In my effort to post more, I'm going to expand into general commentary on various issues.
Today's commentary: The Syrian civil war has gone on for a long time. There are very few civil wars of this type, that have lasted this long. By this type I mean where certain areas are held, long term, by one of the various forces (Idlib has been in rebel hands from the start)
Thursday, February 27, 2020
Monday, February 24, 2020
Malaysia Shocker
In surprise news, Malaysia's PM has resigned.
Those who know about the country, might be wondering why this is a surprise, as, it had been planned since the last election, for Mahathir to resign at about this time and for his successor, Anwar, to take over. After all, Anwar's party is what really won the last election, and without Anwar's support, Mahathir could have never become PM (again). In fact, if not for the false charges against Anwar, he would have simply become PM himself.
The surprise is that it seems Mahathir wants to form a coalition with the previous ruling party and shut Anwar out of office.
A month ago, the new ruling coalition had 129 seats; 26 of which belongs to Mahathir's party. Now, it has 92 seats, after Mahathir's party, and 11 members of Anwar's own party, have peeled off to join the opposition.
This would make the second time that Mahathir has bilked Anwar out of the Prime Ministership.
The decision making power over who will form the next government now seemingly goes to the Sultan. Malaysia has an interesting monarchy. Like Canada, it is a confederation, but unlike Canada, each member state has its own King, or Sultan (one state calls their Sultan the Raja and another the Yamtuan Besar, while the federal Sultan is known as Yang di-Pertuan Agong; but in colloquial conversation, the word 'sultan' is used for all). The person who holds the federal Sultan position is elected among the 9 provincial sultans for a term of 5 years. Interestingly, the previous Sultan was the first to step down early, after serving only 3 years. The current Sultan, who has served slightly over a year, is the sultan of Pahang, the largest (physically) province on the Mainland, and the 4th smallest by population.
I will keep you updated as news develops.
Those who know about the country, might be wondering why this is a surprise, as, it had been planned since the last election, for Mahathir to resign at about this time and for his successor, Anwar, to take over. After all, Anwar's party is what really won the last election, and without Anwar's support, Mahathir could have never become PM (again). In fact, if not for the false charges against Anwar, he would have simply become PM himself.
The surprise is that it seems Mahathir wants to form a coalition with the previous ruling party and shut Anwar out of office.
A month ago, the new ruling coalition had 129 seats; 26 of which belongs to Mahathir's party. Now, it has 92 seats, after Mahathir's party, and 11 members of Anwar's own party, have peeled off to join the opposition.
This would make the second time that Mahathir has bilked Anwar out of the Prime Ministership.
The decision making power over who will form the next government now seemingly goes to the Sultan. Malaysia has an interesting monarchy. Like Canada, it is a confederation, but unlike Canada, each member state has its own King, or Sultan (one state calls their Sultan the Raja and another the Yamtuan Besar, while the federal Sultan is known as Yang di-Pertuan Agong; but in colloquial conversation, the word 'sultan' is used for all). The person who holds the federal Sultan position is elected among the 9 provincial sultans for a term of 5 years. Interestingly, the previous Sultan was the first to step down early, after serving only 3 years. The current Sultan, who has served slightly over a year, is the sultan of Pahang, the largest (physically) province on the Mainland, and the 4th smallest by population.
I will keep you updated as news develops.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Is Sanders the new McGovern?
No.
I should define something though. What is "McGovern".
Is "McGovern" George Stanley McGovern, born 1922, who won the 1972 Democratic nomination for President? Is McGovern the guy who grew up in South Dakota, and went on to represent that state as a Senator for nearly 20 years? Is McGovern the guy who was the target of the activities outlined in the Watergate scandal? Is McGovern the left-wing progressive who is famous for being so left wing?
No.
McGovern is the guy who couldn't gain traction in the election of 1972.
Being a Senator, being from South Dakota, being a left-wing progressive, none of that, is related to why he couldn't gain traction.
What is?
Is it when he said he was 1000% behind Eagleton? Is it when he Fired Eagleton?
No. It's when he did both.
You can do one. Or the other. And be fine. You can not do both. Why? Simple:
You appear weak.
Lets go on a tangent and look at presidential polling. Comparing where they start, in the summer, and where they end, in November.
Lets look at 1964. In June, Johnson lead Goldwater 77 to 18. By the time of the election, Johnson only won 61 to 38.
In 1980, Carter lead Reagan 39-32 in June, but lost 51-41 in November. Pre-summer polling had Carter way up at 62%.
1988 had Dukakis lead the summer 47-41, but he would lose 53-45. Dukakis would lead right up to the infamous "Tank Photo" after which he dropped and stayed low.
In 1992, Ross Perot actually lead in June, 39 compared to 31 for Bush and 25 for Clinton. Perot would lose badly, in part, because he dropped out.
Polls can move, quite a bit, during an election. In fact, McGovern was behind 53-37 in June, which is something that could be made up during the election. It was not. Why? Simple:
He looked weak.
Look at what happened to Corbyn over Brexit. He ended up not being able to take a single solid position and looked weak as a result. His personal likability plummeted after that decision. Why? Was it because people disagreed with the policy? Quite the opposite, the policy was actually somewhat popular. So why did he stall in the polls and lose the election?
He looked weak.
This is something that the incumbent US President used during the 2016 Republican nomination. Jeb went from the front runner, to "low energy". Why?
He looked weak.
So,
Is Sanders the new McGovern?
No.
Sanders does not look weak.
I should define something though. What is "McGovern".
Is "McGovern" George Stanley McGovern, born 1922, who won the 1972 Democratic nomination for President? Is McGovern the guy who grew up in South Dakota, and went on to represent that state as a Senator for nearly 20 years? Is McGovern the guy who was the target of the activities outlined in the Watergate scandal? Is McGovern the left-wing progressive who is famous for being so left wing?
No.
McGovern is the guy who couldn't gain traction in the election of 1972.
Being a Senator, being from South Dakota, being a left-wing progressive, none of that, is related to why he couldn't gain traction.
What is?
Is it when he said he was 1000% behind Eagleton? Is it when he Fired Eagleton?
No. It's when he did both.
You can do one. Or the other. And be fine. You can not do both. Why? Simple:
You appear weak.
Lets go on a tangent and look at presidential polling. Comparing where they start, in the summer, and where they end, in November.
Lets look at 1964. In June, Johnson lead Goldwater 77 to 18. By the time of the election, Johnson only won 61 to 38.
In 1980, Carter lead Reagan 39-32 in June, but lost 51-41 in November. Pre-summer polling had Carter way up at 62%.
1988 had Dukakis lead the summer 47-41, but he would lose 53-45. Dukakis would lead right up to the infamous "Tank Photo" after which he dropped and stayed low.
In 1992, Ross Perot actually lead in June, 39 compared to 31 for Bush and 25 for Clinton. Perot would lose badly, in part, because he dropped out.
Polls can move, quite a bit, during an election. In fact, McGovern was behind 53-37 in June, which is something that could be made up during the election. It was not. Why? Simple:
He looked weak.
Look at what happened to Corbyn over Brexit. He ended up not being able to take a single solid position and looked weak as a result. His personal likability plummeted after that decision. Why? Was it because people disagreed with the policy? Quite the opposite, the policy was actually somewhat popular. So why did he stall in the polls and lose the election?
He looked weak.
This is something that the incumbent US President used during the 2016 Republican nomination. Jeb went from the front runner, to "low energy". Why?
He looked weak.
So,
Is Sanders the new McGovern?
No.
Sanders does not look weak.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Thoughts on Irish coalition possibilities
I thought I'd try to rank the coalition options for Ireland.
SF Majority: 3%
This would see a ton of Independents on side.
SF Minority: 21%
This would see someone, likely FF, allow a SF government to form, but that the government would not have majority support.
FF-FG Coalition: 1%
Not looking likely. Only way I could see FF (or FG) with a majority
FF Minority: 8%
This would be as the result of some strange dealing, and FG would have to allow it to form.
FG Minority: 0%
FG seems to not want this to happen
Another Election: 67%
Right now this seems a pretty sure bet. SF would be able to run a proper number of candidates, and both FF and FG would have a chance to write manifestos that better reflect the wants of voters.
SF Majority: 3%
This would see a ton of Independents on side.
SF Minority: 21%
This would see someone, likely FF, allow a SF government to form, but that the government would not have majority support.
FF-FG Coalition: 1%
Not looking likely. Only way I could see FF (or FG) with a majority
FF Minority: 8%
This would be as the result of some strange dealing, and FG would have to allow it to form.
FG Minority: 0%
FG seems to not want this to happen
Another Election: 67%
Right now this seems a pretty sure bet. SF would be able to run a proper number of candidates, and both FF and FG would have a chance to write manifestos that better reflect the wants of voters.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
My thoughts on the blog and myself
As part of sharing my thoughts when they come up, I wanted to share my thoughts on this blog, and how I think my readers should use it, as well as some information on who I am.
My ideal use case for the blog, and what I try to design/post for, is to have the blog in your bookmarks. That every morning you check it, along with a dozen other bookmarks, half of which have nothing new, and thus, not having a new post here, does not make the blog stand out terribly from the norm.
You come to read it primarily to get introductions to things, both getting a foot in the door, as well as getting information about what is going to happen in advance of it happening. An example from many years ago (and thus beyond the lifespan of this particular blog) is when I noted the NDP's poll rise in the 2011 federal election in Quebec 72 hours before the mainstream media ran stores on the same topic.
I like to look at things and notice how the trends are going. It is my objective that you come here, see me saying "look out for X, as X is happening" and that, a few days or a week later, you read a news story on how "X just happened", as, by keeping up with the blog, you'll already know some baseline information on the topic.
Additionally, I imagine you come here to read my research into various topics. Frequently the prevailing wisdom on an issue is simply wrong or has incorrect stats; I am all about the stats and when I find something amiss, I tell you. It is my intent that you come here to cut through the nonsense and get your information from someone who is not trying to push any particular agenda on you. Yes, I have my views and opinions on issues, but I generally keep the sharing of those to a minimum, and try to give forewarning when I do so.
Lastly, I imagine you come here to get only the information you need. I am not the most verbose writer, partly by design, and partly due to lack of skill. My expertise is in numbers, not words. I aim to give you the stats and the data and let you make up your own mind with those numbers. I thus imagine people wanting to learn more but unwilling to read a longer piece come here to get information on various topics.
So, what do I imagine you do after you've finished reading the blog? I actually imagine, if you found a topic you are interested in, you google it to learn more. My aim is to provide you with enough context so if you do, as a result of that googling, run into advanced academic content that use particular phrases (such as "Triple E Senate" or "The Troubles" or "Shinawatra Loyalists") you know already what they mean and the context behind it. In short, I write these posts to help compliment other data you've found from elsewhere, and imagine you come here first before taking a deep dive into the topic elsewhere.
So, who am I anyway? I am Teddy Boragina. I live in Penetanguishene, Ontario, and I've run for office two times before using my birth name, Nick. I came third in my seat in both the 2003 PEI election and the 2006 Toronto municipal election. First as a New Democrat, and then as a Tory. I've voted for the PC Party / the CPC, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Greens, all at least twice, and if you count the sort of Independent-Tory and Independent-NDP candidates that run in Municipal elections, you can bump that up to a minimum of four times each.
I think if myself as a moderate vs a centrist as many of my views lean one way or another. Importantly, there are many issues I simply do not prioritize. I focus on a few key issues I feel are important, and if some candidate or party disagrees with me on an issue I do not focus on, I'm much more likely to simply overlook it. This often leads to odd situations where the party I agree with on most issues is not the one I support because those "most" issues are simply not as important to me as the key issues I desire to see implemented.
I despise the kind of negative complaining and attacks that comes from overly partisan participation. All MPs do hard work and good work. All parties have good ideas and intentions. Everyone, party and MP, is capable of evil and selfish action. To pretend otherwise sickens me as it suggests to me a aura of fakeness around the complainer that makes me mentally peg them as a liar, and someone not to be trusted. As such those who, 99 times out of 100, back their party while, 99 times out of 100, attack things other parties do, are liable to get themselves blocked or unfollowed by me on twitter, compared to someone who does the same things at a frequency closer to 70 out of 100. It's fine to have favourites, but if I need to dig to find the last time you said something good about this or that party, you and I are likely not going to get along well.
Enough about my thoughts, what about the physical me. I am 35 (I think, I'm at that age where you start to forget these things) and quite chubby. I live on my own in a tiny apartment that is between 10 and 11 feet square, with a tiny 4 by 4 foot bathroom adjoining. I am on ODSP (disability) and my only non-disability income is from my Patreon. The last long-term job I held was lost shortly after my employer found out I have Autism. They simply stopped scheduling me for shifts, so they could get away with saying I was never 'let go'. As a result I became unable to pay back my student loans, and thus, don't even get the various tax rebates that another person in my situation could expect.
I was born in Toronto, and have spent alternating decades living in Toronto, Prince Edward Island, Toronto, and now Penetanguishene. My father was born in southern Italy. I don't know much about his family beyond the fact his father was a shoe maker, and his father was the town crier. Supposedly, our last name means something along the lines of 'bad priest'. My mother was born in Toronto, both her parents from New Brunswick. My grandfather's brother spent time as the Archbishop of Ottawa; growing up in North West NB. As far as we can tell, his family is Quebecois and not actually Acadian, but don't tell that to them.
My grandmother was born in south east NB and before she passed she became interested in genealogy. She is directly related to the first LeBlanc's that settled in the province, and from what she could discover, large parts of her ancestry come from coastal Normandy with a small portion from the Rhone area in Southern France. Her grandmother was Mi'kmaq, something she long suspected but was not able to confirm until the research.
As such I consider myself "Half French and Half Italian", and that I am technically 1/16th Mi'kmaq. If North America ever sank under the waves and I had to go "home" to Europe, I would go to France as I consider myself more French than Italian, even if my blood says otherwise.
I hope this gives everyone a better idea of who I am and why I do this.
My ideal use case for the blog, and what I try to design/post for, is to have the blog in your bookmarks. That every morning you check it, along with a dozen other bookmarks, half of which have nothing new, and thus, not having a new post here, does not make the blog stand out terribly from the norm.
You come to read it primarily to get introductions to things, both getting a foot in the door, as well as getting information about what is going to happen in advance of it happening. An example from many years ago (and thus beyond the lifespan of this particular blog) is when I noted the NDP's poll rise in the 2011 federal election in Quebec 72 hours before the mainstream media ran stores on the same topic.
I like to look at things and notice how the trends are going. It is my objective that you come here, see me saying "look out for X, as X is happening" and that, a few days or a week later, you read a news story on how "X just happened", as, by keeping up with the blog, you'll already know some baseline information on the topic.
Additionally, I imagine you come here to read my research into various topics. Frequently the prevailing wisdom on an issue is simply wrong or has incorrect stats; I am all about the stats and when I find something amiss, I tell you. It is my intent that you come here to cut through the nonsense and get your information from someone who is not trying to push any particular agenda on you. Yes, I have my views and opinions on issues, but I generally keep the sharing of those to a minimum, and try to give forewarning when I do so.
Lastly, I imagine you come here to get only the information you need. I am not the most verbose writer, partly by design, and partly due to lack of skill. My expertise is in numbers, not words. I aim to give you the stats and the data and let you make up your own mind with those numbers. I thus imagine people wanting to learn more but unwilling to read a longer piece come here to get information on various topics.
So, what do I imagine you do after you've finished reading the blog? I actually imagine, if you found a topic you are interested in, you google it to learn more. My aim is to provide you with enough context so if you do, as a result of that googling, run into advanced academic content that use particular phrases (such as "Triple E Senate" or "The Troubles" or "Shinawatra Loyalists") you know already what they mean and the context behind it. In short, I write these posts to help compliment other data you've found from elsewhere, and imagine you come here first before taking a deep dive into the topic elsewhere.
So, who am I anyway? I am Teddy Boragina. I live in Penetanguishene, Ontario, and I've run for office two times before using my birth name, Nick. I came third in my seat in both the 2003 PEI election and the 2006 Toronto municipal election. First as a New Democrat, and then as a Tory. I've voted for the PC Party / the CPC, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Greens, all at least twice, and if you count the sort of Independent-Tory and Independent-NDP candidates that run in Municipal elections, you can bump that up to a minimum of four times each.
I think if myself as a moderate vs a centrist as many of my views lean one way or another. Importantly, there are many issues I simply do not prioritize. I focus on a few key issues I feel are important, and if some candidate or party disagrees with me on an issue I do not focus on, I'm much more likely to simply overlook it. This often leads to odd situations where the party I agree with on most issues is not the one I support because those "most" issues are simply not as important to me as the key issues I desire to see implemented.
I despise the kind of negative complaining and attacks that comes from overly partisan participation. All MPs do hard work and good work. All parties have good ideas and intentions. Everyone, party and MP, is capable of evil and selfish action. To pretend otherwise sickens me as it suggests to me a aura of fakeness around the complainer that makes me mentally peg them as a liar, and someone not to be trusted. As such those who, 99 times out of 100, back their party while, 99 times out of 100, attack things other parties do, are liable to get themselves blocked or unfollowed by me on twitter, compared to someone who does the same things at a frequency closer to 70 out of 100. It's fine to have favourites, but if I need to dig to find the last time you said something good about this or that party, you and I are likely not going to get along well.
Enough about my thoughts, what about the physical me. I am 35 (I think, I'm at that age where you start to forget these things) and quite chubby. I live on my own in a tiny apartment that is between 10 and 11 feet square, with a tiny 4 by 4 foot bathroom adjoining. I am on ODSP (disability) and my only non-disability income is from my Patreon. The last long-term job I held was lost shortly after my employer found out I have Autism. They simply stopped scheduling me for shifts, so they could get away with saying I was never 'let go'. As a result I became unable to pay back my student loans, and thus, don't even get the various tax rebates that another person in my situation could expect.
I was born in Toronto, and have spent alternating decades living in Toronto, Prince Edward Island, Toronto, and now Penetanguishene. My father was born in southern Italy. I don't know much about his family beyond the fact his father was a shoe maker, and his father was the town crier. Supposedly, our last name means something along the lines of 'bad priest'. My mother was born in Toronto, both her parents from New Brunswick. My grandfather's brother spent time as the Archbishop of Ottawa; growing up in North West NB. As far as we can tell, his family is Quebecois and not actually Acadian, but don't tell that to them.
My grandmother was born in south east NB and before she passed she became interested in genealogy. She is directly related to the first LeBlanc's that settled in the province, and from what she could discover, large parts of her ancestry come from coastal Normandy with a small portion from the Rhone area in Southern France. Her grandmother was Mi'kmaq, something she long suspected but was not able to confirm until the research.
As such I consider myself "Half French and Half Italian", and that I am technically 1/16th Mi'kmaq. If North America ever sank under the waves and I had to go "home" to Europe, I would go to France as I consider myself more French than Italian, even if my blood says otherwise.
I hope this gives everyone a better idea of who I am and why I do this.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Getting to the bottom of the wet'suwet'en protests
Short answer: No.
That might seem like a truly bizarre opener, especially for a statement and not a yes or no question, but the answer is that there's no truly getting to the bottom of things because of how terrible the situation is on both sides.
Let's start with the fact that the elected Wet'suwet'en council supports the pipeline, seems to oppose the protesters, and, from what I can tell, a majority of wet'suwet'en members, also support the pipeline and oppose the protests.
Wet'suwet'en has a number of elected chiefs, who signed on to the project, and it is the un-elected hereditary chiefs, some of whom explicitly lost election recently, who are protesting.
Even the elected chief of the Tyendinaga wonders what the point of blocking the nearby rail line is.
In short, I've not seen convincing evidence that the people in whose name the protesters are protesting, actually support the protesters. If anything, there's far more evidence to the opposite.
So, the natives are in the wrong on this, right? No.
The Tyendinaga claim to own the rail that they are blocking and, interestingly, there seems to be no document that says this land was ever ceeded by them. The closest I could find is the Culbertson Tract dispute, which, is nearby, but does not encompass the specific tiny stretch of rail in question.
Basically, from what I can find, the land was just taken by Loyalists who were fleeing the American Revolution, and, I can't even find evidence anyone even so much as paid for it.
The aforementioned Culbertson Tract was put forward for land dispute in 1995. Back then Bill Clinton was President, Windows 95 was introduced, and the SNES was the most modern gaming system one could buy. The claim has still yet to be settled.
Additionally, this particular stretch of rail was blocked before in 2007, and neither the Federal nor Provincial government seems to have done anything about it (IE, built a rail bypass; made an offer to explicitly buy the land; or some other strategy to ensure it can not be blocked again)
Bluntly, the only time I've seen a government act with any swiftness on Native issues is when a white owned company wants to do something on land a local band has claim to.
So, who is in the wrong here?
Both are. Atrociously. Normally I'm not that blunt on this blog, but this situation has examples of the most extreme extremes.
The key to the protests is not that it's native land, but rather, that its pipelines. And they've decided to hold these protests just as and after a major rail crash of a train forced into carrying oil due to the lack of pipelines. Yet again, Mohawk and Iroquois flags are flying over the site of a protest with which the majority of Canadians disagree, unconsciously training them that these flags are "bad" and the people who stand under them are your enemy.
Meanwhile, this is all targeted against a Federal government whose Indian Act and system for dealing with our first nations peoples was used as a model for the racist apartheid system in South Africa. Natives in this country only earned the right to vote in 1960 (compare this to 1924 in the USA). All this in a country that straight up took indigenous children for residential schools and continued to do so up to the 60's and 70's and longer in some cases. A government whose missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls was so lost it had to put "what are the key issues that need to be addressed" in its online survey.
Frankly, the behavior of both sides is so utterly revolting and deplorable they both deserve to 'lose' this despite. Since, however, that's not really possible, I'll take the position that's most likely to actually see things get better now and in the future; that the Federal Government has to stop being intransigent and focus on indian affairs.
That might seem like a truly bizarre opener, especially for a statement and not a yes or no question, but the answer is that there's no truly getting to the bottom of things because of how terrible the situation is on both sides.
Let's start with the fact that the elected Wet'suwet'en council supports the pipeline, seems to oppose the protesters, and, from what I can tell, a majority of wet'suwet'en members, also support the pipeline and oppose the protests.
Wet'suwet'en has a number of elected chiefs, who signed on to the project, and it is the un-elected hereditary chiefs, some of whom explicitly lost election recently, who are protesting.
Even the elected chief of the Tyendinaga wonders what the point of blocking the nearby rail line is.
In short, I've not seen convincing evidence that the people in whose name the protesters are protesting, actually support the protesters. If anything, there's far more evidence to the opposite.
So, the natives are in the wrong on this, right? No.
The Tyendinaga claim to own the rail that they are blocking and, interestingly, there seems to be no document that says this land was ever ceeded by them. The closest I could find is the Culbertson Tract dispute, which, is nearby, but does not encompass the specific tiny stretch of rail in question.
Basically, from what I can find, the land was just taken by Loyalists who were fleeing the American Revolution, and, I can't even find evidence anyone even so much as paid for it.
The aforementioned Culbertson Tract was put forward for land dispute in 1995. Back then Bill Clinton was President, Windows 95 was introduced, and the SNES was the most modern gaming system one could buy. The claim has still yet to be settled.
Additionally, this particular stretch of rail was blocked before in 2007, and neither the Federal nor Provincial government seems to have done anything about it (IE, built a rail bypass; made an offer to explicitly buy the land; or some other strategy to ensure it can not be blocked again)
Bluntly, the only time I've seen a government act with any swiftness on Native issues is when a white owned company wants to do something on land a local band has claim to.
So, who is in the wrong here?
Both are. Atrociously. Normally I'm not that blunt on this blog, but this situation has examples of the most extreme extremes.
The key to the protests is not that it's native land, but rather, that its pipelines. And they've decided to hold these protests just as and after a major rail crash of a train forced into carrying oil due to the lack of pipelines. Yet again, Mohawk and Iroquois flags are flying over the site of a protest with which the majority of Canadians disagree, unconsciously training them that these flags are "bad" and the people who stand under them are your enemy.
Meanwhile, this is all targeted against a Federal government whose Indian Act and system for dealing with our first nations peoples was used as a model for the racist apartheid system in South Africa. Natives in this country only earned the right to vote in 1960 (compare this to 1924 in the USA). All this in a country that straight up took indigenous children for residential schools and continued to do so up to the 60's and 70's and longer in some cases. A government whose missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls was so lost it had to put "what are the key issues that need to be addressed" in its online survey.
Frankly, the behavior of both sides is so utterly revolting and deplorable they both deserve to 'lose' this despite. Since, however, that's not really possible, I'll take the position that's most likely to actually see things get better now and in the future; that the Federal Government has to stop being intransigent and focus on indian affairs.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
General Updates - Ireland, Israel, Italy, and more
Ireland:
FF has said they will not coalition with SF. This helps narrow down coalition options. Given what we know about the Independents, I'd break things down as follows:
79 - FF+FG+Lab (Establishment Coalition)
61 - SF+Grn+SD+Sol+Aon (Reform Coalition)
20 - Independents
Estimation:
87 - Establishment
73 - Reform
Keep in mind that a lot of the lines between these two groups are quite fuzzy. Labour may decide to sit with the Reformists, while the Greens could back more Establishment candidates.
FF has said they will not coalition with SF. This helps narrow down coalition options. Given what we know about the Independents, I'd break things down as follows:
79 - FF+FG+Lab (Establishment Coalition)
61 - SF+Grn+SD+Sol+Aon (Reform Coalition)
20 - Independents
Estimation:
87 - Establishment
73 - Reform
Keep in mind that a lot of the lines between these two groups are quite fuzzy. Labour may decide to sit with the Reformists, while the Greens could back more Establishment candidates.
Italy:
I want to look at the polling gap between M5S vs FdI. If you remember, I pointed out the polling gap between M5S and PD a while back, and said that should M5S fall so low they hit PD, that things could change fast. This turned out to be exactly what happened, and resulted in the coalition breaking and the formation of a M5S-PD coalition.
Now that M5S is nearing FdI, we could see a similar situation of chaos break out if the two should meet.
Now that M5S is nearing FdI, we could see a similar situation of chaos break out if the two should meet.
Israel:
Not much change in the polls, especially comparing the seats everyone has to the current latest polling figures. Quite simply, we'll likely end up back where we started, again, and it's all going to come down to who is and is not willing to sit in coalition with one another, which, as far as I can tell, has not changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)