Italy was never one to root for the underdog, but if there were any true winners of the European elections in Italy, the two main parties would not necessarily claim first prize. 

Instead, Italian ‘protest parties’ like the far-right Northern League reached the 10 percent benchmark - its best result ever. Further still, the former anti-corruption magistrate Antonio Di Pietro led his centrist Italy of Values party to claim eight percent of the vote, and increase their number of representatives in Brussels from one to seven.

The centrist Christian-Democrat Union (UdC) also fared quite well, increasing the ranks of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) grouping in the European Parliament with five MEPs. Controversially, all other lists were cut off by the 4 percent threshold, which led to more than four million Italians disenfranchised as the Greens, Socialists, and the Radicals (the party of former Commissioner Emma Bonino) all missed the cut – despite some high-profile activities during the last Parliament.

In tune with the rest of Europe, Italy solidly endorsed its ruling centre-right coalition, led by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Though slightly down in the polls compared to last year’s national elections (35.3 percent, down 2.1 percent from 2008) - which handed Berlusconi the keys to the executive for the third time - the newly re-formed People of Freedom party remains the largest party in Italy, and secured 29 seats in the European Parliament.

However, Berlusconi’s ally, the secessionist and anti-immigration party Northern League, came out ahead of the People of Freedom in Italy’s northeast. It will now send nine representatives to Brussels.

Former Commission President Romano Prodi’s political legacy, the centre-left Partito Democratico (Democratic Party) endured a year of internal turmoil. The party dropped to 26.2 percent of the vote from 33.2 percent a year ago, translating into 21 MEPs this time around. 

After some speculation, the 21 have now signalled their new affiliation with the European Socialist grouping (currently the PES, likely to be renamed to reflect its wider membership), leaving the liberal ALDE grouping without what some had hoped would be further members to raise their head count. 

The Partito Democratico arguably lost a serious chunk of votes to the Italy of Values party. The latter ran on what many argue is a popular anti-Berlusconi sentiment, which was bolstered during the campaign by negative media coverage of allegations concerning the Prime Minister’s personal life. However, the Premier’s many supporters praised him for keeping campaign promises and making immigration a key priority.

Italian voter turnout dropped considerably compared with the last European election in line with the Europe-wide trend - but Italy is still a “good pupil”, with one the highest relative turnouts (66.5 percent).

Posted by Bill Pierce

We now know the answer to a question that has been asked for months – How much will health care reform cost?  The initial answer, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), at least $1 trillion dollars over ten years and that won’t even cover all of those who currently are without insurance. 

According to the CBO under the Senate HELP Committee plan as it currently stands, we will see a net increase in coverage of 19 million of the approximately 46 million who are without health care coverage.  The CBO estimates that 39 million would gain coverage under the HELP plan, but another 20 million would lose or drop coverage resulting in a net gain of 19 million.  And all this comes at a cost of at least $1 trillion.  This number could be more, much more, or less, as the HELP bill still has several holes that prevented the CBO from fully estimating its costs.

What this tells us is that health care reform will be expensive.  But we knew that.

What it really means is that health care reform is complicated.  Make a change in one area to fix a specific problem and it can have an unintended impact in another.  Hence the net gain of 19 million uninsured, even though the provision to cover the uninsured adds 39 million, that same provision also causes another 20 million to lose or drop coverage.  Decisions and details matter in this debate.

For those who truly want and believe we need to reform our system, this initial estimate does not mean the end of reform.  It just provides an opportunity to make changes and adjustments to try and increase the net number, while keeping a close eye on the cost.

However, even in today’s world of $800 billion stimulus packages and industry bailouts in the hundreds of billions of dollars, a trillion dollars is a lot of money and this provides an opportunity for the bill’s critics to reasonably ask why we should pay this much when it doesn’t provide universal coverage.

So now the debate begins in earnest as both sides have a target to aim at in what should prove to be a very lively and aggressive debate.  Each side has their work cut out for them as we clearly need to make changes to our health care system to provide better coverage to more people, yet we do not have an endless supply of money to pay for it.

In the end, the decision on how much to spend and how to spend it lies with President Obama.  He will have to make a decision, and it could come soon, on whether he wants to risk his political capital and potentially future on going it alone with no Republican support, and thus get all the benefit if the plan works out, or all the risk, if it does not.  If he brings Republicans along with him, they each can share in the benefit and/or risk.

Posted by Bill Pierce

The latest idea in the health care debate – a health care co-op — was put forth by Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee as an alternative and attempt at a compromise with Republicans (and some Democrats) over the public plan option.

In a very short amount of time it has gained a great deal of attention.  Apparently even the President is interested as is Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is where a compromise bill is likely to emerge.

What’s intriguing about the co-op idea is not that it is a co-op, this is an old idea, we have electric co-ops, food co-ops, farm co-ops and apartment co-ops to name just a few.  All a co-op is, is an organization owned and managed by its members.

But how a co-op is run is an empty shell.  This presents an opportunity for Congress to do two things:  One, achieve a political compromise on a tough issues, and; Two, create a mechanism for providing health care with a model that everyone agrees is superior and desirable – what most know as the the Geisinger, Mayo model – an integrated clinic providing coordinated care to patients with incentives lined up to provide that care.

A co-op could be set up to include a constellation of providers  — doctors, nurses, nutritionists, dieticians, mental health providers and most importantly care coordinators who would work directly with patients to make sure they are getting the appropriate care for their condition, which evidence shows keeps costs down and improves quality.

The question is will Congress grab this idea and turn it into a win, or will politics win out and they’ll push it aside and go back to the partisan debate over a public plan?

With an abstention rate of 59.4%, the European elections in France attracted little attention, both from the media and citizens, in spite of the efforts of the opposition parties to use them to sanction the political decisions taken by President Sarkozy and his ruling centre-right party, UMP, over the past two years.

With 16.8% of the vote, the Socialists, led by Martine Aubry, endured a severe defeat after major internal tensions to set up their electoral lists. During the campaign, they were heavily challenged on their left by the newly created “Anti-capitalist Party” (NPA) of Olivier Besancenot and the “Left Front” composed of the Communist Party and former members of the Socialist party.

However, those lists got only half of the votes they were expecting, with respectively 4.9% and 6.1% and only a few seats in the new European Parliament.

In the end, those who talked about Europe - even with some national intonation when it comes to the President’s party - managed to convince the electorate.  Nicolas Sarkozy’s party, piggy-backing on the positive results of the French EU Presidency, rallied more than 28 % of votes.

Last but not least, France woke up greener than ever with 16.2% of votes won by Daniel Cohn-Bendit’s party (Europe écologie), giving him as many seats as the Socialist party. 

This strong result was mostly obtained at the expense of François Bayrou’s “Mouvement Démocrate” (he was the “third man” at the last Presidential elections), which only got 8,5 % of the votes after a very “anti-Sarkozy” campaign.

Unlike in many parts of Europe, the anti-EU parties seem to have somewhat faded compared to previous European elections, although Jean-Marie Le Pen, the far right veteran, secured a 6th term in the European Parliament and two other MEPs for his party. 

Analyzing election results and looking ahead at the consequences for national politics and Germany’s role in the EU.

Both of the main German parties in the current government coalition lost votes in the weekend’s elections.

The conservative CDU/CSU of Chancellor Merkel were the clear winners in the elections after collecting 37.9% of the vote. The Social Democrats (SPD) came in second but at 20.8% of the vote. The Greens confirmed their strong performance in 2004 by garnering 12.1%. The liberal FDP was the biggest winner by gaining 4.4% and winning a total of 11% of the votes.

Despite a gain of 2.5%, the left-wing DIE LINKE did not meet their expectations and only got 7.5%. ‘Other’ parties did not make it past the 5% threshold.  Indeed, the broader European trend of electing Eurosceptic parties was not seen in Germany.

At first sight this result did not lead to considerable changes in the German representation in the European Parliament. Consequently it is being seen with a focus on its implications for the upcoming national elections in September.

Even though Merkel’s CDU/CSU lost 6% compared to the 2004 elections, the Chancellor has all right to claim this result to boost her ambitions to form a government coalition with the FDP after the September 27th.  Her presidential and embracing style of leadership is widely deemed to be preferred by the German electorate to the arguably more aggressive and polarising campaign approach taken by the Social Democrats. 

It has to be said though, that the SPD is struggling to maintain a distinct profile despite the CDU/CSU’s movement towards a more socially-minded policy approach, and despite fierce attacks from DIE LINKE who suggests that Germany would be ripe for a quasi-socialist system fostering equal social standards and punishing “the rich”.

Although the results suggest that CDU/CSU will be going for a comfortable win in the national elections, these are far from being written in stone. Merkel has consequently cautioned her party to remain focused and fight hard to maintain this strong momentum.

Her own role as a European leader has been strengthened, but will only remain so if she is confirmed as unchallenged leader of Germany. The fact that voter turnout was measured at only 42% of the electorate (the poorest in any EP election in Germany thus far) also suggests that there is some way to go for CDU/CSU and FDP. 

The SPD has decided to focus on this fact in explaining the results and motivating its national election campaign, supported by the belief that the party’s support base has not traditionally focused on EP elections.  Furthermore, the party will use the analysis to reconsider its strategy and prepare to bounce back as it did in the last national elections in 2005.

One of the more distinctly European consequences of this election is that the struggle within the government coalition over who gets to nominate the next German Commissioner seems to be decided. 

Peter Hintze, the former head of the CDU under Helmut Kohl, has been considered the CDU candidate with the best chances to become the next German Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry. Recent rumours suggest that Merkel favours the current minister for the interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, for this post. Either way: if the notoriously cautious Chancellor openly talks about a CDU/CSU commissioner, this is a sign of certainty and suggests that there is not much to lose for her.

The Social Democrat’s favourite - and EU election frontrunner - Martin Schulz, no longer stands much chance of succeeding Günther Verheugen. Instead, the Social Democrats might seek to push for his appointment as the next President of the EU Parliament.

It further remains to be seen how decision makers will react to the continued drop in voter turnout. Discussions in party circles have begun but will not surface anytime before the national elections or indeed until it is clear in which direction the European Union will go.

The fear is that nothing will change and the trend of seeing the latest EP elections as something of a dry run for the general elections supports this view.

Dr Steven King reveals European election winners and losers in the UK.

All three main British parties – the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats – hurt by the recent Westminster expenses scandal, underperformed in these elections. The beneficiaries were the fringe parties of the left and right.

The Conservatives would have hoped to garner more than 30% of the vote but, as votes leaked to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), they had to settle for 28% - only a 1% increase on 2004. The ‘Lib Dems’, who have struggled in previous European elections, saw their vote drop by a point: as such they may be content to see their number of MEPs rise from 10 to 11.
 
There is no question, though, as to who were the biggest losers: Labour dropped 7% on their difficult 2004 performance, losing 5 MEPs in the process, two of them to the far-right British National Party (BNP). Labour trailed the Conservatives in every single British region except Scotland (where they were behind the Scottish Nationalists for the first time in a UK-wide election) and the North-East of England.

In Wales, the Conservatives emerged as the largest party for the first time since the 1850s. In the South East and South West of England Labour came in fifth, behind the Conservatives, UKIP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.  The latter were disappointed that a 50% increase in their national vote did not translate into any extra seats.

The European Parliament elections, coupled with the local elections, where Labour fared equally badly, have sent severe shockwaves through the political system but the Prime Minister has, so far, kept his critics in the Labour party at bay.

As for the consequences for the UK’s attitude and policy towards Europe, three main points can be made. Firstly, British entry to the Eurozone, which briefly resurfaced as an option in the wake of the economic crisis of last autumn, is once again firmly off the agenda.

Although people tend to vote on national issues rather than European ones, the combined 45% for the strongly Eurosceptic Conservatives and the anti-EU UKIP suggests any referendum proposing British entry would fail.

Secondly, although the expectation is still that there will not be a UK general election until next spring/summer, there is a faint chance that the Prime Minister may step down, almost certainly provoking a general election (this would likely be held in autumn).

In those circumstances, the fate of the Lisbon Treaty would be highly uncertain if the Irish had not yet voted in the second Lisbon Treaty, or if they vote to reject the Treaty again. If the Conservatives were to come to power, they would hold a referendum on the Treaty which almost certainly be voted down by the British people.

Lastly, the success of the centre-right in other large member states such as France, Germany, Italy and Poland is intensifying the pressure on David Cameron not to isolate his Conservative party after their success at the polls. 

At present, he has committed to lead his party out of the main centre-right grouping of the Parliament, as some within his party are uncomfortable with the pro-European stance of their fellow group members. Cameron is expected to create a new anti-federalist group within the Parliament. Should the Conservatives take power in a general election, this may become even more of a sticking point. 

Whatever Cameron’s personal views, he faces rebellion from within his own ranks if he were to row back on his promise, albeit one made back in 2005 when he was considered a long shot for the Conservative leadership.

For the Conservatives, it seems, European policy is the one area which is exempted from Mr. Cameron’s programme of modernisation.