Talk:With Monti for Italy

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Civic Choice, with Monti for Italy with this article. The text of the article is taken word by word from this one and is completely redundant to this article. Monti's civic list ("Civic Choice") is the backbone of the coalition and both projects are closely interrelated. It is to early to predict if the Civic Choice list, which is explicitly not a political party, but an alliance of non-partisans will have a lasting character and will develop encyclopedic relevance. For now, it is sufficient to mention the list in this article, which has already be done. --RJFF (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the merger as we are talking about two distinct subjects. This morning I woke up very bold and I moved the two articles to their current titles, With Monti for Italy and Civic Choice, to reflect the differences. I also started a big update, that will affect the correlated pages (Toward the Third Republic, Future Italy, Union for Trentino, Union of the Centre (2008), Future and Freedom, etc.). With Monti for Italy is a coalition composed of three parties, Union of the Centre, Future and Freedom, and Civic Choice. That is why I think this article and the one on Civic Choice should be distinct pages.

There's a lot of work to do, and I ask RJFF, Autospark, others to help me. Unfortunately, it.Wikipedia, riven in its internal disputes, is not helpful. One thing I would like to discuss with you is the ideology of CMI and SC: of course we need sources, but my opinion is that Europeanism is too generic and Christian democracy inappropriate. Let alone the conservatism of the UdC and FLI, SC is a kaleidoscope of political positions (from conservative to social democrat, from Christian democrat to Christian leftist, from liberal to, believe it or not, anti-European). I would leave just "Centrism". What do you think?

--Checco (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not object to centrism as long as its stated in the article that the centrism comes from the (essentially, or in part) heterogenous nature of the alliance. I admit that I'm struggling to think of another addition to the ideology section. Europeanism I would leave for now until something better is thought of, IMO.--Autospark (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that, with my amateurish, foreign, outside view on Italian politics, I am much less informed on these issues than you, Checco. Yet, I have read that Monti presented "Civic Choice" as a 'list of figures of the civil society, not party politicians', and explicitly not as a party. Now I am surprised to find that, according to you, Civic Choice is a party, and not consisting of non-partisans, but of smaller parties and former PdL and PD politicians. Somewhere else I have read that PdL and PD defectors had founded their own political ventures, "Popular Italy for Monti" and "Democratic Populars for Monti" respectively. Have they abandoned the groups they had announced earlier or have they become a kind of sub-groups of "Civic Choice"? What has become of Monti's promise not to field party politicians, but independent figures? Will politicians of the smaller parties (UpT, RS, PLI) run on the "Civic Choice" list or are they only backing it without actively participating?

• I agree that without sources, we should not claim that the coalition had a common ideology. Checco convincingly points out that it consists of diverse elements, each having its own ideology. I think that, for this reason, we should best leave the 'ideology' field of the infobox empty and only fill in the 'political position' field with "centre". --RJFF (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the most logical solution for now.--Autospark (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I perfectly agress with RJFF: no ideology, "centre" as position. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

SC: party or not? I argue that SC is a party. It is true that its leaders say that it is not a party, but also the leaders of the PdL, LN and many other parties claim that their parties are "movements", "lists" or whatever else. Anyway, this is not a big deal: we'll see.

Composition of SC. Some politicians will run in the SC slate, even though most of them will be placed in the Senate joint list. Spliters of the PdL and those of the PD wanted to form their own lists for the Chamber, but Fini posed his veto. The reason is quite simple: the electoral law allows the "best loser" of each coalition (i.e. the largest party not to pass the 2% threshold) to enter the Chamber anyway; Fini, whose party struggles around 1-2%, did not want the competition of "Popular Italy" and the "Popular Democrats". Most candidates of SC for the Chamber will be formally non-partisans (but there are also carreer politicians as Dellai, leader of UpT, who joined Christian Democracy when he was young and has always been active in politics, notably as mayor of Trento and president of Trentino), but most of them had a clear political affiliation in the past or are members of structured political associations as Future Italy, which is not far from being a party.

--Checco (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree this proposal. Schelta Civica is an electoral list. Con Monti per l'Italia is a political and electoral alliance for the general elections. SC is an different organization, member of CMI.

--Luis Molnar (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)