Is an electorally consensual fight better than a – potentially – misunderstood moral and identity principle? Nothing to say: at the start of the week, the left seems very “bothered” – says the environmentalist deputy Benjamin Lucas. It’s been a little over a month since she saw the problem emerge, with the registration in September by the National Rally, as part of their parliamentary niche on October 31, of a bill aimed at repealing the reform of retirements. Time flies, so quickly… It is now pressing ahead of its examination in the Social Affairs Committee this Wednesday. If the New Popular Front never stopped denouncing the “crude maneuver” of the frontists, the parliamentarians would frankly have done without this case of conscience.
Because the difficulty in understanding the contradiction between this double totem, the cement of the union of the left – the republican barrier on the one hand, and the repeal of the pension reform on the other – remains intact, and continues to cross the parliamentary groups. “We, left-wing deputies, are torn between two contradictory injunctions,” breathes Benjamin Lucas, not very excited about the idea of voting for this text. His colleague Emmanuel Maurel, who has long supported the PPL, summarizes the debate: “With us, there are those who consider that the content is more important than the transmitter, and those who consider that the transmitter is more important than the content.”
Until the end, the left tried to overtake the National Rally in its quest to repeal the pension reform. On Monday, the commissioners of the New Popular Front accused the frontists of insincerity after the latter opposed their amendments, tabled as part of the Social Security financing bill… The leader of the RN, Thomas Ménage , then argued that these amendments “served absolutely nothing apart from increasing contributions”.
The risk of “inducing the idea that the RN can do things well”
The entire left therefore took the opportunity to carry out a final communications offensive, denouncing the “imposture” of the initiative carried by the RN. François Ruffin describes the Frontists as “Tartuffe”; Mathilde Panot, for her part, attempts to reverse the stigma by re-patching an old RN visual: “In the Social Affairs Committee, RN deputies vote against… the repeal of the pension reform!” “Our amendments explained recipes. Their opposition hides a fundamental debate: perhaps they are in favor of capitalized retirement, or of retirement at 66?”, pretends to wonder the Insoumis Paul Vannier. A battle of narratives, to date, not very fruitful for the left, forced to face a stormy future.
The RN is struggling, in any case, to ignore its pleasure. Whatever the posture adopted, the trap seems to be closing on the entire left, a de facto member of this majority of rejection against the reform. Those who dare to approve this bill will be accused of “normalizing” the extreme right. And those who oppose it will pass under the caudine forks of the Lepenists… The flame party’s communications plan is well established. Here, a site put online in recent days so that citizens can “challenge the deputies”, to “respect the commitments made to the voters”. There, some visuals already conceptualized on InDesign, gradually integrating – to the rhythm of the revelations of the positions of the deputies – the faces of the future left-wing opponents of the PPL. Some leaflets are already ready for sending on social networks, or for distribution in constituencies… Like those bearing the portraits of Élise Leboucher, Jean-Hugues Ratenon or Damien Maudet, rebellious social affairs commissioners, in the event of opposition in committee on Wednesday. “I call on them to think, sneers Thomas Ménage, RN vice-president of the Social Affairs Committee. In view of the next dissolution, within nine to ten months, we will have to be intelligent…”
Some have chosen to clarify the situation as quickly as possible. “We have stopped worrying about this story,” assures a Socialist Party executive, while some deputies had expressed some hesitation when tabling the bill. In a press release dated September 24, the roses recalled a principle: “We neither vote nor associate ourselves with any initiative of the National Rally. Last July, we were all elected as part of the Republican front. We remain faithful to our line of conduct and the conditions of our election.” PS deputies will not take part in the vote on October 31. “How do we explain to people that we must put a barrier if we induce the idea that the RN can do things well?” asks socialist deputy Laurent Baumel.
Revolution
This question of “jurisprudence” runs through the entire left. Except that she still struggles to find answers. In the bays of the Palais Bourbon, parliamentary groups are holding more meetings. After having himself changed his mind several times, the communist president of the GDR group, André Chassaigne, accepts it: “Our group is divided. In the evaluation of our group on Tuesday, it is 50-50. Some do not wish to blow up the dike where, for the first time, we would vote for a text of the National Rally And there are others, including me, for whom we cannot not vote for this text. Members will benefit from the traditional freedom of voting. The Ecologist and Social group “continues to discuss”. Within them, the ex-LFI rebels, and in particular François Ruffin, are said to be “very keen” to vote for the National Rally’s proposal…
The Insoumis are largely divided internally. Some figures, this week, spoke out favorably for this PPL, like Aymeric Caron or Alma Dufour – who denied having said that she would vote against. MEPs have continued to discuss it in recent days. A final meeting took place Tuesday evening: we swear that the group reached an agreement… while wishing to remain discreet on the strategy.
These delays constitute in themselves a Copernican revolution within the union of the left. Would it have been possible to consider voting for an RN law under the previous legislature? “It would clearly be a reversal of the principle which animated the Nupes”, breathes the communist deputy Elsa Faucillon. Especially since in the absence of an RN parliamentary group in the Senate, the repeal has no chance of traveling between the Palais Bourbon and that of Luxembourg. And therefore to be truly adopted. “From a legal and legislative point of view, we can hear this argument. But people will not understand it” assumes a leader of the RN, aware of the more than uncertain outcome of the approach. Expensive support, for symbolic significance… double-edged. An overall unprofitable result, while the Insoumis will defend, on November 28 during their parliamentary niche, their own bill to repeal the pension reform.
.