Letters
letters to the editor •
Bonaccini and the mix-ups over the primaries. A kiss to Vittorio and Mattia
Who wrote to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
17 JUL 26
Translated by AI
Photo: LaPresse
To the Editor – It was with sadness that I read of the death of Enoe Bonfanti, the wife of Vittorio Feltri and the mother of Mattia, who brought so much joy to "Il Foglio". I did not know her personally, but I have read a little about her and learnt of her work – a delight – as a nursery nurse in Bergamo, at the children’s home where Vittorio Feltri used to take his twin daughters when he was a widower. And I remember a wonderful interview she gave to the "Corriere della Sera" in which, on the occasion of her husband Vittorio Feltri’s 80th birthday, she gave an answer that has stayed with me. Question: “What did you give him for his 80th birthday?” “Nothing; I am his gift. And he knows it.” I thought it was marvellous. A big hug to Mattia.
Mauro Marconi
This warm welcome to Mattia and Vittorio is also extended by the writer and the entire editorial team at Il Foglio.
To the editor – But is the centre-left so afraid of the new electoral law simply because they’ll now have to hold primaries? I’m asking on behalf of a friend.
Mario Anzoni
I was struck, on this subject, by a discussion I had on Wednesday evening with a rather agitated Stefano Bonaccini on the programme “In Onda”. I asked Bonaccini: given that the centre-left maintains that we should go to the polls soon, that the parliamentary term is over, and that the broad coalition is ready to win the election, wouldn’t it be worth taking ourselves seriously, facing up to reality and bringing forward the presentation of the centre-left’s manifesto – and, above all, holding the primaries – as a matter of urgency? Bonaccini described this solution as ‘childish’. It is curious that it is deemed “childish” to expect those calling for an election to clarify straight away which coalition they are proposing, who should lead it, and to what end. Best of luck to the broad coalition, which evidently claims to be ready to go to the polls without, however, being in any hurry to make it known what it intends to say, who will say it, or who will be at the helm. A real treat.
To the Editor – “Quanto mi costa?”. This is the name of the campaign launched by Carlo Cottarelli and the Luigi Einaudi Foundation to secure the approval of a bill on the transparency of election manifestos. The proposal would oblige parties and coalitions to quantify the cost of their manifestos, specifying the funding required for the entire parliamentary term. The estimates would then be assessed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. In a country where “every promise means… more debt”, this strikes me as an idea which, if it were to come to fruition, would represent a significant turning point in the national political landscape. Let’s take the issue of pensions. It is the largest item in the public budget: 343 billion euros in 2025, 15.2 per cent of GDP. That is more than double healthcare spending. Compared with the European average, we spend around four percentage points of GDP more, the equivalent of some 90 billion euros a year. The domestic debate, however, almost always takes place far removed from these figures, amid attacks on the Fornero law and periodic warnings about starvation pensions. The problem lies elsewhere: the pension system absorbs an increasing share of workers’ income to fund benefits that are only partially covered by the contributions of those receiving them. In return, it promises lower pensions tomorrow to the generations paying in today. In other words, it is a system that holds together by squeezing the rest of public spending – from healthcare to family policies, i.e. precisely the areas that could support the birth rate and growth on which the system itself depends – and by shifting the burden of adjustment onto a single point: the future – lower – pensions of those who are currently paying for today’s pensions. In short: in an increasingly ageing country, where the number of pensioners is rising whilst the birth rate is stagnating, the system – which is, in this instance, political rather than purely pension-related – rewards those already receiving a pension slightly more. Almost every government over the last decade, in fact, has eased up where it should have tightened the belt: the system remains as it is because fixing it carries an immediate cost for those in power, whilst the consequences of postponing action will be borne by others, at a later date. Italian pensions will continue to be paid out, one way or another: the question is by whom. So far, the answer has always been the same, namely by those who had not yet been born when the promises were made. In cauda venenum: can we expect a different answer from the programme (which we await with bated breath) of the forces that conceived and supported the building super-bonus and the universal basic income?
Michele Magno