What divides the Pd assembly, the fault line between those who support Schlein and Bonaccini: merit of the professors, openness to migrants, alliances, stop to heat engines

There was a new air, compared to previous appointments, at the national assembly of the Democratic Party last Sunday, inside the Nuvola di Fuksas. A different atmosphere, similar (although almost of the opposite “sign”) to the one the first one had seen Renzi become secretary, back in 2013: a strong desire to change politics, to change the Democratic Party, to take different paths from those experienced in recent years. It is no coincidence that today’s delegates are, as then, predominantly “native” Democrats, with no previous affiliations with the two constituent parties, DS and Margherita. And, also for this reason, they are younger than usual, almost 40% are in fact not older than forty.

We found these and other data in the survey carried out among the Pd delegates last Sunday: many new features, therefore, but also many important differences between those close to Elly Schlein and those close to Stefano Bonaccini. First, the political self-location. As can be seen (fig.1), alongside a strong centre-left common root (75%), Schlein’s delegates declare themselves to be much more left-wing than those of Bonaccini, among whom there is also a significant centrist.

It is also interesting to observe where the Pd delegates place the other political forces, on a scale of 1 to 10, from left to right (fig.2). Given the attribution of the League and the Brothers of Italy to the far right, the positioning of the Third Pole in the center-right area (score equal to 6) appears significant, whereas that of the 5 Star Movement (4.1) appears very close to that of Pd itself (3.7).

The perception that the delegates have of the political space in terms of proximity and distance from the other parties represents the best prerequisite for reasoning on alliances, both with respect to the possible partners of an electoral coalition and in relation to the choices possibly to be made in the event that the the result of the polls does not determine a government majority (tab.1). In both cases, the orientation common to the delegates of Schlein and Bonaccini is directed above all towards the construction of a “wide field” with the participation of the wider range of forces currently in the opposition, although this does not exclude the existence of significant differences between the two members of the assembly.

In fact, if Bonaccini’s delegates recognize themselves in the horizon of the “wide field” both as an electoral alliance (66%) and as a government agreement (71%), those of Schlein look in both cases above all in the direction of the 5Stelle (respectively for 47.5% and 43%). On the other hand, the attitude towards the Third Pole is similar, which if for Bonaccini’s supporters it can still represent a second option in the case of an electoral alliance (18%), for all the delegates it constitutes an impractical path in the case of a post-vote government agreement, to which all the delegates actually preferred the fact of remaining in the opposition (10% against 7.5%).

The distinctions between the supporters of Bonaccini and Schlein that have emerged up to now, which provide us with an image of the management team of the “new PD” characterized by a common vision on some basic strategic options, as well as by different assessments of merit with respect to their concrete declination, find further confirmation if we move on to the field of politics. What stands out in particular is a relatively more pragmatic attitude of Bonaccini’s delegates, and therefore attentive to the possible economic and social repercussions of the various choices, which is counterbalanced by a more idealistic orientation of Schlein’s delegates, who thus tend to appear more intransigent .

Thus, on the remuneration of teachers based on merit, the majority of Bonaccini’s delegates expressed themselves clearly in favor, while that of Schlein said they were against. And on the European directives for polluting cars and the energy classes of homes, 82% of Schlein’s delegates declare that they unconditionally support them, while those of Bonaccini are divided equally between those who support them and those who support the need for a gradual adaptation over the course of of time (fig.3). There are also significant differences with respect to the discussed topic of limiting arms supplies to Ukraine, where the vast majority (71%) of Bonaccini’s delegates say they are against it, while just under two-thirds of Schlein’s delegates express a more optimistic opinion .

And, at this point, the significant discrepancy between Schlein’s delegates and those of Bonaccini (which follows the one found during the primaries) on the very topical theme of hospitality is hardly surprising: a vision more linked to “unconditional ” among Schlein’s supporters (tab.2), whereas those of Bonaccini appear relatively less favorable to an arrival that is not sufficiently controlled (also) by the implicit rules of the country’s labor needs, to avoid a consequent negativity of public opinion, which would give in the hands of the centre-right, further opportunities for restrictive policies on landings. Differences that are sometimes significant, as has been underlined, which certainly represent a resource for internal debate but which, in order to be credible in the eyes of public opinion, must soon be resolved in unitary and shared proposals.

NB The survey was carried out by Luciano Fasano and Paolo Natale on behalf of the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan which from 2007 until today, as part of the activities carried out by Candidate and Leader Selection (Standing Group of the Italian Society of Political Science), carries out a survey on the delegates of the National Assembly of the PD on the occasion of the inauguration session.