Talk:Government of Change

A few doubts on this article

@User:Nick.mon: As usual, I duly appreciate your work. However, I have a few doubts on this article. Is it really worth or may its content be included in Conte Cabinet? Moreover, is its title reliable? I know that a coalition may be repeated (as "black-yellow" coalitions in Germany or "black-blue" coalitions in Austria?), but as of today this article is only about one government. Side note: I also know that you have written a lot of articles about government coalitions and those pages are linked in Template:Historical Italian political parties: I would actually remove those links from that template and create a new template named "Government coalitions in Italy". What do you think? Finally, please note that they are more "government coalitions" than "political coalitions". --Checco (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I decided to create this article per consistency. We have articles about Pentapartito, Organic Centre-left, the Grand coalition, etc. so I think we should have also this one. However, I agree, we should separate government coalitions and electoral coalitions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OK to consistency, but all those articles were created by you! Anyway, that is fair enough. The only really strange thing about it is that this article's name includes "government", differently from all the other government coalitions. Anyway, it is not a big deal and more sources will come. It is great that you agree with me on having a separate template for government coalitions. Please take a look also to Talk:Conte Cabinet. --Checco (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I created them because the “first ones” (Pentapartito, Centrism, Organic Centre-left) where also in it.Wiki :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have two articles, just as long as they are not duplicates. For example, the Conte Cabinet article lists the composition of his government, while this page can take a broader or more historical perspective on Italy's first populist government and the policies it has (or failed to) push through, along with this general period of Italian policial history. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, there is a discussion on merging the articles at Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Merger. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing populism or simply populism?

Looks like there is some disagreement upon this. Perhaps let's better discuss the issue here rather than having an edit war, no? The League has been historically a right-wing populist party, while the Movement never accepted any left-wing or right-wing labeling. I am pretty sure they would not accept "right-wing populism" as a label to their government. So now the question is: should we consider the ideology of this government as the sum of the ideologies of the two parties (right-wing populism, populism, euroscepticism, regionalism, direct democracy), or should we rather consider only the elements that are common to both of them (populism, euroscepticism)? Let's reach a consensus here before making further edits. Comments are welcome! -- Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In my view, Populism and Euroscepticism can effectively summarize the main ideologies of the two parties and of this coalition. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's my view too. Let's hear the others. -- Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would also consider only the elements that are in common to both parties: populism and Euroscepticism. Moreover, I would like to point out that the LN has never been a right-wing populist party per se and that this article is on the coalition, not the government. On the latter issue, there is a discussion at Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Merger. As I have argued there, I oppose the merger. In my view, the two articles should stay and contain different infos: 1) this one should cover the coalition and should be moved to "Yellow-green coalition" (or "Yellow-blue coalition" per Salvini or "Populist coalition" per User:Nick.mon, who is using it in the articles on ministers) as "Government of Change" is the nickname of "Conte Cabinet"; 2) Conte Cabinet should cover just the cabinet. Having "Government of Change" as the title of an article on a coalition is quite confusing and having a duplicate list of ministers make no sense–at all. --Checco (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Checco: Ok, so far we have a consensus on "populism" and "euroscepticism". As a side note: I agree on moving this article to "Yellow-green coalition" and keeping Conte Cabinet focused on the cabinet itself. -- Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "populism", though it should be noted that the coalition does have a strong right-wing populist element through the League and its ministers. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that it is accurate to list "Right-wing populism" but I'm not against listing "Populism" alone before "Right-wing populism" because the Five Star party, though an unambiguously right-wing party, is officially a big tent party and not strictly on the political right or left. However, I believe it would be detrimental to the reader to not list Right-wing populism as that is the form of populism advocated for not only by the actual candidates of the five-star party but also Salvini's League party and this new centre-right coalition. It's not helpful to just list "populism" because the range of ideas that can be described as populism is unfathomably vast and vague. Populism can potentially refer to anything from the centre-right to the centre-left to the far-right to the far-left, which includes both anticapitalism and fascism, and in some western countries such as the United States both social democracy and right-libertarian fiscal conservatism get described as being "populism." As there are sources that describe this government as right wing, populist, and right-wing populist, it doesn't seem to be disputed or inaccurate, while mentioning only populism alone would lack meaningful information about where they stand. I don't see detriment in listing all three (Eurosceptionism, Populism, and Right Wing Populism) as this very accurately describes the ideological positions held by this new government. If you find these arguments to be problematic or the inclusion of this information to be negative, please do reply with your thoughts. Cheers Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The M5S is not "an unambiguously right-wing party" and also the LN is a broad, catch-all party. Both parties have roots in the left-wing of the political spectrum. For instance, LN's former leaders Bossi and Maroni, as well as Salvini are former communists, while one of the party's leading economists, Bagnai, describes himself as a "left-wing populist". I think that "populism", vague as it is, is a better description for both parties, specifically because it "can potentially refer to anything from the centre-right to the centre-left to the far-right to the far-left". Regarding the LN, "both social democracy and right-libertarian fiscal conservatism" are the strongest political trends within the party, which is for instance a staunch proposer of both the minimum wage and the flat tax. --Checco (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Saying the Five Star party is "an unambiguously right-wing party" is quite the bold claim. Some of its program can be classified as right wing, but so can others as left wing, such as the basic income, while fighting corruption and implementing more direct democracy isn't right wing populism in particular. I think a broad "populism" fit the current coalition. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I do concede that Five Star is a big tent, and historically Lega Nord was more of a big tent or centrist party, but we've got loads of sources that say without question that LN's current ideological position is right wing. Just on the Lega Nord article alone there's 5+ separate sources cited to back the statement that Lega Nord is currently a right-wing party. I say we either keep both populism and right-populism listed or we change the Political Position section from just "Big Tent" to "Big tent (Five Star)<br>Right wing (Lega Nord) (it would be better to list which of the currently ruling parties of this government hold that position than to say "big tent and right wing" as that would contradict the meaning of a big tent). I must reiterate though that I agree with stating both "populism" alone before "right wing populism" because of the big tent nature of the Five Star party. I will detract my statement that they're unambiguously right wing (though I do maintain that many sources describe the party's most prominent figures as being right wing). I'm just in favour of whichever is both very accurate and very informative to allow the reader to have a better understanding of the positions held by the ruling centre-right coalition. Because the following sources describe the new government and/or Lega Nord as being right wing or even far right wing: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) it would be an original research violation to say that LN isn't really a right wing party because policies x or y seem left wing. We should mention the positions held by both ruling parties; while being a big tent means being open to all sides, being a big tent is not something that the two parties have in common. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete the Ideology and Political position fields. Coalitions of different parties do not necessarily have a common ideology or position. This infobox template was designed for political parties, not coalitions. Several of the parameters are not applicable to coalitions (logo, headquarters, youth wing etc). For this reason I am actually against using this infobox template in articles on coalitions at all, at least not in articles on short term, ad hoc coalitions (long-term coalitions that run elections on joint tickets are a different case). But if other users insist on using the template, we should at least leave the unsuitable fields empty, this includes ideology and position. It is not uncommon for ideologically very diverse parties from across the political spectrum to form an ad hoc coalition merely in order to build a majority in a hung parliament (think of Labour+NZ First in New Zealand; Syriza+ANEL in Greece; SPÖ+FPÖ in one of the Austrian states; Smer+HZDS+SNS in Slovakia in the 2000s; PDSR+PUNR+PRM+PSM in Romania in the 1990s; "Rainbow coalition" of Fine Gael+Labour+Democratic Left in Ireland). These coalitions do not share a position on the political spectrum, let alone ideology. Lega+5 Star is just another one of these cases. They are clearly not partners of choice, but were paired up only due to the complicated majority situation in parliament. --RJFF (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad proposal by any means; though I would prefer that the infobox lists which positions are held by which individual parties, rather then trying to synthesize common ground where there is none. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The defining ideologies of both partners are easily found in the chart of the "Supporting parties" section. No need to repeat them in the infobox (where they may create the misunderstanding that they were the ideologies of the whole coalition rather than of the constituent parties). --RJFF (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with RJFF's proposal above to remove the ideology and political position fields from the article's Infobox. Those parameters just aren't really applicable to a cabinet-based coalition of this sort.--Autospark (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. Let's remove the ideology and political position fields from the infobox. This will solve the controversy. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see there's a very broad agreement to do this. I join the rest of you in agreeing that we remove the ideologies from the infobox as it would be redundant, and a consensus has been reached to do this. As it seems that nobody, myself included, is against this change, I've taken the time to remove this content myself. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree on not having a coalition's ideology.

There is definitely a consensus on classifying the current LN as both populist and right-wing (I disagree on the latter, but I respect consensus), but this does not mean that the party is also "right-wing populist", whose characterisation is not appropriate for the party. --Checco (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Romani people and other topics not in the program

I think in the section "Program" we should only mention the points agreed by the coalition that are written in their contract or agreed during the government term explicitly. What is going on these days about Salvini willing to make a census of Romani people is a personal initiative which is not part of the coalition's program (and as you can see it has been criticized by the M5S). So, I deleted it. Note that I've also deleted the paragraph on the Aquarius NGO and on the announcement of Conte that he wishes to lift the sanctions against Russia (which did not happen anyway): these are pieces of news, nothing to do with the coalition's program. I think the day-by-day chronicle of what the government is doing should go somewhere else. Perhaps in Conte cabinet, but definitely not here. Here we should just improve the style and the content, but record only the story of the electoral coalition. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We should limit this page to the coalition program, indeed. But in my opinion we should definitively add piece of news when it is directly about something that was in the government program and is being applied, or renounced.--Aréat (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree on putting the news somewhere, but not within the electoral program. Better create a dedicated section, than. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bit repetitive? I don't really see the point.--Aréat (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think it's ok to keep the news on the implementation or changes to the program here and avoid repetitions. I restored what I had deleted before. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The program that they published is what they promised to do -- we should also note what they actually did and if was in line with what they promised. Thanks for self-reverting. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Merger, pt. 2

I re-opened the discussion on the merger or renaming of this article at Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Merger, pt. 2.
@User:Nick.mon: You are defintely interested and concerned. Please have a say!
--Checco (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Talk:Conte I Cabinet/Archive 1#Merger, pt. 2. --Checco (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Merger: done. --Checco (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)