Talk:2010 Czech parliamentary election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Czech Republic Mid‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 13 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2010 Czech legislative election to 2010 Czech parliamentary election. The result of the discussion was moved.

Party ideologies

The list of parties in this article is absurd. Listing national socialist parties as 'centrist' because they conform to some of an editor's stereotypes of left and some of his or her stereotypes of right is nonsense. This is exactly why this needs references and fast, or else all statements that aren't referenced must be deleted. I've added a tag requesting references for that section. Bastin 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there is a source on the respective party pages. Otherwise one can take out the political tag caveat.(Lihaas (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Bastin is right. The ODS for example is NOT "liberal conservative". The ODS is a very conservative, EU-sceptic party. ODS is not part of the European People's Party (biggest european party; liberal/moderate conservative). Together with PIS (Poland) and Tories (UK), which all are conservative-populist ODS forms a much more right wing EU-sceptic, conservative, populist party the European Conservatives and Reformists. On the other hand TOP 09 is not conservative because Schwarzenberg is an old austrian KuK aristocrat. Schwarzenberg first was supported as an independent by the chzech Greens and after the chzech Greens struggled with themselves he joined TOP 09 as a key member. Schwarzenberg is a very pro-European, cosmopolitan conservative - I would compare him to Jean-Claude Juncker the long time Luxembourg prime minister, who is THE liberal conservative role model in Europe. One of Schwarzenberg's and TOP 09's key claims is: no populism, tradition and sensible towards history (thus conservative) but as well beeing open minded towards other European nations and towards own minorities such as the Roma and of course Schwarzenberg himself represents as well the German language minority with his background (-> again, see also Benes decrets, that are defended by e.g. ODS). I therefore change ODS to "conservative" and TOP 09" to liberal conservative (I will change the party articles, too). Arnomane (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas I now took a closer look at the articles of TOP 09 and Civic Democratic Party. Both articles already reflect what was said here. ODS is an very EU-sceptic and conservative party that was also one of the biggest opponents on ratification of Lisbon Treaty. TOP 09 is clasified there as a "pro-European conservative Czech political party". Arnomane (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastin: Did you mean the VV? I am a bit confused about that party. I haven't heard of them before here in Germany and German news sources about them are quite vague ("direct democracy", "Internet participation"...). Anyone who has some more information on that party? The only German sources I found are austrian, who claim that this party is populist. Arnomane (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, VV are a mainstream, anti-establishment centre-right party. Again, they conform pretty closely to liberal conservatism. I was referring to the small parties, such as Czech National Socialist Party and Workers Party of Social Justice, who were previously labelled as 'centrist', despite being universally described as fascist. Bastin 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The ODS are a carbon copy of the British Conservatives - and are therefore virtually the definition of liberal conservatism. Despite the inherent clumsiness of the term, this is supported by all the literature. TOP09 are a more conservative party, with traditionalist social views allied with the free market economics that is typical of liberal conservatism.

Your confusion is evident in your citing of Jean-Claude Juncker, who is a Christian democrat, not a liberal conservative. Most liberal conservatives in Luxembourg belong to the Democratic Party. Bastin 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well probably lost in political culture... 1) For me liberal conservative and christian democrat is very much identical. And probably also for many moderate conservative and christian democrat political parties in Europe (compare the conservative parties of Germany to the conservativ parties in much more secular France) that form together the European People's party. 2) The British tories are anything but liberal. They want freedom for money and an isolated splendid British island - a very strange understanding of liberalism. They are an upper-class aristocrat party that has a tendency to populism. For example without the LibDems they would have never come to the idea that less public video surveillance can be something good. Arnomane (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, liberal conservatism and Christian democracy are very different things, as their respective articles show. Liberal conservatism includes more marked free market economics and more secular, social liberalism, whereas Christian democracy includes the social market economy and traditional values based on a religion. In Europe, the British Conservative Party is the archetypal liberal conservative party, whereas the CDU is the archetypal Christian democratic party. The Christian Democratic Appeal and Christian Democratic People's Party are Christian democratic parties; the Moderate Party, Civic Platform, and Civic Democrats are more in line with liberal conservatism; and the Union for a Popular Movement, The People of Freedom, and Partido Popular straddle the divide and incorporate both traditions.

I also suggest that you learn more about British politics before using caricatures. The Conservative Party is very much pro-civil liberties, and has been for years. It does not adhere to any of the statements that you made. Bastin 10:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If the (UK's) Conservatives are the archetypal liberal conservative party, then why does its article state that it is conservative (with liberal conservatism listed as an internal faction)? And citing the article on liberal conservatism is not much of an argument either, since that article completely lacks sources. --Completefailure (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing that article. I'm using it to illustrate what 'liberal conservatism' means in the reliable sources that do attribute the term to the Civic Democrats. For examples of those, see the article on the Civic Democratic Party. The ODS isn't inherently a liberal conservative party; it was, when it was founded, an umbrella for pro-free market sovereigntists, and was led by Vaclav Klaus, who is a libertarian. However, now, its ideology is liberal conservatism, as proven by the numerous reliable sources I cited in the article. If you can provide references that refute that, or say that it belongs to any strand of conservatism except liberal conservatism, that makes it a discussion.

As stated in the footnotes, David Cameron belongs to the liberal conservative faction of the Conservative Party, which is now the dominant faction; twice as many new MPs identify as Cameronites (i.e. liberal conservatives) as do One Nationers (i.e. moderates) or Thatcherites (i.e. conservative liberals to libertarians), whilst not a single one identified as a social conservative. Like the Civic Democrats, the Conservatives are not inherently a liberal conservative party, although they are inherently not a Christian democratic party. Bastin 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Refering to your change [1]. How can a party that wants national isolation, is very populist and that defends such things as the Benes Decrets have any liberal traces? That's anti liberal (not only in the human rights sense). The main difference between ODS and TOP 09 is that TOP 09 is way more open-minded and liberal and that TOP 09 is dedicated anti-populist and probably also addresses the educated people (compare the politics of Vaclav Havel) in contrast to ODS. Arnomane (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their liberal conservatism is heavily referenced in the article on the Civic Democratic Party. The ODS has always received its strongest support in Prague and amongst the diaspora, and is a very cosmopolitan party (the CSSD are the largest party in the countryside). TOP09 was a right-wing splinter from the KDU-CSL, and is more socially conservative than the ODS. The ODS is not populist - no more than the TOP09, which sent bills to all voters demanding payment of the national debt, and considerably less than Public Affairs.

Your so-called 'national isolation' is not a policy that corresponds to a position for or against liberal conservatism. Your continued reliance on citing policy towards the EU forgets that most Christian democrats are very pro-EU, and that liberal conservatism is defined by comparison to Christian democracy. Before continuing, I suggest that you read the articles on liberal conservatism and Christian democracy, because it's pretty essential that you understand the two terms before equating them. Bastin 10:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't want to argue on a talk page of a Czech politics article British parties or British political party categories. I am neither dumb nor ignorant. I tried a more broad classification that is aligned a) on transnational european cooperation of national parties in order to avoid any nation-centric views, be it Czech, British or whatever and b) on actual politics of the parties. Quite often the self definition of a party and what they are actually doing is very much different: So Tories, ODS, PIS and others adhere to strong independent nations separated from each other and therefore are very conservative (= defending the status quo), despite the fact that the idea of free nations more than 100 years ago was a very liberal one compared to what existed at that time. Arnomane (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Justice have a very different philosophy to the Conservatives and Civic Democrats. You are basing your arguments not on reliable sources, per Wikipedia policy, but on your own prejudice and preference. Belonging to a group in the European Parliament does not dictate that they have the same philosophy. Their position towards the European Union does not dictate that they have a particular domestic philosophy. It is perfectly possible to be Eurosceptic and liberal, Eurosceptic and conservative, or Eurosceptic and socialist. Are you saying that the Swiss FDP.The Liberals aren't liberal, because they oppose EU membership? That is somewhat bizarre. Please stop viewing the entirety of political philosophy through the prism of European Parliament groups, and provide reliable sources that explicitly reject the idea that they're liberal conservative. Bastin 10:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

@amomane -- if those are correct then they should be good.Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I removed the row ideology from the result table (I just copied the table from the last election before). To me they make no sense there, and are on the parties' wiki-pages anyway (and, most other election tables also just show the party names). Also I suggest to discuss the various party ideologies at the respective party articles' talk pages. It is just weird when the election's article states different ideologies for a party than their article. Completefailure (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanep

Be careful. Read article about their reliability: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/sanep-dela-rychle-pruzkumy-sve-respondenty-ale-nezna-pdd-/domaci.asp?c=A091118_105836_domaci_klu --Dezidor (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

can someone from the Czech Rep. or a more versed student of czech politics give some context to the election? (like some other electoral pages have) (Lihaas (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the editors, deserve a barnstar or several. Coming along nice now.Lihaas (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling

Is there any need to keep the opinion polling now? It looks kind of messy to me, a lot of the information about tiny parties standing in one district is pretty redundant to the actual results. At best we could find some kind of chart showing progression between the major parties over time. Not sure where to look for such data though. - filelake shoe 07:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge

since this page is about "legislative election" and not "chamber..." i propose a merge with the senate page (which is anyhow poorly updated). Seperate sections for seperate dates would suffice but the rest of the legislative background is similiar. At any rate, this page is also far from large to warrant a split.Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not only kept separate for size reasons. I'm strongly against a merger; the two elections were completely separate events. —Nightstallion 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. If there is a problem at all, it should be solved by renaming this article, not by merging it with an unrelated election article.—Emil J. 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so its just conincidence these happen to be on near dates? I didnt know that.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just coincidence. —Nightstallion 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Czech legislative election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Czech legislative election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Next Czech legislative election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]