On pensions, Macron is less convincing than Sarkozy. This is one of the lessons of the survey carried out by Ifop for L’Express on March 8 and 9. While the gradual postponement of the legal retirement age was deemed “acceptable” by 53% of respondents in October 2010, at the time of the Woerth law, they are only 36% today. The fault of a faulty argument? Not only. It could even be, believes Jérôme Fourquet, the director of the “opinion and business strategies” department of Ifop, that the 2010 reform carried in its genes the refusal of that of 2023. Explanations with the person concerned.
L’Express: How do you explain that the pension reform carried out by Emmanuel Macron and his government is so unconvincing, compared to the same reform, thirteen years earlier?
Jerome Fourquet: I think both that there was a particular context in 2010 and that it is precisely this reform that explains the hostility to the 2023 bill. In 2010, we are still in a period of financial crisis, and three years earlier, François Bayrou led his 2007 presidential campaign on the theme of the disastrous state of public finances. The population is then ripe for the sacrifice constituted by the transition from 60 to 62 years of the retirement age. But, and this is important, in the studies that we carried out then, we had noted that the discourse of the respondents was to accept the passage to 62 years only if this constituted a maximum, a ceiling. “Don’t come back in five or six years to make another reform,” answered some of the people. This is precisely what is happening today. Behind the refusal of the passage to 64 years, there is the idea that it will not stop. That after 64, there will be 65, 66 years, and so on.
How can we explain that executives and employees in the private sector are particularly refractory today, when they were not in 2010?
This corresponds to the difference between 62 and 64 years. For many executives, who started working later, at 60 or 62, it didn’t change much. 64 years old is starting to change things. We do not always see ourselves working so late, especially since for many, this actually means 66 or 67 years, taking into account the annual contributions. The executives therefore say to themselves that they will be the first to be penalized. It should also be noted that it is with executives that the CFDT has the largest audience. The commitment of this center within the inter-union has an influence. As for employees in the private sector, we touch the heart of these profiles who accepted the transition to 62 years with death in their souls or almost, saying to themselves that it was a huge effort. The last effort.
Conversely, retirees are still 57% to consider the reform acceptable. What can we conclude from this?
This corresponds to eight points less than in 2010. There is therefore a form of solidarity which is expressed. But indeed, this remains a total that is all the more remarkable in that retirees represent a large and growing part of the population. In hollow, that shows the extent and the virulence of the rejection of the reform at the credits. This also poses a democratic question for the government, which remains supported by a category of the population not affected by the reform.
What can this strong mobilization against the pension reform cause in the future?
In the short term, more resignation than hope. What is notable is that since the start of the social movement, public opinion has continued to express its conviction that the law will still be passed. Even if the processions were dignified, there were very few breakages and a lot of people in the streets, it didn’t work. This situation risks fueling resentment, frustration and suppressed anger among part of the population. We often hear that this will necessarily benefit Marine Le Pen. This will first feed, in my opinion, abstention in the elections.