Sunday, September 22, 2024

 France

Macron scorns popular vote...and puts himself in the hands of the RN

Thursday 19 September 2024, by Léon Crémieux


‘The people have,through their own fault, lost the confidence of the government...Wouldn’t it then be simpler for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?’ Bertolt Brecht, ‘The Solution’, 1953

Brecht’s ironic lines have just been put into practice by French president Emmanuel Macron. From 2017 to 2024, his party went from 314 to 99 deputies in the National Assembly. It was again defeated in the European and parliamentary elections of June/July 2024. During these same legislative elections, an electoral front against the far right Rassemblement national (RN) was formed in the second round by all the parties except the small right-wing party les Républicains (LR). The barrage worked, thwarting all predictions, with the RN not even managing to win a relative majority. The leading party after this second round was clearly the Nouveau front populaire (NPF), followed by the ‘centre bloc’ and the RN.

Despite these results, at the beginning of September a government was formed led by an old politician from the Républicains, Michel Barnier, who will recycle many of the leaders of the ‘presidential majority’ to continue the same policies, and who will only be able to survive if the RN undertakes not to bring him down with a motion of censure. [1]

How can such a result be achieved? In total, the day after the legislative elections, there were three blocs in the Assembly: the NPF with 193 seats, the Macronists with 166 seats and the RN and its allies with 142 seats, followed by the small alliance around the historic party of the right, Les Républicains, with 47 seats.

Macron initially obstructed and maintained, for more than two months, his outgoing prime minister, Gabriel Attal and his ‘resigning’ government, taking refuge behind ‘the truce of the Paris Olympics’. Then, contrary to the usual practice of appointing a prime minister from the party that came out on top in the parliamentary elections, he immediately ruled out the appointment of the candidate chosen by the NPF. And finally, to ensure that despite the vote his policies would not be called into question and that he could continue to lead the executive, he has just appointed Barnier.

In June 2024, Macron used his presidential right to dissolve the National Assembly. He did so after the European elections, which saw his presidential alliance fail spectacularly with 14.6% of the vote against the RN (31.37%) and the left split into 4 lists (31.58% of the vote). Macron’s manoeuvring idea was to try to enlarge his parliamentary majority by reshuffling the cards. With only 251 of the 577 seats available to him and all his allies, he knew he was at the mercy of a vote of no confidence that would force his government to resign.

On the evening of the European elections, the far right appeared to be the big winner, and the left was divided between the Greens (EELV), the Communist Party (PCF), the Socialist Party (PS) and la France insoumise (LFI), and had been incoherent since the break-up of the NUPES alliance a year earlier. What’s more, the leading European list on the left was that of the PS led by Raphaël Glucksmann, who appeared to be close to social liberalism and at odds with France Insoumise.

Faced with what appeared to be a field of ruins, Macron thought he was in control of the cards and that it would be possible to recompose around him, in the face of the threat of a RN majority, some of the socialists, ecologists and the Gaullists in LR. At worst, he saw himself cohabiting with a government led by the RN’S Jordan Bardella, giving himself the stature of a president resisting the excesses of the far right.

Whatever his hazy plans, they dissipated in 48 hours in the face of the determination of the trade union movement and the social movement to impose unity on the left, a new popular front, to defeat the neo-fascist threat, with a single candidate in each constituency and a common programme ‘for a social and ecological rupture’.

Macron, refusing to accept his failure, is now trying to maintain his position as head of the executive, with a government at his beck and call, in order to persevere with his policies. Above all, it is out of the question for him to accept the formation of a left-wing government. The argument put forward for this refusal was first and foremost ‘the presence of LFI ministers’, who have been maligned and stigmatised for months as ‘accomplices of Hamas’ and ‘anti-Semites’. A government with the presence of LFI would immediately trigger a vote of censure, proclaimed Gabriel Attal of Macron’s party, Ensemble, LR, and Jordan Bardella of the RN.

But the real reason for the visceral rejection of an NFP government soon became apparent: in order to get rid of the pretext of LFI presence for rejecting the NFP’s proposal for prime minister, Lucie Castets, LFI questioned the Macronists at the end of August about their position on a government that would not include LFI ministers. The Macronists and the LR right were quick to respond: there would be no question of a government without LFI that would go back on pension reform and apply the NFP’s programme for a break with neoliberalism. Patrick Martin, the president of the employers’ organisation, MEDEF, also insisted that there was no question of going back on the policies implemented since 2017. Similarly, the RN clearly stated that it would censure any left-wing government. In short, a class unanimity against any government committed to breaking with neoliberal policies! In the space of a few weeks, this vigorous campaign against the NFP has taken us from a deep-seated movement in society to counter Le Pen to a common front between Macron and Le Pen to block the implementation of a policy to serve the popular classes and to sideline a left-wing government.

Macron would have had no problem adapting to an RN government, even without an absolute majority. On the other hand, the absence of an absolute majority for the NFP meant that Castets could not be appointed ‘for reasons of stability’. What is true for the RN is obviously not true for the NFP.

The practical situation of this new Barnier government is that it is a front for a Macron government, but with a new situation of a de facto alliance with LR and external support from the RN, which has just declared that it is ‘putting the government under surveillance’. This means a further weakening of Macron, a shift to the right and pressure from the RN, which will support this government like a rope supports a hanged man. It is to be feared that what Barnier announced when he took office will be implemented: an even greater emphasis on security issues, a discriminatory policy against foreigners and new policies against migrants. In other words, a policy that is compatible with the RN and largely in line with the new prime minister’s political profile. Known for a series of very right-wing votes in the European Parliament, notably in favour of anti-LGBT discriminatory measures and to ‘regain legal sovereignty in France over migration policies’. Similarly, during the primaries to select the LR candidate in 2021, Barnier systematically sought to position himself on the right, in favour of banning the veil in public spaces, raising the retirement age to 65, organising a referendum to abolish state medical aid for undocumented migrants and so on.

After a legislative campaign during which the left made its presence felt in the media, denouncing the fascist roots of the RN and asserting a united insistence on the NFP’s social programme, the last few weeks have seen a resurgence of language aimed at demoralising the left and returning the far right to a respectable image. Macron, for example, dismisses out of hand the 9.5 million votes received by the left in the legislative elections, but reminds us that we must ‘respect the 10.6 million’ received by the RN and its ally Ciotti.

The aim is eminently political. Against all the odds, the NFP has succeeded in building a united political front on a programme for change, driven and consolidated by the trade union, democratic and social movement, creating an enthusiastic momentum around the possibility of a left-wing government. This political and social momentum, which was not built during the movement against pension reform, was suddenly created in a matter of days. It is therefore vital for reactionary leaders and the media at their service to deconstruct this unexpected unity. Firstly, by saying that the left doesn’t really want to govern, that it doesn’t want power and was itself responsible for not having obtained the post of prime minister. Then, of course, to discredit a programme of ‘waste and debt’. Finally, above all, to say that the NFP is an ephemeral assemblage and that centrifugal forces will soon take over again, particularly between the ‘reasonable’ socialists and the ‘Islamist ultra-leftists’ of LFI. The main thing now is to demoralise those who spent weeks building the NFP campaign, those who believed in it because they thought we could finally build something united on the left.

And that’s what’s at stake over the next few months. There is a risk of a repeat of the centrifugal dynamics that caused NUPES to explode. In recent weeks there has been a reappearance of a fragmentation of initiatives, albeit with a common objective. The first day of demonstrations on 7 September, in the face of Macron’s ‘putsch’ with the appointment of Barnier, and for the establishment of a NFP government and the implementation of its programme, was mainly driven by left-wing political movements such as the PCF, the Greens, LFI and the NPA (but also, on the social movement side, by ATTAC, Planning familial, #NousToutes, the Jeune Garde and, often locally, the LDH). But on the trade union side, while the initiative was hailed as useful, it was seen as institutional and therefore the responsibility of the political organisations, even though locally the CGT, Solidaires and FSU unions were involved. The result was by no means negligible - 150 demonstrations, and even the police had to admit to more than 100,000 demonstrators (300,000 according to the organisers’ calculations) - but it would obviously have been possible to take a joint initiative involving all the forces that had supported the NFP in June. At the same time, on 1 October, preparations are underway for a major day of strikes and mobilisation involving the CGT, Solidaires, FSU and youth organisations, again ‘so that the social emergencies expressed in social mobilisations and on the streets are finally heard’, taking up the social demands shared with the NFP parties. Finally, on 21 September, a new day of action is being organised along the same lines as on 7 September, involving youth organisations, Greenpeace, the Collectif national pour les droits des femmes and Action justice climat.

What’s more, the right wing of the PS is already taking positions aimed at splintering the united front by pulling to the right, as is the case with François Hollande, even though he was elected as part of the NFP. This National Assembly and its government are obviously unstable elements and from June 2025, either the RN by its participation in the vote of a motion of censure, or Macron could lead to a government crisis and a new dissolution of the Assembly.

.
In any case, the urgent thing is to create a political and social balance of power to start a long-term mobilisation around the social demands put forward by the NFP and the social and trade union movement, whatever the electoral deadlines. The convergence achieved at the beginning of the summer must be maintained and acted upon collectively by creating unitary frameworks enabling militant forces to coordinate. It is only by building this unity that we will be able to prevent centrifugal forces, wherever they may come from, and avoid demoralisation.

The NFP is unique in the European political arena in that it is an alliance built on a programme explicitly aimed at breaking with the neoliberal system, and has been able to bring together a wide range of political, trade union and social forces, marginalising the social-liberal currents. It is therefore a valuable initiative. If it manages to maintain itself and take root throughout the country, becoming a daily tool for the tens of thousands of activists working in neighbourhoods, urban and rural areas, developing the demands of its programme, developing the themes of social, climate and democratic justice, and the fight against discrimination, it could challenge the political weight gained by the RN, which uses racism and Islamophobia to divert the feeling of abandonment and social injustice against the racialised popular classes. This false consciousness obviously aims to distract from the questioning of the class policies at the root of the attacks suffered by the exploited and oppressed. In any case, the strikes and demonstrations on 1 October could be a springboard for restoring momentum on the left in the face of Macron’s manoeuvres.

16 September 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

Footnotes

[1See the NPA statement “Voters didn’t vote for that!”.

Brazil is burning



Friday 20 September 2024, by Israel Dutra, Roberto Robaina





Wildfires and air pollution across the country demonstrate the insufficiency of government measures and demand popular mobilization for the climate emergency

The worst week in the country’s climate history. Wildfires, extremely high temperatures, terrible air quality. As Pedro Serrano pointed out recently.

the situation in São Paulo is frightening: for at least two weeks the sky has not been visible due to the smoke. And it’s not just São Paulo that’s facing this problem. Throughout the country, the situation is similar. Belo Horizonte and Brasília, for example, have gone more than 140 days without rain. The Amazon and the Midwest are covered in smoke. Brazil is burning, with some regions showing levels of humidity comparable to deserts, and São Paulo is among the cities with the worst air quality in the world.

This is the third time the climate crisis has worsened: we’ve had the disasters of the Bolsonaro government, putting the Pantanal and the Amazon at risk; the destruction of Rio Grande do Sul; and now, a new step in the climate catastrophe, with the heatwave and fires.

The governments’ responses are insufficient

Starting with the federal government, which has shown itself to be ineffectual by taking too long to come up with a coordinated response. At the very least, it should have called a national TV network, made the issue serious by declaring a climate emergency and naming those responsible for the arson as public enemies.

The National Congress, embroiled in negotiations for Lira’s succession and dominated by the Centrão, is at the service of those who set the fires. Parliament is dominated by landowners. State governments, allied with agribusiness, are silent. In the midst of a historic drought, the Lula government has announced that it will invest in rebuilding the BR-319, the so-called "road to the end of the world", in a nod to the devastating agribusiness.

To deal with the acute climate crisis, we need a bold approach that goes through a number of levels:

In addition to declaring a state of emergency, measures at the "cutting edge" are essential, such as those presented by Congresswoman Monica Seixas in São Paulo: distribution of masks, holidays when the air quality is unbearable, a cooling plan for extreme heat.

We need to strengthen and invest in the bodies responsible for protecting the environment, such as Ibama, ICM-Bio and others; the recent civil servants’ strike demonstrates how the government has failed to treat the areas that are vital to tackling the problem as strategic, while attending to fiscal adjustment first and foremost.

The main perpetrators of the fires are the agribusiness landowners. They need to be tackled by breaking with the super-concentrated agro-export model, pointing to another path, with an agrarian reform that changes the production matrix to a sustainable model at the service of healthy food production.

Brazil needs to suspend new oil exploration frontiers (such as the Equatorial Margin), affirming a real and renewed energy transition.

Combined with this, the January 8 coup plotters must be fought and punished. These are the same people who are setting fire to the Amazon, the gold miners and land grabbers. The basis of the coup is the same as those destroying Brazil.

A left to face the catastrophe

One of the leading climate authorities, scientist Carlos Nobre, has announced his concern that the events we are experiencing could lead to the so-called "point of no return", due to the average rise in temperature and the destruction of biomes.

The urgency that drives us calls for a left that is up to the task. With these flags, we are defending an emergency plan with concrete lines of action, at the service of broad popular mobilization. We will be joining the demonstrations called for the 20th, 21st and 22nd, taking advantage of the traditional "tree day" date, together with spaces such as the "Climate Coalition".

In the upcoming elections, we advocate that the PSOL acts within these parameters - electing its benches with this commitment. And to fight for the mayoral candidacies of the PSOL and of fronts supported by the Party to be the vanguard of the struggle for another model.

The only way out of the looming catastrophe is to pull the emergency brake - with a program and mobilization.

Saturday, September 21, 2024

 Britain

Winter Fuel Allowance: ecosocialism versus ageism, austerity and poverty



Saturday 21 September 2024, by Liz Lawrence


On 10 September 2024 348 MPs (overwhelmingly Labour MPs) voted through regulations to cut the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners except those in receipt of means-tested benefits such as pension credit. In this article Liz Lawrence explores what this suggests for the direction of the Labour government and what remains of the Labour Left. She also discusses pensioners’ poverty and resistance and how ecosocialists respond.

Austerity under Labour

Even before the general election, the Labour Party leadership positioned themselves as a party of fiscal responsibility, which was business-friendly. This theme has continued post-election with a focus on cutting public debt.

They are fond of rhetorically talking about the broadest shoulders bearing the heaviest load when it comes to taxation and austerity. This is not what has happened with the winter fuel allowance. The removal of the allowance hits those pensioners entitled to pension credit but don’t claim or those just above the threshold of entitlement for the benefit. Whoever has the broadest shoulders, it is not the single pensioner living on basic state pension of £169.50 per week.

Labour Party leaders, and their supporters in the Parliamentary Labour Party, have doubled down on the message about the need for economic stability. They keep dropping hints about more unpopular measures to come. They talk about “hard choices” but it is the poorest for whom these choices are hard, for instance whether to heat the home, eat enough food or maintain a decent broadband connection to keep in touch with family and friends. This “hard choice” for the Labour Government follows on their previous “hard choice” to maintain the two-child cap on child benefit.

The decision by the Labour Government to push through this unpopular cut to the winter fuel allowance is a clear signal of which class they support and of their resolution to shut down any left opposition within Parliament or the Labour Party to their austerity policies. They have pushed ahead with this policy despite warnings it could lead to an increased death rate among pensioners on account of cold and cold-related illness. There is plenty of medical evidence that exposure to cold increases death rates, and risk of various diseases such as heart attacks and strokes and makes conditions such as arthritis worse. What will the response of the Labour Government be when the death rate among pensioners increases?

Resistance

The cut to the winter fuel allowance was announced at the end of July 2024. On 3-4 September the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) which works to represent older workers in retirement, met in Blackpool for its Annual Conference. Founded in 1979, one of its first leaders was been former General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union Jack Jones. Many at the NPC conference have been active in trade unions all their working lives and still have active links with unions. Some had also campaigned for a Labour victory in the last general election and were outraged by this cut, which was not in the Labour Party manifesto.

The NPC was clearly up for a fight over the cut. It is working actively with other lobby groups, such as Age UK and other groups representing older people. Age UK has launched a petition to save the winter fuel allowance. At the final session of the conference, General Secretary of the NPC, Jan Shortt, urged everyone to write to or see their MPs to ask them to vote against the winter fuel allowance regulations in Parliament.

Other voices in the labour movement, including some trade union leaders, have put the case for more taxes on the very rich or ensuring private corporations pay the taxes they should pay.

Resistance and criticism of the proposal to means-test the winter fuel allowance was expressed in the form of petitions, letters to MPs, and an Early Day Motion calling for reconsideration of the decision, which has been signed by 48 MPs. This EDM was tabled by Neil Duncan-Jordan, recently-elected Labour MP for Poole, who used to work in research and policy for the National Pensioners Convention.

The NPC, together with the Unite the union campaign to Defend the Winter Fuel Payment is calling a mass lobby of Parliament over the issue on October 7

Embarrassment

In terms of parliamentary manoeuvres the official opposition party, the Tories, tabled a motion calling for repeal of the cut to the winter fuel payment. In supporting speeches, many Conservative MPs accused the Labour Party of being controlled by the trade unions (an unlikely prospect) and of taking money from pensioners to meet trade union wage demands and settle industrial disputes. This was a crude attempt to divide workers in retirement from those still in employment.

Some Labour MPs may have some sense of embarrassment about this and may have stayed away from Parliament or abstained, but the majority did not. Some new Labour MPs gave nauseatingly “on message” speeches in which they supported the need for financial stability achieved by cutting the incomes of the poorest in society.

MPs are on a salary of £91,346 plus expenses. Those who do not live in London or a grace and favour property can claim expenses to cover utility bills, including heating, for the cost of running a second home. This MPs’ “heating” allowance was not considered as an area for cuts to help balance the government budget.

It appears around 50 Labour MPs didn’t vote on the motion to reverse the cut to the winter fuel allowance. It seems impossible to know which of these ‘had permission’ from the whips to stay away for what were considered legitimate reasons and which did this in a half measure of defiance. It’s a shame they did not find the courage to follow John Trickett – the only Labour MP who currently holds the whip who voted against.

Older people’s liberation

Speakers at the NPC conference emphasised the importance of seeing older people as contributors to society, not just an expense. The Labour Government when it is not busy being friendly to businesses, claims to be focusing on “working people”. That it is defining work in a pro-capitalist sense as meaning only paid work, and that this thinking was behind the decision to axe the winter fuel allowance for the majority of pensioners.

Retired people do much unpaid work: providing free childcare to working parents; providing free social care to other old and disabled people; voluntary work, including running and staffing many civil society organisations and charities. This non-recognition of the social contribution of unwaged work often incorporates prejudices which are ageist, sexist and disabilist. Many groups in society perform work which contributes to society but which is not paid. This does not mean these groups are inactive. Older people can be active citizens and active members of labour and socialist movements.

Many participants at the NPC Conference are people who have been and are active in the powerful social movements of the twentieth Century including the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Liberation Movement, the Gay Liberation Movement and the Disability Peoples Movement. They know how social movements and trade unions can transform people’s lives. The Labour Government is underestimating retired people if they think we will all just sit at home quietly and accept cuts to living standards.

Poverty, ageing, gender, disability, race and housing

The winter fuel allowance was first introduced by a Labour Government in 1997. Like some other benefits paid to pensioners it reflects the fact that UK state pensions are relatively low as a percentage of average earnings compared to many OECD countries. The usual amount paid for the winter fuel allowance was £200 for pensioners under 80 and £300 for those who were 80 or older.

Poverty is experienced by pensioners who have only the state pension as a source of income and those pensioners who have only small occupational pensions, which place them above the level of eligibility for means-tested benefits such as pension credit. The winter fuel allowance was a benefit paid to everyone in receipt of the state pension, without any means-testing.

Around 1.4 million pensioners in the UK are in receipt of pension credit. There are around 880, 000 pensioners who are eligible but do not claim. This indicates the problems with means-tested benefits. Some who are eligible do not claim because they are unaware of their entitlement to the benefit, because they find the application process too difficult or because they feel there is a stigma attached to claiming.

In the parliamentary debate, Neil Duncan-Jordan MP suggested the take up rate for means-tested benefits is usually around 67% and emphasised the case for universal benefits. Universal benefits have a much higher take-up rate and do not stigmatise the poor or put people through difficult application processes. Means-testing also means that the poor lose financial privacy in a way the recipients of universal benefits do not.

So, the cut to the winter fuel allowance will hit hard those pensioners who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim. Government agencies and charities will make efforts to improve the take up rate for pension credit, which will then entitle people to the winter fuel allowance. It is unlikely that all pensioners who are eligible but have not claimed will be reached and helped to claim pension credit before cold winter weather starts.

There are also many pensioners who have income just above the level for entitlement to pension credit. These pensioners will lose the winter fuel allowance. Some of these have been appearing on television or posting on social media explaining how they are just a few £ above the entitlement level and how they will be impacted

Poverty in old age particularly hits women, for reasons including interrupted working lives, lower pay leading to lower occupational pensions, and employment in areas where there is no occupational pension provision. The gendered nature of poverty is often ignored. 20% of male pensioners and 33% of female pensioners have only the state pension, but no additional occupational pension.

Disabled people are also more likely to experience poverty in old age. Some may have additional heating and energy needs, for instance to operate specialist equipment, such as dialysis machines. Some may need special diets and greater warmth to manage impairments or health conditions. Moreover, employment discrimination against disabled people and earlier retirement (sometimes not voluntary) may have reduced opportunities to earn a decent occupational pension.

Given that both the state pension and occupational pension payments are usually tied to years of contribution in the scheme, those pensioners who have worked outside the UK for several years or have migrated to the UK during their working lives, are likely to have smaller pensions and be at more risk of poverty in old age. This disproportionately affects Black communities. Racial discrimination in employment also can reduce lifetime earnings and hence occupational pension income in old age.

Another factor making for inequality and poverty in old age is your housing situation. Those pensioners living in the privately rented sector may be less able to insulate or control housing costs. The need to find money for rent out of a small pension exacerbates poverty in old age.

Thus, the decision of the Labour Government to cut the winter fuel allowance for the majority of pensioners, besides being a threat to life and health for the poorest pensioners, will increase the impact of many forms of social inequality among the elderly.

The ecosocialist response

What attitude should ecosocialists take to ageism, the ageing process and retirement? There is the need to oppose ageism, just like any other unfairly discriminatory process. It is also important to recognise how ageism interacts with other forms of oppression.

In terms of energy policy, ecosocialists should support the provision of domestic heating and energy as a universal basic service. This includes bringing energy companies back into public ownership and running them in ways which do not harm the environment and meet human needs, including the needs of elderly and disabled people. The restoration of public utilities would enable governments to control energy prices.

Housing needs to be built or retrofitted to be carbon-neutral and to meet the needs of inhabitants, including older people who may have reduced mobility and may have higher heating needs if they spend more time at home than those who go out to work.

In respect of income maintenance, the first essential demand should be that the state pension is high enough to live on comfortably, without the need to rely on means-tested benefits or an occupational pension. If all pensioners had an adequate income in the first place there would be much less need for additional sources of income, such as a winter fuel allowance. Meanwhile, however, such allowances must be defended because they reduce poverty in old age.