July 2024 – Reflections on France

July 2, 2024

The Debate (No, Not that One)

On June 25, 2024, there was a debate between Gabriel Attal, age 35, the sitting Prime Minister; Jordan Bardella, age 28, the designated Prime Minister of the National Rally party; and Manuel Bompard, age 38, of La France Insoumise, a leading member of the Nouveau Front Populaire. The NFP have stated that they will decide on a prime minister after the election. The debate was held in a small television studio. Each debater was backed by a few members of his party, who remained silent throughout. There were two moderators, one of whom, especially, tried vainly to act as a fact-checker.

The first topic concerns the “buying power” of ordinary citizens.

Manuel Bompard says that they will freeze the price of fuel and “items of first necessity.” They will immediately raise the monthly minimum wage (SMIC). Bardella says they will lower the VAT tax, the regressive sales tax, on certain goods.

Gabriel Attal states that their idea for the working class is to “earn more and pay less.” They will revisit the idea of “softening” the withholding taxes that employers have to pay (thus “lowering the cost of labor,” a longtime neoliberal mantra). Then employers can increase the salaries of their employees. (But will they? This is similar to the signature plan of the Hollande administration, and it did not work.) It is also not clear where “pay less” comes into play. But Attal states that their plan is paid for; the plans of the other two are not.

Bardella will also lower the contributions of France to the EU, which sends money all over the world–for example, to build up the water supply in Gaza; our people in Mayotte (a department of France off the eastern coast of Africa), he says, don’t have enough potable water. (Both things are true: the EU has been trying to solve Gaza’s water crisis since at least 2018; and as for Mayotte, shame on France.)[1]

Photo 280129612 © Hyotographics | Dreamstime.com

Attal responds to both. Poland and Spain recently lowered the VAT tax, and it had little discernible effect. As for raising SMIC, he has talked to many small businessmen who are afraid they will have to fire people if SMIC suddenly goes up. Bardella immediately restates Attal’s remark about the problem for small businesses; he is not in favor of raising the minimum wage. Bompard replies that his coalition has a plan for targeted aid for small businesses, and notes that economic growth is driven in large part by consumer demand–which is driven by putting more money in peoples’ pockets.

Thus three versions of how to solve the pain people are feeling from inflation. They were asked to speak only about this subject, and thus do not enter into broader economic policy. But Bardella wants to trim around the edges, with no indication of where the lost revenue will come from; Attal wants to give the money to corporations, in the hope that they will pass the bounty along; Bompard wants to give additional money to SMIC earners, which will likely raise wages overall.

Later in the debate they discuss how to pay for all of this. Attal suggests that his program will be paid for by increased productivity. Bompard’s coalition has stated that there will be no new taxes for the 92% of those who earn 4000 euros/month and lower. The Left has also proposed a more progressive tax system and a “wealth tax,” of sorts, so that the top 1% will pay more. This is not a new idea; under President Mitterand the Solidarity tax (ISF) included a supertax on the obscenely wealthy. This became riddled with exemptions, Macron replaced it with something that brought in much less revenue; the Left coalition will replace the ISF with a workable progressive tax as well as a wealth tax.

As for Bardella, the National Rally has been asserting that there is extensive corruption in the state, and they will pay for everything by a thorough investigation into fiscal fraud in the tax system. Bompard points out, correctly, that the National Rally has conjured up a massive fiscal fraud investigation-to-come as a sort of black box that allows the party to avoid real numbers. As for Macron’s government, it has put the country in debt because Macron has given cadeaux to multinationals and others. (He is referring in part to the same “incentive” program that Macron and Hollande have used in terms of giving corporations and even small businesses money, or sometimes loans, so they will hire more people. Indeed, the unemployment rate has gone down under Macron, from about 10%, which it was for decades, to about 7.5%.)

They enter into the subject of retirement, “solved” last year by a massively unpopular bill that raised the retirement age to 64, from 62.

Attal will maintain retirement as is, but they will have a jobs program for seniors, with incentives for employers to hire people over 55, and will allow some seniors in low-paying jobs to combine their pay with unemployment compensation; thus the extra time before the retirement age will be better compensated.

Bardella begins by talking about people who started careers at 16 and those who started at 24, after college, and gets lost in the weeds. Bompard interrupts him and says that he doesn’t understand retirement, which is evident. There are two things to consider: age, and the yearly “quarters” when one is in work and pays into the system. If you start early, you should be able to retire at 60, with the full benefits you have earned; if you started your career later, after college, you can retire at 60 but will have to work longer (counted by quarters) to receive full benefits. Bompard states that his coalition will immediately abrogate Macron’s retirement law and introduce a bill to bring the age back to 62, with the ultimate aim of getting to 60 as the retirement age–a figure that goes back to Mitterand’s administration.

Attal points out that France has a system of repartition, or retirement benefits financed by the contributions of those now working; if you reduce the age of retirement, then you reduce the number of workers and increase the number of pensioners. Which is true. He is, once again, positioning himself as the pragmatist.

Bardella suddenly states, out of the blue, that he will cut taxes for young [French] people under 30 to keep them here in France, since too many people are emigrating. Attal states that Kylian Mbappé, a very popular football star, does not need a tax break. This is also a reminder of Mbappé’s highly publicized plea to avoid the extremes.

The moderators now move them to the environment. The European Union has decreed that, as of 2035, no new internal combustion engines are to be sold. Bompard is in favor; the climate crisis is getting notably worse. We need to renovate homes to ensure that they can use renewable energy. The Macron administration, he points out, recently cut the environmental budget, for this renovation of housing, by 8 billion euros. This is true; though the exact figure is not yet clear. [2]

Attal denies this. He notes that France had cut its greenhouse emissions by 5.6% over the previous year. This is true, although only in comparison to the previous year, 2022, when half their nuclear plants were offline and they had to switch to carbon-based energy. Attal also notes that they have put in place a plan for “social leasing” of electric vehicles, and 50,000 people had already taken advantage of this. Bardella later notes that the Attal government has engaged in “micro-measures” that affect very few. (And the “social leasing” has now been discontinued because of budget cuts.)[3]

Returning to the EU plan, Bardella, who is in the European Parliament, said he had voted against it. Electric cars are too expensive; further, this plan of action would greatly disrupt the automotive industry. He favors a return to nuclear energy, with a plan (also Macron’s plan) to build fourteen new nuclear energy plants. He also favors a return to production based in France, since much of the world’s energy emissions come from global trade

He blames Macron’s government for closing Fessenheim, France’s oldest reactor, dating back to the 1970s. It is also a little under two miles from the German border, which has caused tensions over the years.

Photo 20708098 © Lucaderoma | Dreamstime.com

Attal states that the closing of Fessenheim was programmed before 2017; in contradiction to Bompard’s assertion that these plants will not be in action until 2050, Attal gives the date of 2035. (The Macron government did, however, do a major about-face on nuclear power, embracing the closing of Fessenheim in the 2017 campaign and, as of now, planning a future powered by nuclear energy.)

Attal states that Bardella wants to invest only in nuclear energy, while Bompard wants only renewable energy. The current government understands that both are necessary, and they will continue to build wind turbines as well. Bompard notes that not everyone in his coalition totally agrees with his views on energy: “but we work it out in debate, you govern by 49-3.” (That is, passing legislation over the heads of the legislature.) Bardella states that wind turbines are not efficient; he wants a moratorium on their further construction.

After a brief break, they begin again on the fraught subject of immigration. Bardella will end the droit du sol–birthright citizenship, just ended in Mayotte–because immigrants are a “demographic, cultural and identity bomb.” He adds that “when I’m Prime Minister in a few days,” he will close the border and institute controls at our frontiers. As it currently stands, people in an “irregular situation” can benefit from every kind of medical care available, except thermal baths. He adds that many of the French “don’t recognize France today, don’t recognize the country they grew up in.”

Bompard states that 19 million people in France have a foreign ancestor. He points out that Bardella’s family came from Italy. One worker in ten is foreign; we should not denigrate them but thank them and treat them with dignity. Many people do not wish to leave their homes–the 110,000 Ukrainians, for example. He states that the idea of ending medical care for those who are sick ends up costing more, and runs the risk of infecting more people.

Attal attacks another RN proposal, that “binationals,” or those with dual citizenship, cannot hold public office, a proposal that originated with Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Bardella responds with the first “gotcha”: would Attal put a franco-russian in a nuclear plant? But Attal has his own gotcha: who, he asks, is Tamara Volokhova? She works with Bardella’s “Identity and Democracy” group in the European Union, and as part of that role she gets confidential information on the war in Ukraine. Does she pass it along? Attal is making no accusations.[4]. He is, however, raising the shadow of Putin that has constantly dogged the RN.

Bompard suggests that for sensitive positions, all people should be investigated, whether binationals or not.

Moving along to crime, a topic which heads into the schools, Attal notes that his government has taken several steps, including immediate court appearances and sanctions for those ages 16 and up.

Bardella asserts that women can’t go on public transport or walk down the street without feeling fear. These two (Attal and Bompard) make “culture” an excuse; they stand for judicial laxity. He will, for recividists, suspend family allocations (a sort of welfare payment, depending on number and age of children), in cases of delinquency. He will also reduce immigration, because a lot of street crime in the country is linked to immigrants.

Bompard wants to go back to things that have worked in the past–for example, the cop on the beat (police de proximité), more funding for the police, preventing drugs from coming into the country–as a representative of Marseille, as he states, he knows that drugs are behind much of the crime. He does not believe in judging a minor as an adult. As for suppressing family allocations, Sarkozy tried this experiment for students who were frequently absent from school; it didn’t help, and absenteeism got worse.

Attal has served as Minister of Education; as such, he abolished the abaya, a long Muslim dress, on the grounds of secularism. He recalls the cases of Samuel Patty and Dominique Bernard, two teachers killed by “Islamic terrorism.” School teachers have to “self-censure” when discussing such subjects as history.

Bompard says he is not challenging the 1905 law (on separation of church and statet); nor does he want to make a big media issue of it. He wants to make certain that students are adequately served in regard to books and food.

Bardella agrees that teachers much “self-censure”: he wants a “Big Bang” of authority, he wants to banish smart phones from schools, he is in favor of school uniforms. He will stop closing schools in rural areas. He asserts that Manuel Bompard wants to get rid of the 1905 law (though he had just said he did not), Bompard wants to open the prisons and legalize squats.

Everyone is getting tired. As for the problem of “medical deserts,” only Attal has an idea–allowing medical professionals other than doctors to prescribe medicine.

I was impressed with Bompard; he convincingly fact-checked the fact-checker in a couple of instances, and seemed full of ideas–perhaps a function of the long hours that his group had spent putting the program (longer than the other two) together. Attal is also impressive personally, but presents tired ideas, which belong to the generation before his. He learned that the Assembly was going to be dissolved less than an hour before Macron announced it. Yesterday Attal pulled their current bill, the reform of unemployment insurance, from consideration. Macron learned of this on the news, perhaps an indication of things to come.

Jordan Bardella?