French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal accused his far-right and leftwing opponents during the television debate. This is because they make promises that sound good but there is no reality in it. As Sunday is the day of the first round of early parliamentary elections, voters should be cautious of grand promises that might not be realistic. It is important for voters to know about truth and what type of promises can truly be delivered.
The debate that was held between three top-polling blocs was very confusing and muddled. During the whole debate Attal accused his far-right opponent, Jordan Bardella. At the same time, Baedella kept interrupting Attal and accusing him of “lecturing” and lacking credibility. This constant interruption proves the resistance in Attal lecture. He had not clearly explained what he wanted to deliver to the public. The main purpose of the debate is to make it clear which leader is best for them. But instead it made all people frustrated and confused. The voters are still unsure about where each leader stands on important issues. So, the leak of respect and order made the debate unproductive.
During the 90 minutes debate, Attal said, “The difference between my competitors and me is that, as prime minister, I don’t want to lie to the French. I don’t want to promise them the moon.” While it was the debate that produced no major policy announcements.
According to the opinion poll, there is a great chance that the far-right National Rally (RN) will win the two-round of election on June 30 and July 1. However, they probably won’t get an absolute majority. It simply means they have to make their partner President Emmanuel Macron and share power with him. Macron is the leader who unexpectedly called for snap elections earlier this month.
Jordan Bardella, positioning himself as a “purchasing power prime minister,” kicked off the debate by showcasing an electricity bill. He claimed it represented the anxiety of millions of people and reiterated his promise to reduce VAT on power and fuel.
The latest arguments between Attal and Bardella clearly highlight their different opinion related to solving the cost-of-living problem. The prime minister kept asking Bardella how he would pay for his plan, saying it would cost much more than Bardella’s estimate of 12 billion euros.
Bardella responded by targeting Attal. This man leading Macron’s campaign had no right to discuss managing money. Bardella also said that under Attal, France was facing many problems related to money. The nation now has the biggest debate in the euro zone and a 5.4% public deficit. He also said that Attal is the man who has brought France close to bankruptcy.
Bardella, the youthful figure behind Marine Le Pen’s recent European parliament victory, is now being criticized. Manuel Bompard, representing the left-wing New Popular Front alliance, accuses Bardella of diluting and abandoning costly populist proposals now that he’s approaching a position of potential power. This critique suggests a shift in Bardella’s approach, raising questions about the consistency of his campaign promises and his alignment with populist ideals. It reflects broader concerns about political pragmatism versus ideological steadfastness in the pursuit of electoral success, highlighting tensions within contemporary populist movements in Europe.
He also stated, “The truth is that little by little, he has abandoned, over the past 10 days, all the cost-of-living measures in his manifesto”.
Bardella also made promises regarding retirement. He promised to let people retire at the age of 60 if they started working early. At the same time, he also said that those who start work at the age of 24 should wait till the age of 66 in order to get retirement. This sparked a lot of discussion on different social media platforms.
Attal mocked Bardella’s proposal to exempt those under 30 from income tax, arguing that it didn’t make sense to give tax breaks to wealthy young professionals, like a top French soccer star recently signed by Real Madrid.
According to Attal, “Kylian Mbappé was wrong to go to Madrid, he should have stayed here, since with you he would have stopped paying taxes”.
