In these days, are very popular on the network test drive political positioning. Practically, we shall respond to a series of questions about some of the main themes discussed at the end and you get a diagrammino, which highlights the distance between test-takers and the various parties are now engaged in the campaign. I've made a couple, they gave me very different results between them. In a case, my positions are superimposed on a nearly perfect to those of a certain party, the shortest distance measured in the (still significant) was that separated me from a political formation that belongs to a camp for which I have never voted. As always happens in the investigation of any kind, responses can be easily influenced by how questions are formulated, for example, is one thing to ask if you want the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and another is to ask if it is favorable to increase them, as required by the U.S. to Italy. The introduction in the application of the "Atlantic loyalty" certainly is not neutral the theme "withdrawal from Afghanistan" and it ends up having a major impact on responses. I believe that, in reality, the assessment should be done in reverse, ie by measuring the distance of parties from our convictions.
I want a country more independent from interference with the Vatican and therefore I welcome the greater freedom of research, I am opposed to the equalization between public and private schools, I am opposed to the revision of the law on abortion, I support the regulation of civil unions for cohabiting, which is just not called "marriage" (in the anthropological sense), but yield "families" that are recognized by and legal protection.
I want a country that pursues a non-Europeanism of the facade. For years, I am convinced that this economy will find its global equilibrium will be established only when the three macro (around euro, dollar and yuan, respectively), consistent and liberalized in them, but well protected in their borders. I want a country that works because our block becomes smooth and firm as soon as possible, because this is the only way to earn the luxury of being what we are today. For this to be included in the hallway of the five most important reasons is too even right, but special committees NO TAV.
I think - as Giulio Tremonti - that we must work for a new Bretton Woods and the reform of the WTO. I think we should strive for the revival of the great international institutions, to affirm a genuine multilateralism in world politics.
I wish someone had the courage to say that the class struggle still exists, but the classes are changed. Today, the class struggle is between young and old. I do not see anyone who wonders if there is something wrong and perverse in the fact that our labor market prefers the young graduates to graduates. I believe that when a system goes not to study, not to prepare for there is something incredibly wrong. So I think that they are not prohibited by the atypical contracts, but their use so casual. Companies have the sacrosanct right to manage - via the quasi-subordinate work - temporary peak and momentary crisis, but the rules of the labor market today require those entering the working world from 4 to 6 years on average, insecurities and inequalities of treatment without any organized entity knows or can represent and defend the requirements. This is why more and more guys prefer not to continue to study: if, then find a place for an indefinite period, you must pass at least 4 years of precarious employment, underpaid and that contributes little or nothing for retirement, then it is reasonable to choose that these years are even those where you are family and you are still young. Today fortunate in those families in which this can happen, fathers and grandparents subsidize their children and grandchildren. So I think we should have the courage to review some mechanisms already acquired, and the frequency with which career to automatically advance through seniority, and to increase significantly the age at which you retire.
I think the adoption of a law on conflict of interest and introducing greater pluralism in the publishing market and in advertising are the two top priorities.
I think that the independence of the judiciary, the result of a constitutional anti-fascist, is a common good be preserved.
I think it is right to stress that the task each government must facilitate the creation of new revenue and implement mechanisms for redistribution, rather than to encourage the accumulation of wealth.
I think you can choose to lower the tax burden, reducing public expenditure and national expertise on the regions, but only on condition that Italy remains a country where no one dies on the street, where anyone is at least denied the existence and in which the basic rights (education, health, security) will continue to be guaranteed a consistent level throughout the country.
I think there is a need for extreme clarity between liberalization and privatization. I support the presence of a plurality of actors in all economic sectors, but I think that in Italy, in what is called "the year of privatization, there has been limited to transform the former public monopolies into private monopolies. I believe that today is the strong need to correct this error.
I want a country more independent from interference with the Vatican and therefore I welcome the greater freedom of research, I am opposed to the equalization between public and private schools, I am opposed to the revision of the law on abortion, I support the regulation of civil unions for cohabiting, which is just not called "marriage" (in the anthropological sense), but yield "families" that are recognized by and legal protection.
I want a country that pursues a non-Europeanism of the facade. For years, I am convinced that this economy will find its global equilibrium will be established only when the three macro (around euro, dollar and yuan, respectively), consistent and liberalized in them, but well protected in their borders. I want a country that works because our block becomes smooth and firm as soon as possible, because this is the only way to earn the luxury of being what we are today. For this to be included in the hallway of the five most important reasons is too even right, but special committees NO TAV.
I think - as Giulio Tremonti - that we must work for a new Bretton Woods and the reform of the WTO. I think we should strive for the revival of the great international institutions, to affirm a genuine multilateralism in world politics.
I wish someone had the courage to say that the class struggle still exists, but the classes are changed. Today, the class struggle is between young and old. I do not see anyone who wonders if there is something wrong and perverse in the fact that our labor market prefers the young graduates to graduates. I believe that when a system goes not to study, not to prepare for there is something incredibly wrong. So I think that they are not prohibited by the atypical contracts, but their use so casual. Companies have the sacrosanct right to manage - via the quasi-subordinate work - temporary peak and momentary crisis, but the rules of the labor market today require those entering the working world from 4 to 6 years on average, insecurities and inequalities of treatment without any organized entity knows or can represent and defend the requirements. This is why more and more guys prefer not to continue to study: if, then find a place for an indefinite period, you must pass at least 4 years of precarious employment, underpaid and that contributes little or nothing for retirement, then it is reasonable to choose that these years are even those where you are family and you are still young. Today fortunate in those families in which this can happen, fathers and grandparents subsidize their children and grandchildren. So I think we should have the courage to review some mechanisms already acquired, and the frequency with which career to automatically advance through seniority, and to increase significantly the age at which you retire.
I think the adoption of a law on conflict of interest and introducing greater pluralism in the publishing market and in advertising are the two top priorities.
I think that the independence of the judiciary, the result of a constitutional anti-fascist, is a common good be preserved.
I think it is right to stress that the task each government must facilitate the creation of new revenue and implement mechanisms for redistribution, rather than to encourage the accumulation of wealth.
I think you can choose to lower the tax burden, reducing public expenditure and national expertise on the regions, but only on condition that Italy remains a country where no one dies on the street, where anyone is at least denied the existence and in which the basic rights (education, health, security) will continue to be guaranteed a consistent level throughout the country.
I think there is a need for extreme clarity between liberalization and privatization. I support the presence of a plurality of actors in all economic sectors, but I think that in Italy, in what is called "the year of privatization, there has been limited to transform the former public monopolies into private monopolies. I believe that today is the strong need to correct this error.
I think our country's dependence on energy prices too high and that a progressive narrowing of the needs of the oil, waiting - at least twenty years - that renewables can be exploited through more effective and efficient technologies, can be achieved either through the construction of LNG terminals, or through a return to nuclear power.
Behold, I stand here.
Behold, I stand here.
