Useless referendums

I see, from two convenient letters sent to me by the consulate in Cologne, that in Italy we are preparing to hold a useless referendum on the number of parliamentarians. This is a weird idea, probably due to too many chemtrails, according to which reducing the number of parliamentarians would improve the productivity of parliament, whatever the productivity of something that is not supposed to produce anything is.

The process that led to this referendum is clear. To understand, just take a look at the old grillini meetups and see how they “selected” their own ruling class. The process is more or less this.

It starts with a rational panel, with professionals, entrepreneurs, people who have specific skills, some unemployed and many housewives. In short, a cross-section of society, as some would say.

At that point, the vexata quaestio arrives: who goes for five years, maximum ten, to do the [insert political position here at random]. The specifications say that after two terms you go home, that you return your income and that you must always be present in the workplace, because you have to be what Grillo calls "employees".

well.

Then the entrepreneur gets up and says that if he closes for five years, or for ten, then when he retires he will be a bum, because after ten years he will no longer have customers, and having set nothing aside ( and not having "annuities") then he can do nothing but ask for alms, while his wife and daughters prostitute themselves for a living. In short, he is not a candidate.

Same thing for the brilliant young doctor of ecological sciences, who is studying how to make the ecological system to dispose of used condoms without mistreating the spermatozoa. In short, if he abandons his doctorate, when the assignment ends, he finds himself with a degree in the sociology of spermatozoon, which does not really have the top demand in the world of work. In short, if he wants to pursue an academic career, he cannot apply.

The housewives all retire, because without an income and having to return everything, they cannot even pay the maid and the babysitter during their mandate. Breastfeeding in the Senate is cool, but it's okay for a day. In short, they do not apply.

In the end it remains him: the unemployed neet, who dreams of citizenship income, is a happy hour expert with his mother's money and promises that he will stop the chemtrails made with 5G. Found the fool who applies, applause applause, everyone crosses themselves and hopes that another meetup has managed to find a candidate who looks like at least a Homo Sapiens and not a Giarrusso Minor.

This reverse selection process, when applied on a large scale, like on two hundred people who go to parliament under the gaze of journalists, produces a catastrophic pile of idiots, bank jumpers, tin foil hatters, bitches and spastics that politics has ever seen. . When in the election campaign you promise a doctorate who is an expert in quantum transport with graphene and artificial intelligence, and then you find yourself minister Toninelli, the disaster is done.

What the five stars want to do is to have to produce less political class, except the usual ten / fifteen who know how to count to 10, and not to have to transport a caravan of dwarfs and dancers to parliament who then leave the group when they don't approves the law to ban neutrinos (they are bad for sirens).

In short, the five stars have realized that they cannot produce a political class that does not look like Cottolengo on a scale like “find me 200 candidates who can count on their fingers”. And therefore they need to lower the target.

The same happens to Meloni. Meloni is in a position to win about ninety seats, but if she tries to implode a pile of war fools who have just emerged from the Second World War (aka those who think themselves fascists), she makes a figure that in comparison Pappalardo looks like Hawkins . She too would be happy to have only a few dozen idiots to control, to avoid the effect "this is like grazing a flock of cats".

The same is true for all large parties: the same PD, in the grip of its narcissism, deludes itself that with fewer elected representatives there can be fewer splits. The PD in fact splits every time a narcissist (and they are ALL narcissists in the PD) decides to be more beautiful than the others. The hope, given that it is not possible to saw a parliamentarian in two, is that fewer parliamentarians can make fewer divisions, and that we can hope for a party where a hyper-liberal wing follower of Blair, a Maoist wing, a 'Christian Democratic wing and a wing that invokes "Reformism", whatever it is (if A, B belong to the PD, they have two different ideas of "reformism").

In short, the problem is that with almost nine hundred parliamentarians in total, it is necessary to produce MANY people who know how to count up to five on their fingers, and today in politics these are rare goods.

The hope of the parties is that by reducing the number of parliamentarians:

  1. defections are reduced, because fewer people mean fewer defections.
  2. the splits are reduced, because anyway at some point you can't split a senator in two. (even if the idea is increasingly attractive to most)
  3. we have some control over the current, since with fewer candidates the party must not put dogs and put us on the list.

in general, controlling two hundred people speaking is much more difficult than controlling one hundred. That's all.

It is therefore a referendum whose primary purpose is to eliminate the problems of internal party discipline. It has nothing to do with the governability of the country, for one simple reason: the parliament does not govern. It has no executive power. It has the legislative one.

What are the effects?

Being a referendum that suits the parties, obviously the parties will become more powerful. One thing that benefits parties only makes them more powerful, since parties have power as their goal.

Second: is it a savings? No. The expenses of the parliament derive in small part from the payment of salaries, and in large part from financing to parliamentary groups, and their "press". Consequently, what the new few MPs will do is say that since there are fewer and more things, then they need more parliamentary groups.

The parliamentary groups will need secretariats, where the demented who have not become parliamentarians will be placed, they need press offices, and all that. With the consequence that expenses will probably rise, and the same for the clientele.

But this is only on the merits. The problem here is the method.

Is the number of parliamentarians really the number one priority over the past three months during a pandemic and global economic recession not seen since 1930?

This is the reason my card will be received, and it will contain a number of interesting thoughts on premature supercazzola. Because, quite simply, the only sensible message to send to the Italian political class is this:

esticazzi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.