Silvio Berlusconi could be forgiven for feeling confident ahead of yesterday’s referendums (even if there’s not much else he should be forgiven for). The 50% turnout threshold hadn’t been met for more than 15 years, and you might assume this week’s series of votes on closing nuclear power, blocking water privatisation, and letting corruption trials go ahead would go the same way.
But he didn’t trust to luck there. He downplayed them as only an oligarch of his sort can – his TV stations barely mentioned the votes, he didn’t campaign, and he tried to block the votes in the courts. The entire campaign wasn’t about defending nuclear power, water sell-offs, or corruption (I’d have liked to see the posters for that last one), it was about winning by default by keeping turnout low.
Loyal Berlusconi supporters no doubt stayed away rather than voting for nukes, sell-offs and bungs, meaning the overall results all came in at roughly 95% against the government.
The glorious, joyous, wonderful irony. His tactic could hardly have backfired more comprehensively. Even if every single non-voter had turned out and voted for Berlusconi’s positions he wouldn’t have had a prayer: a 95% vote on 57% turnout would have been a 54% vote against him on a 100% turnout (on that assumption). So the game-playing could never have won, and it only ensured the opposition won a victory which seemed disproportionately decisive.
It’s great to see such an extreme example of a negative campaign strategy fail so clearly, and it’s an object lesson against turnout thresholds (not that non-Tory Scots will need any reminding of that). Your time’s nearly up, Silvio. Now let’s close Scotland’s nuclear stations too.
#1 by Geraint on June 14, 2011 - 9:55 am
Do campaigns really change the outcomes of referendums? If a positive campaign could have made more people vote for him, maybe he made a mistake. However, if destined to lose anyway then depressing turnout was his best tactic, even if it ultimately failed.
#2 by Am Firinn on June 14, 2011 - 10:20 am
James, in fairness to the Tories, the party with the record of imposing voting thresholds is Labour!
#3 by James on June 14, 2011 - 11:39 am
True, but I think they regretted it, whereas the Tories were pretty glad about it. Badly written on my part though.
#4 by Lost Highlander on June 14, 2011 - 1:38 pm
With the continous bad news about the Fukishima reactors and the cost that the clean up will be it was no wonder that Italy a country plaqued by Earthquakes was seriously going to reject building more.
Of course the fact that it also destroyed the legal protection afforded to Berlusconis ministers was a plus to the opposition groups in Italy.
But unlike Italy Scotland has no plans to build more Nuclear power stations and we have active ones. The question is can we close them down before we have alternative baseload supplies and the answer to that is no.
#5 by Ben Achie on June 14, 2011 - 9:22 pm
At last, the European Spring is becoming a reality!
#6 by Alec Macph on June 15, 2011 - 5:06 pm
Ben, are you comparing this to the so-called Arab Spring?
Referendums on single issues are generally bad ideas, and anyone calling for them on issue X in this country who doesn’t support the death penalty should explain why they’d not support the inevitable Yes on such a referendum.
As Lost Highlander said, any sane Italian voter is going to vote against Berlusconi pretty much whatever he says.
#7 by James on June 15, 2011 - 5:25 pm
True, you’d think, but his numbers have always looked good come election time.
#8 by Alec Macph on June 15, 2011 - 6:00 pm
It seems to be about half and half – even with his horrendous remarks on Albanian sex traffiking – which is roughly what happened here. Last time, the ghastly orange spiv narrowly avoided a law change which would have allowed criminal charges when an anti-corruption MP – ! – voted in his favour shortly after his mortgage was paid-off.
I’m unclear on this referendum. What were the questions, and were they separate? Also, did the nuclear bit relate to maintaining an existing network or building new installations where there currently are none?
~alec
#9 by James on June 15, 2011 - 6:15 pm
It was four separate questions, details here.
#10 by Alec Macph on June 15, 2011 - 7:13 pm
>> Repeal of Sections 1 and 8 of Article 5 of Decree Number 34 of March 31st 2011, made (with amendments) into law on May 26th 2011, Decree Number 75: Partial repeal of regulations?
Nothing there precludes opening/renewal of sites. All it expresses is an opposition to the identified clauses of various bills; which, given they will be couched in legalese and esoteric legislation, Joe Publicinni will not necessarily grasp.
There’s a lot of wishful thinking going on here.
Questions One and Two were right dog’s dinners. Question Four was about time too.
~alec