at the PS, the alliance with LFI at the heart of the debate on the election of the new first secretary

at the PS the alliance with LFI at the heart

Six days before the first round of the vote for the new leadership of the Socialist Party, the three candidates for the post of boss of the PS debated Friday evening January 6 on France Info. And the outgoing first secretary Olivier Faure was under fire from his two competitors, the mayor of Vaulx-en-Velin, Hélène Geoffroy, and the mayor of Rouen, Nicolas Mayer-Rossignol, united in a common reproach: the rapprochement with La France insoumise (LFI) within the framework of the Nupes.

Me, I am not the spokesperson for Jean-Luc Mélenchon ! defends Olivier Faure, who cannot hide his annoyance: for nearly two hours, his supposed subservience to Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his ideas was the refrain of the debate. Especially on the question of retirement at 60an untenable promise for Nicolas Mayer-Rossignol: We are really on the left when we are really credible, saying that tomorrow we will be 60 years old, with 40 annuities for everyone… You really think it’s credible ? »

The socialist boss would be in difficulty on this subject, proof of the lack of substance of the PS version Olivier Faure, According to Hélène Geoffroy : For five years, the Socialist Party has not worked, it has not produced ideas related to the concerns of the French on health, work, ecology. »

Convergence nevertheless on many files

But on many cases, opinions converge : nuclear, secularism, security… And Olivier Faure does not miss the opportunity to recall it, as on the question of immigration: “ As on many subjects, I am in perfect agreement with my comrades. »

The 41,000 PS members called to vote on January 12 and 19 will therefore have to answer a question: to stay or not in the Nupes agreement. To say ” yes », vote Olivier Faure. To say ” no », Hélène Geoffroy. Rather no, but maybe yes, without the rebellious », Nicolas Mayer-Rossignol.

► To listen and see also: Manuel Bompard: this pension bill “is not compulsory from an economic point of view”

rf-5-general