Tuesday , October 26 2021

Primary ecologist: what to remember from the debate between Yannick Jadot and Sandrine Rousseau



[ad_1]

Who will wear the clothes of the candidate for the ecological presidency? EELV MEP Yannick Jadot, champion of a “solution” ecology that wants to put “in power” in 2022 or Lille academic Sandrine Rousseau, the “ecofeminist” who assumes his “radicalism”. Three days before the second round of the ecological primaries which promises to be as uncertain as it is narrow (online voting will take place from September 25 to 28), the two finalists who came out of the polls last Sunday clashed this Wednesday in the evening at LCI, on the occasion of the only televised debate between the two rounds. A crucial confrontation where debates were lively even though they remained courteous. The aim was to convince the approximately 120,000 enrolled in primary school and, in particular, those who voted in the first round on the mayor of Grenoble of EELV, Éric Piolle and the deputy Generation Ecology of Deux-Sèvres Delphine Batho .

Ecology of government versus radicalism

From the outset, during the brief presentation to the two candidates, each insisted on their differences. As expected, Yannick Jadot advocated “an ecology of action,” an “ecology of field struggles.” And he advocated an ecology that “assumes wanting to govern, an ecology that unites.” Because we will have to act with all the forces of society ”. In front of him, Sandrine Rousseau again assumed her “radicalism.” “We will not be able to make an ecological transformation if we do not say it well. “And the former EELV No. 2 did not hesitate to attack Jadot by challenging“ government ecology ”and suspecting that he wanted to be satisfied with“ half measures. ”“ The government ecology he proposes is an ecology that fails. at the end of the road, “Rousseau accused of not seeing” enough transformations “in his program.” If governing is surrendering, we no longer have to engage in politics, we have to get involved in associations, social movements. “, the deputy replied dryly.

What place for the car?

The two candidates devoted themselves to the subject of mobility and the car, making their nuances felt again. Sandrine Rousseau advocated a policy of “demobilization” aimed at limiting the number of trips as much as possible, ending urban sprawl or establishing car-sharing fleets. He reiterated that he wanted to ban SUVs in favor of light cars that consume less fuel. “SUVs are totally useless in a society of ecological transformation. (…) We don’t have to move with tons of metal around us. “Yannick Jadot explained to him that he was against‘ car removal ’taking the example of his mother who lives in Picardy:‘ My mother, when she goes shopping, can’t ride a bike there. He advocates improving the frequency of daily trains, reopening small stations or a moratorium on commercial areas on the outskirts. And this time, it has been he who has gone online in reaction to his competitor’s proposal to increase the price per tonne of carbon to 250 euros, fearing that “100 euros” will be impossible to pay for modest households . “There, Yannick, you are the one who awakens the fears,” Sandrine Rousseau preached.

Tax the rich?

After discussing nuclear elimination and animal welfare, two issues on which the two candidates are relatively aligned, they reaffirmed their divisions on tax and business issues. Yannick Jadot wants every “euro of public money for companies to be conditioned by climate, health at work, the revaluation of wages, gender equality.” When Sandrine Rousseau proposes “changing corporate taxation to CO2”, which she says “allows more people to work because we reduce contributions to work and make things more expensive that put us in danger”. Then a new passage of arms intervened for the imposition of the richest. “I don’t mean to pay tribute to the richest,” Rousseau rebuked. “You shouldn’t have read my show,” replied Jadot, who explained that he wanted to take up “Eric Piolle’s idea of ​​the ISF climate” which would include “the carbon footprint of the richest.” New problem when Jadot explains defending (like her) a new stretch of income taxes. “I’m so glad to hear you say it for the first time,” Rousseau smiled. “It’s not good to caricature,” Jadot reprimanded.

Racism in the police

There was also a lively debate on the subject of policing. Rousseau and Jadot agreed that if “the police are not racist,” it is urgent to end discrimination and violence by certain police officers. The former wants to end “faction control” when the latter proposes that “the IGPN be left out of its conflict of interest” by transferring it from the Interior Ministry to the Ombudsman. But the Lille academic approached Yannick Jadot for his participation in the May 19 police demonstration in front of the National Assembly. “The police must respond to policies (…). Politicians should never be behind police protests, ”he criticized. “It was not comfortable, but governing is not comfortable,” Jadot argued, explaining that he responded to the invitation of the CGT, Unsa’s CFDT, “that they are not factual unions.” “The police told me: We cannot stand police violence, racism in the police. Don’t leave us alone with Zemmour, the National Rally, Darmanin’s manipulation. I considered that my political role was on his side “, the deputy justified.

[ad_2]
Source link