fallen
 

Mr Prodi has resigned..
The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
Government

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, "tile" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mr Prodi has resigned..
> The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
> Government

will it change anything ?

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

"Besmet Kalkoen" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[email protected] ups.com...
> On Feb 21, 8:26 pm, "tile" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mr Prodi has resigned..
>> The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
>> Government
>
> will it change anything ?
>

let us wait..
for our politicians it is hard giving up privileges.
after about 30 months.. they will recive a very high pension for all their
lives.. (this government only lasted 10 months.. )

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

Who cares about your politics except the spammers of the group

"tile" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> Mr Prodi has resigned..
> The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
> Government
>
>

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

Let is be knownst that on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:11 GMT, "tile"
<[email protected]> writted:

>Mr Prodi has resigned..
>The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
>Government

Prodi is not extreme, nor particularly leftist.

He is an aging politician who had a marginal victory, and actually did
quite well with it. Let's hope someone younger and more imaginative
replaces him.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Feb 21, 5:56 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:11 GMT, "tile"
> <[email protected]> writted:
>
> >Mr Prodi has resigned..
> >The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
> >Government
>
> Prodi is not extreme, nor particularly leftist.
>
> He is an aging politician who had a marginal victory, and actually did
> quite well with it. Let's hope someone younger and more imaginative
> replaces him.

I'd like to see the Northern League win and actually divide the
country.

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On 21 Feb 2007 15:19:42 -0800, "Iceman" <[email protected]> wrote:


>I'd like to see the Northern League win and actually divide the
>country.

Why? For the same reasons that I would like to see the Friesian Islands,
California and the IOW declare UDI?
--

Martin

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

Let is be knownst that on 21 Feb 2007 15:19:42 -0800, "Iceman"
<[email protected]> writted:

>On Feb 21, 5:56 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:11 GMT, "tile"
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>> >Mr Prodi has resigned..
>> >The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
>> >Government
>>
>> Prodi is not extreme, nor particularly leftist.
>>
>> He is an aging politician who had a marginal victory, and actually did
>> quite well with it. Let's hope someone younger and more imaginative
>> replaces him.
>
>I'd like to see the Northern League win and actually divide the
>country.

Lega Nord couldn't do that, even if they won by a good majority.

Mind you, I wouldn't mind THAT much if they did!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On 21 Feb 2007 15:19:42 -0800, "Iceman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 21, 5:56 pm, Deeply Filled Mortician
><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>> Let is be knownst that on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:26:11 GMT, "tile"
>> <[email protected]> writted:
>>
>> >Mr Prodi has resigned..
>> >The extreme leftist did not agree about the foreign politc of the
>> >Government
>>
>> Prodi is not extreme, nor particularly leftist.
>>
>> He is an aging politician who had a marginal victory, and actually did
>> quite well with it. Let's hope someone younger and more imaginative
>> replaces him.
>
>I'd like to see the Northern League win and actually divide the
>country.

Why on earth? They could never do it anyway. There would have to be a
referendum at the very least and even most of their supporters
wouldn't vote for that.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:56:09 +0100, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>He is an aging politician who had a marginal victory, and actually did
>quite well with it. Let's hope someone younger and more imaginative
>replaces him.

Younger is not possible in Italy, whose politics operate on a strict
seniority system.

I actually think D'Alema could have done better with the slim
majority, but it would be just too deja v� to have him replace Prodi.
Rutelli is also maturing well, but he's a tad too centrist for me. The
slim majority in the Senate is the result of Berlusconi's stupid
election law, which even the right now says has to be changed.

I think Prodi will manage to pull out a different coalition and remain
in place.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, B Vaughan wrote:

> The slim majority in the Senate is the result of Berlusconi's stupid
> election law, which even the right now says has to be changed.

To be objective (despite the fact I do not like the present election
law, see below), it is not an effect of the election law, but on one
hand of a peculiarity of our Constitution, and on the other hand on the
way Italians voted, nearly 50-50 for the two coalitions.

There was a mathematical analysis of the election law a few months ago
on Le Scienze (the italian edition of Scientific American). The official
purpose of this new law was on one end to reintroduce "proportionality"
and on the other end to ensure "governability" with "majority prizes".

The analysis showed that the law is unable to achieve this, because with
some particular voting patterns one could have unstable results (small
majorities also reversed to votes).

However the specific actual voting pattern of the latest election is
such that the proportion at the Senate is exactly in line with the way
people voted.

The reason that a 50-50 vote (the difference was only 24000 votes or so)
got a majority at the House of Deputies and not at the Senate is due to
the quoted peculiarity of our Constitution, i.e. the Senate should be
elected on regional basis, and therefore also the majority prize should
be applied on regional basis (so with negatives and positives cancelling
each other) unlike the House of Deputies (majority prize on national
basis).

Now I'll abandon objectivity and express my own opinions. It is well
likely that the law was devised (its author Calderoli called it a
"porcata" [pig action] and is commonly nickname the "porcellum") on
purpose by the right wing to create difficulties to the left wing which
was thought to be winning.

Nevertheless the particular effects are due to the fact people voted
50/50, so in a sense it is "our" fault (well, not mine, it is since '94
I keep a "do not blame me, I did not vote Berlusconi" on my web page).
I hoped in a clearer majority (I could have drunk that Barolo 1964 I
keep in my cellar for Berlusconi's fall).

There are talks of adjusting the law by referendum (a referendum can
only CANCEL parts of an existing law, but NOT replace with a different
text), giving the majority prize to parties and not coalitions. I do not
agree as I do not like the present excess of polarization in politics.
The other item proposed to be changed is the absence of "preference
votes" (the candidates are elected on a fixed list determined by
parties), on this I'd agree.

To reintroduce an element of at least partial objectivity, what happened
in the last days is a case of over-reaction.

The government (Prodi) did NOT lose on a "mozione di fiducia" (trust
motion, the formal act which, if not passed, forces the government to
resign). It did NOT lose even on a vote on a law proposed by the
government. But just on a generic statement of approval of a speech by
the Foreign Minister (bla bla and fried air). Also it did not really
lose, the votes were 156 in favour, 136 against and 24 abstained, but,
as a peculiar effect of the internal Senate regulations, abstentions
count as "no" votes.

So I expect the government will be "resent to the Chambers" for a formal
trust vote, which it will pass.

Has anything of this to do with travel ?
I do not know, but if they could somehow make things better for
Trenitalia and Alitalia, or build new infrastructures in a cheaper way
like Di Pietro was planning, perhaps yes ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:57:54 +0100, Giovanni Drogo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, B Vaughan wrote:
>
>> The slim majority in the Senate is the result of Berlusconi's stupid
>> election law, which even the right now says has to be changed.
>
>To be objective (despite the fact I do not like the present election
>law, see below), it is not an effect of the election law, but on one
>hand of a peculiarity of our Constitution, and on the other hand on the
>way Italians voted, nearly 50-50 for the two coalitions.
>
>There was a mathematical analysis of the election law a few months ago
>on Le Scienze (the italian edition of Scientific American). The official
>purpose of this new law was on one end to reintroduce "proportionality"
>and on the other end to ensure "governability" with "majority prizes".
>
>The analysis showed that the law is unable to achieve this, because with
>some particular voting patterns one could have unstable results (small
>majorities also reversed to votes).

Small majorities prevent extreme policies. Parties are forced to form
coalitions. Comparing Dutch government to UK government, I think this has been a
good thing in the Netherlands.
--

Martin

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Martin wrote:

> Small majorities prevent extreme policies. Parties are forced to form
> coalitions. Comparing Dutch government to UK government, I think this
> has been a good thing in the Netherlands.

Possibly. But you need a *governing* coalition of medium-strength
parties (I'd accept even a "variable majority"). The current false
bipolar system in Italy enhances extremes in both coalitions (because
forces to make TWO of them) ... give us back the First Republic !

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] is a newsreading account used by more persons to
avoid unwanted spam. Any mail returning to this address will be rejected.
Users can disclose their e-mail address in the article if they wish so.

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:42:24 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

>Small majorities prevent extreme policies. Parties are forced to form
>coalitions. Comparing Dutch government to UK government, I think this has been a
>good thing in the Netherlands.

I'm not sure I agree. Sometimes a government with a slim majority
becomes hostage to the small parties at the extremes.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Italy the government has fallen
 

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:31:28 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:42:24 +0100, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Small majorities prevent extreme policies. Parties are forced to form
>>coalitions. Comparing Dutch government to UK government, I think this has been a
>>good thing in the Netherlands.
>
>I'm not sure I agree. Sometimes a government with a slim majority
>becomes hostage to the small parties at the extremes.

The Dutch have never had the swings from one extreme to the other that UK had
all through the 1960s and 1970s.

In the Netherlands the coalitions usually collapse long before small minority
groups can blackmail the majority into unpopular policies.
--

Martin