Meloni reinterprets Mattarella in her own way, criticises Istat and puts a vote of confidence on the table

Hosting the most eagerly awaited interview of the week was a battered Bruno Vespa. The journalist appeared with a bruised face, a swollen eye and his arm in a sling, explaining that he had fallen that very morning and had undergone surgery at the Gemelli Hospital. For this reason, he presented the programme whilst seated in an armchair. The Prime Minister said she had suggested postponing the programme, but Vespa chose to go ahead. During her ‘Five Minutes’ segment on Rai 1, followed later in the evening by Porta a Porta, Giorgia Meloni spoke about schools, public finances, vehicle tax and electoral law. She applied the same approach to every topic. For every objection, she offered a counter-argument: drawing on the Head of State’s words, ISTAT figures or the governors’ protests. 

The most sensitive part concerned the Quirinale. The day before, in Amatrice, Mattarella had opened the school year by recalling that schools are open to all, as stipulated in Article 34 of the Constitution, and by calling on them to avoid ghettos and not to erect barriers. Almost everyone interpreted those words as a warning against the measure due to be discussed in the Council of Ministers on Thursday 24 September. The text is expected to make the 30 per cent threshold binding and includes a ban on the burqa and niqab in schools.

Meloni turned the interpretation on its head. She said she did not interpret the president’s speech as a challenge to the government’s initiative. In her view, a ‘ghetto’ arises when a foreign child who does not speak Italian is placed in a class where the majority do not speak Italian. In that case, she emphasised, “that is the ghetto”. Distributing pupils more evenly would therefore serve precisely to avoid this. She clarified that the cap applies to foreign pupils who do not speak our language. She then brought up an awkward precedent for the President: Mattarella, whilst Minister for Education, “drafted circulars that more or less urged against concentrating foreign pupils” in the same class. 

There is a precedent, but it does not entirely correspond to the government’s measure. Circular 205 of 1990 suggested grouping, where possible, pupils from the same language group into classes of up to five. It was a guideline, not a law. However, a 30 per cent cap already existed in the circular signed by Mariastella Gelmini, which was often disregarded. The practical issue remains. According to some estimates, bringing all classes below the threshold would require moving nearly 130,000 pupils. The opposition reacted immediately. Elly Schlein accused the Prime Minister of pulling the President’s strings, citing a lack of a sense of the state. The M5S group leader in the Senate, Luca Pirondini, accused her of manipulating the Quirinale’s words. 

On the subject of the budget figures, Meloni expressed regret but did not engage in self-criticism. On the very same day, Istat had confirmed a 2025 deficit of 3.079 per cent of GDP, rounded up to 3.1. This dashed hopes of falling below 3 per cent and exiting the excessive deficit procedure ahead of schedule. The Prime Minister claimed to have reduced the deficit from 8.1 to 3.08, comparing herself to someone who has reached thirty and narrowly missed out on thirty-one. The real target, however, was the statistics office. Meloni noted that Istat, on the very same day, had revised its growth forecast for 2024 upwards, as it does every year. She wondered whether it was the Italian people or the government who were being underestimated, and expressed the hope that this would not happen again in three years’ time. She levelled the same criticism at the European Commission, which had forecast growth of 0.5 per cent for Italy. 

The revision has taken place and is substantial: growth for 2024 has risen from 0.8 to 1.1 per cent. However, upward revisions, based on more complete data, are to be expected and do not constitute evidence of hostility on the part of the institute. The same press release also contained a less welcome figure: the tax burden for 2025 has risen to 42.9 per cent, seven tenths of a percentage point higher than the previous year. The Prime Minister offered her explanation for this on Porta a Porta: the tax burden is rising because more people are working and paying tax, not because tax rates have increased. Meloni also admitted that the problem lies elsewhere. Italy is not growing as it should for structural reasons: low productivity, insufficient investment in innovation and human capital, and the cost of energy. To keep energy bills in check, 60 billion has been spent over four years. 

The third front is that involving the regions. On 16 September, the Council of Ministers approved a road tax exemption for 2027 on vehicles up to 80 kilowatts. On 21 September, the new National Health Service charges came into force, with some patient contributions increasing. There is no technical link between the two measures, but seen side by side they have fuelled the controversy. The President of Tuscany, Eugenio Giani, described it as an electoral ploy funded by regional taxes, at a time when the regions are calling for more funding for healthcare. 

The Prime Minister has rejected the accusation. She explained that the measure costs 2.4 billion and that the regions do not pay for it, as the state reimburses them. She described the criticism from opposition governors as politically motivated and denied that there would be any cuts to regional healthcare. She then issued a challenge: left-wing regional presidents are free to opt out, forgo the contributions and continue to levy the vehicle tax. She also took the opportunity to take a swipe at the M5S over the billions in building subsidies still outstanding. However, it remains to be clarified how the compensation will be funded. The fund, amounting to around 2.3 billion, is drawn from unused PNRR resources. And the measure lasts for twelve months. Giorgetti has already stated that it will inevitably become a permanent feature. From 2028 onwards, therefore, funding will have to be secured each year. 

The final section, on electoral law, is also the most political. The Senate approved the reform on 15 September with 113 votes in favour and 71 against. The bill returns to the Chamber of Deputies, where it is scheduled for debate on 28 September. The government wants to avoid a repeat of what happened in July, when the secret ballot revealed the dissenting MPs. Meloni cited that very precedent. She recalled that, when the amendment on preferential votes was rejected in the Chamber of Deputies, many said that the government had lost Parliament’s confidence. Now preferential votes are included in the text, and when the bill returns to the Chamber of Deputies, she said, clarity is needed. “If the government does not have Parliament’s confidence, I think we will have to take note of that.” 

It is not an explicit threat of a crisis, but the gist is clear. Confidence is needed to safeguard the text, even if it does not shield it from the final vote. The message is directed primarily at the majority. Discontent is rife across the parliamentary groups, and the Lega is a major factor, being internally divided and never convinced that it should give up single-member constituencies. In practice, whoever scuppers the reform takes responsibility for the government’s failure. Meloni joked about the rumours of a spring vote, saying that those spreading them can’t wait to get rid of her. She added that no electoral law can be tailor-made: if the voters don’t want you, no system will save you.

The tactic is the same across all issues. Mattarella’s words become confirmation, the Istat revision an underestimate, the stamp duty a cost borne entirely by the State, and the secret vote on the electoral law a vote on the government. It works on television, where five minutes are enough to reframe the questions. Tomorrow in the Council of Ministers and from 28 September in the Chamber of Deputies, however, the figures will be less open to interpretation.