The Draghi government for dummies

daniele left a new comment on your post " The silent majority ":

excuse me but this that we entered the government because then we managed to implode you tell someone else. Come on a little decency.

Posted by daniele in Goofynomics on 23 Aug 2022, 17:03

What tenderness, what nostalgia!

The fuuuuurbi are back on the blog, those who "don't do it to them", those who know better than you, having less information than you (also because they don't read or don't understand what you give them), what really happened, those who explain how it goes "er monno" (I know Diego, I scpieco you … "), with that tone between the pedantic and the resentful that adds a pleasant bittersweet note to their lucid delirium …

I love the fuuuuurbi! They have always been a source of great fun (being record holders of involuntary humor), but also a stimulus for insights which, on balance, were also useful for the less fuuuuurbi. An example? Among the first categories of fuuuuurbi we encountered, I remember those that Claudio had defined at the time as the "materiaprimists": they encouraged me to write you this explanation of the Marshall-Lerner conditions that you should perhaps re-read (or even read, if you are so new) . Today that type of fuuuuurbi there, those who wanted to teach me the economy, went to crash, buried in the rubble of their own colossal stupidity. See how the euro protects us from the cost of raw materials? So good that it devalues ​​as these costs rise (and there is a reason). Seeing what problems does the deficit create? So many, that the debt went down when we did more (and there is a reason). And so on…

Then another category of fuuuuurbi reappears: those who want to teach me politics. Many have passed from here! Our garden is luxuriant because it is fertilized by their bones: the carbon cycle, in short. We therefore say goodbye to our new friend Daniele, whom I keep the small letter because of all his questionable stylistic choices it is the one that best characterizes him, and in the meantime we welcome his invitation to decency, which requires us to rewrite in Italian what he wrote us in danielese:

Excuse me, but this that we joined the government because then we managed to implode it, you tell someone else. Come on, a little decency!

(if you don't see the difference, this blog is not for you).

Having solved the main problems that this statement posed, namely the spelling ones, a minor problem remains, namely the fact that I have not in the least said what our friend Daniele, who evidently reads as he writes, attributes to me. What I said ( rectius , written) is easily found in the relevant post and I report it here:

In all evidence, I did not say that we joined the government "to bring it down".

What I say is that if we had remained in the opposition, the Government would still be there, supported by its majority Ursula (however, creating a discreet embarrassment to his premier, who would not know how to get out of it, but this is another matter!), Because the parliamentary majorities are not counted on the poll data, or on your revered opinion of what it would be right for it to be ("I had and I was the patrimony of the balls", my great-grandmother said …), but on the seats actually assigned to the last elections. That's right: if we had stayed out of the fence barking, now we would not be going to vote, for a trivial figure. The block made up of FI, IV, M5S (more precisely: its two stumps), PD and autonomies (which are governmental by obvious vocation), i.e. the Ursula majority, today has 181 members (not counting the components of the governmental mix, such as the former friends of Speranza, that is, those attributable to one of the many nuances of the hypochondriac left).

Since 320/2 = 160 (unless proven otherwise), the Ursula majority, if it were constituted, would still be firmly established. For this reason, the PD wanted us not to enter, and sent its scouts around to understand what our intentions were: because in this way it would be armored. It took so long to understand that if the enemy advises you something, perhaps it is better not to do it?

After that, if we joined in the majority it is obviously not to bring down the Government (which does not mean that I wanted this Government: I have already said that I was against it), but because someone (not me) wanted to support it, not realizing of the fact that this government was or would have become a substantially PD-driven government (as evidenced by most of the sub-government choices made, starting with that of the head of the cabinet – who is a very lovable person, with one significant defect: he is of the PD! – and as confirmed by the choices made in the matter of appointments almost everywhere, but especially at Rai). As a PD-traction government, the outgoing government would not have done much to accommodate us, and in particular it would have obstructed all measures that could have allowed us to consolidate our consensus with our electorate. So whoever supported the entry into the government because driven by your requests to "do something" (because they were your requests), or because "our entrepreneurs ask us", would have seen their legitimate ambition to help alleviate yours frustrated. suffering, not only economic.

So it was.

What was clear to some ex ante , to others it became clear ex post , when the result of the administrative offices in June photographed the situation, and of course this awareness had grown first in those who were in the parliamentary trench and then in those who were engaged elsewhere. in other positions.

Everyone has their own times, for objective or subjective reasons.

The fact is that Matthew's choice , whose awareness of the facts I can assume was not inferior to mine, was the right one. If we now have a concrete opportunity to win the elections, it is because by joining the majority we have naturally contributed to creating that particular entity called the "government center-right", which now, having joined the "opposition center-right", has merged into the center-right tout court , putting the latter in a position, thanks to the particular dynamics of the electoral law, to contend for power against the PD. And if I speak of contending for power , I am not referring so much to the parliamentary majority, which, as I believe you understand, counts for the right (otherwise the PD would not be able to govern without winning the elections), but the power, that is the possibility of affecting those apparatuses that respond to the PD not because it consists of kattivi komunists, as some jokers say, but because it is the natural heir of the DC, a party that in Italy has been in government for 40 + 30 years (or 40 in the form of DC and 30 under changing forms), during which he had ample opportunity to secure the loyalty of the machine.

By remaining compact, we let the others crumble, and now in all the single-member constituencies (which are a third) the candidate of the center-right coalition (in Chieti, me) is clashing with candidates from single parties, who have not managed to get together. . A tactical advantage that actually compensates for the loss of consensus caused by a choice that the voters did not understand (and I did not understand it with them, but I was silent). That's right: what gives me the advantage I have over my opponents is a choice by Matteo that I personally did not understand and I had opposed. But he was right.

I understand the obvious objection: "But what do we care if you are elected? We have suffered!"

I realize. With the Ursula majority (from FI to LEU) you would not have suffered less and you could not now retaliate against those who have infringed your rights.

The equally obvious objection follows: "But you too have voted a thousand thousand trusts so you are accomplices and I don't vote you anymore!"

Sure! If you have not understood this so far because the trusts have been voted on, I am afraid I will not be able to make you understand now. If the idea was to prevent FI from succumbing to the fatal attraction of the PD, voting against the government and then siding with FdI, I don't think it was the best way. We would have given the "Ursula" front an excellent opportunity to kick us out and compact. Would that have been smart? No. In fact some of us (me too) often asked for it, but others of us (wiser) made us understand that it was not talked about.

I say: here for years and years you have inflated them with your bellicose rhetoric: "We are at war! The enemy! We fight!", But about war, and even before military life, it seems to me that you know very little. In war it happens that there are victims. Do you think he doesn't know? For years and years I have welcomed your stories of despair here, the ones that the pricks have deliberately chosen not to collect and not to listen to. I have been sweating blood listening to you for years and years, and so it has been for the past two and a half years. But would you have preferred the ephemeral satisfaction of hearing Bagnai "singing it to him", or the more concrete satisfaction of being able to give back to a crushed PD what he has done to you in recent years?

So much I owed you.

If you don't get it that way, we'll try another way.

Today I had time to explain it to you because I was on a mission in Milan, to explain more or less the same things to funds, but from tomorrow I will be back in the countryside and I will have much less time. I will not even tell you the obvious: if you abstain or disperse your vote among the runaways because the one said or the other did, you will damage yourself and you will also have the opportunity to understand it. The "anti-system forces", the wonderful galaxy of CLN de sta ceppa, will not be able to get to Parliament and if they do, they will have no access to anything other than the classroom, the canteen and the toilet. They will not be able to do anything, except braying, eating and another thing: everything you give them you will take away from us, that is, you will give it to the PD.

But do you know what it is?

Who cares!

We will win the same, because now the concerns are different: after the sting came the sting, the last bill, the one that made everyone understand (but this time really everyone) what Salvini was talking about since last November. So your "testimony" gesture, your spit on children who kick their legs because they hit their heads on the edge of the table, won't give you any satisfaction, and won't take much away from us. You will be left with the bitterness of having voted for your tormentors, believing in four arruffapopoli character actors who boasted of being able to save "er monno", and we will remain, as usual, the burden of saving you from yourselves in spite of yourselves. I know it sounds paternalistic, and in fact I would gladly give up saving those who go behind Ar Cotenna, if it weren't for the fact that I can't let the boat that brings me too sink down …

daniele will not have understood it because he does not want to understand it, those who had already understood it now have a few more words to explain it to others: that's all for today, tomorrow we are in Frentania …

This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL on Thu, 08 Sep 2022 19:25:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.