Intergroups, motion of censure, social emergency bill to deal with inflation… The New People’s Ecological and Social Union wants to occupy the opposition scene as much as possible at the start of the minority legislature. In the midst of this left-wing coalition, what place for the PS, which owes Nupes to have won a few seats in the last legislative elections? 20 minutes asked the question to Boris Vallaud, deputy of the Landes and new president of the socialist group. In solidarity with Nupes, he warns that it must understand the reasons for its defeat. It also proposes a reform of parliamentary work.
During her general policy speech on Wednesday, Elisabeth Borne spoke a lot about compromise. But did she give pledges on the merits?
I had the feeling that the Prime Minister was saying “we are going to make compromises, but on our bases”. While rolling out the program of the President of the Republic until the pension reform, without drawing the slightest conclusion from the electoral disavowal. She herself did not outline the slightest compromise, nor say what she was ready to give up. Emmanuel Macron’s program is not ours, it is a fact and we have proposals to make, but is she ready to hear them? That is to say also to make agreements on the basis of proposals which are not those of the government?
You tabled a motion of censure common to Nupes, which you call “motion of no confidence”. Institutionally, it does not change anything, what is the nuance?
We are talking about a “motion of no confidence” mirroring the question of confidence that the Prime Minister refused to ask. The Parliament, which finds after these elections a new centrality, could not give its opinion, and the absence of a vote cannot be considered as implicit support. This motion of no confidence is an opportunity to clarify things. Power, in a way, has slipped from the Élysée Palace to the Palais Bourbon.
Doesn’t this motion give the impression of an opposition in principle?
I do not believe. The motion of no confidence is in no way the refusal of parliamentary work. On the contrary, the “de facto parliamentarism” that comes from the ballot box can give Parliament a role that it has not had for a long time. We are in an institutional dialogue with the government, but also with the other groups in the Assembly. We are more than ever the legislator and the government, therefore, more than usual the executive.
You have made proposals for the reform of parliamentary work, including a return of control of the agenda to the Conference of Presidents of the Assembly. This affects the primacy of the executive of our institutions… How could the government, which already has to deal with an Assembly where it does not have a majority, agree to strip itself of this privilege?
I suggest to him to share the power to exercise it, to take into account this new institutional balance. Not to frustrate Parliament… Nor the voters who wanted it that way. The government can put on its agenda texts coming from Parliament: I suggest that it does so more systematically, including with opposition bills. It is up to us and the other opposition groups to convince and then defend the texts. And then, if that leads us to legislate less, that may not be entirely a bad thing.
Purchasing power will be the piece of choice at the start of this legislature. One of the steps taken on Wednesday by Elisabeth Borne concerns the deconjugalization of the Disabled Adult Allowance. The rebellious Manuel Bompard has said that he would not say no to a check even if he finds it insufficient… Does this mean that common ground is possible?
On the AAH, this is good news! If she goes in this direction, Elisabeth Borne can count on our support. It had been our fight for five years, the government did not want it. On the rest, I reserve my vote for discussion. The life of the French is very difficult. It usually is because many French people cannot make ends meet: 20% live uncovered, 10 million live below the poverty line, that’s considerable. That is to say that there are many people who have a job and who do not live from it. But our philosophy is not to pay checks or bonuses that do not create social rights. So much the better for those who touch them. But we want work to pay, and therefore everyone to be able to live with dignity on their salary and finance pensions, which is why among our proposals, among others, there is an increase in the minimum wage.
If the abolition of the audiovisual license fee appears in the government’s project, would this be a red line that would make it impossible to vote for this text?
We will make a counter-proposal, because we want the public audiovisual service to have the means for its missions, which are of general interest, and we are attached to the independence of the editorial staff of the public audiovisual sector. This requires independent resources. We will therefore make proposals, the Socialist Group in the Senate has been working on this for a long time.
The Nupes groups presented a counter-project “Social emergency”, which was in the shared program of the Nupes…
And many of whose proposals were also in the program of the Socialist Party
Your bill includes many generous measures, but is it really fundable? There is this famous tax on the superprofits of the biggest companies… Is it realistic?
We always ask ourselves the question of public expenditure and rather little of public revenue. Yes, it is fundable. You mention the tax on excess profits, many European countries have already implemented it. In addition, we need to work more broadly on tax justice. A few examples: I consider that the middle classes pay the taxes of the hyper-rich who do not pay enough, especially since the abolition of the ISF and the introduction of the flat tax. Capital is taxed less than labor. It is also necessary to improve the progressivity of the income tax, the rate of effort of the richest is lower than that of the first tranche. In the same way, SMEs pay the taxes of multinationals which do not pay them. The latter consolidate 40% of their results in tax havens: all the countries of the European Union lack 20% of corporate tax revenue. Tens of billions of euros each year!
Last example: the reform of inheritance law. France Strategy explains that there will be more and more important assets which will be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. We need to organize redistribution with a reform of the taxation of very high inheritances. That we can pass on the fruit of a lifetime of work to these children, which was first taxed as income tax, is perfectly normal. When the rent grows from the rent, there is a problem.
You are proposing a huge tax reform. Is there a majority for that in the Assembly?
I never despair of convincing, that’s parliamentary work.
Together with the other groups on the left, you form the Nupes intergroup. How is working with your colleagues?
Good. It is a coordination body and therefore we learn to coordinate our work. There are things we do together, others the groups will do independently of each other…
We may have had the impression that on the motion of censure, for example, the rebels were able to twist the arm of the other left-wing groups a little…
What I remember is that we have a joint motion of no confidence, written and tabled together.
You are at the head of the socialist group, do you have a united group? We know that some are rather “nupes-skeptics”…
We are a united group because we want to work, because we know who we are fighting for. These difficult lives that I mentioned, we see them in our territories. We are united because we are both in a rally of the left, but we are there as socialists. And nobody asked us not to be anymore. Half of the group has been renewed, there are plenty of young enthusiasts who want to do things, there is experience, competence… It makes for a rather good group.
The Nupes tool still has its usefulness, has it proven its relevance?
I believe him. Already, before the agreement, people said to me: “When do you get along? “. The Nupes aroused great hope on the left. It is something to cultivate. There are plenty of orphan subjects on which we must continue to work, and we will do it with what we are, our culture, our history, our imagination, our determination. I am in a collective framework and president of a group which wants and will exist. I believe that history is still ahead of us. We got along but I see that we didn’t win the elections, so that means we have to work. What should we do better? At home, in the Landes, the National Rally doubled its score compared to 2017. The question of the economic and social dropout of the rural working classes is a subject on which we must continue to work. I agree with what François Ruffin said on the subject, I had the same feeling in my campaign, I told him.