LR Congress: "Eric Ciotti is most in tune with the ideological base of LR militants"

David Desgouilles is a columnist for

Marianne

DERAPAGE

Du

their lost wars

FIGAROVOX.

- What do you think of the choice of LR members for this second round?

David DESGOUILLES. -

Four candidates in three points only, it is extremely divided. And it is true that, apart from Philippe Juvin, giving a prognosis for this first round was more of a marabout gift than the skills of an expert on the right. From there, it seems to me that Eric Ciotti is especially rewarded by the fact that he never really left the militants since Xavier Bertrand and Valérie Pécresse had left him and that Michel Barnier had apparently not- he did not renew his membership in 2019 and 2020. In addition, we can consider that the deputy of the Alpes-Maritimes was much more in phase ideologically with the hearts of LR activists.

Xavier Bertrand relied on the debates to speak beyond the electorate of the Congress, acting as if he was already qualified to face Emmanuel Macron.

Some seasoned members may have been confused by this tactic.

David Desgouilles

Behind him, Valérie Pécresse has apparently mobilized more.

The numerous memberships recorded in Ile-de-France are undoubtedly a result of this mobilization.

What is the motivation of the members by excluding Xavier Bertrand who was best placed in the polls to represent LR in the presidential election?

Xavier Bertrand, unlike Valérie Pécresse, was originally opposed to any internal competition and he only joined in by dragging his feet. He relied on the debates to speak beyond the electorate of the congress, pretending he was already qualified to face Emmanuel Macron. Some seasoned members may have been confused by this tactic. His best position in the polls was therefore unable to compensate for these handicaps, which he had imposed on himself. The moment when Valérie Pécresse was registered in false, during the debate of Tuesday evening, vis-a-vis the favorable position of Xavier Bertrand on the single presidential mandate, if it was undoubtedly not decisive, seems to me rather revealing of '' a better understanding of the issues, and a coherent campaign. II find it very difficult to understand how one can defend such a constitutional limitation of mandate in time, when the circumstances take care of it very well on their own as the last ten years have shown.

At the end of the various LR debates, can we say that the right has “reflected on a social project” as Maxime Tandonnet demanded in our columns last August?

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything like it.

I especially saw candidates who debated technical measures that were not at the level of a President of the Republic.

In this regard, the moment when, on Tuesday evening, Valérie Pécresse and Michel Barnier clung, it was about a decision of the Constitutional Council which had censored a measure targeting salary costs below 1.6 Smic.

The former commissioner criticized the president of the Ile-de-France region for taking the risk of being censored again;

she was insisting on falsehood.

This controversy is at the level of a legal director of the Ministry of Labor.

Read also Maxime Tandonnet: "Has the debate of ideas become a priority again at LR?"

On the other hand, nobody asks the question of knowing why it is for the constitutional council to decide this kind of subject.

This is perhaps the question of the project of society, that of the legitimacy of certain Courts to replace governments and parliaments.

However, with the notable exception of the migratory subject, the candidates for the LR nomination have only scratched the surface of the question.

And it's not just a question of the caliber of the candidates.

Five years ago already, a former head of state and two former prime ministers brooded over the same details without drawing up a social project.

Only Jean-Frédéric Poisson had tried to draw one.

But he was quickly made to understand that he was irrelevant, his opponents as well as the journalists who animated the debates.

Some candidates have tried to launch formulas by presenting them as social projects.

But, in the end, we are closer to the advertising slogan than to the social project.

Certainly, some candidates have tried to launch formulas by presenting them as projects of society: Xavier Bertrand with his "

", Michel Barnier with his government "

", or Valérie Pécresse who wishes to "

”.

But,

, we are closer to the advertising slogan than to the social project.

Have these debates enlightened us on how the right could distinguish itself from both Emmanuel Macron and Eric Zemmour / Marine Le Pen?

Only one could enlighten us a little, the third, on CNews, hosted by Laurence Ferrari and Sonia Mabrouk.

It is the only one where the candidates were able to talk a little among themselves, without being under the fire of questions of a precision that is unnecessary.

But, it takes more to get out of the antiphon repeated by the five candidates in chorus during these few weeks of the campaign: "

".

It's a bit short to build momentum.

Has the Congress system made it possible to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the primaries?

In any case, it was less violent than five years ago between the candidates.

But is it due to the congress system compared to the open primary?

Or is it rather due to the personality of the candidates who had less litigation than Nicolas Sarkozy, Alain Juppé, François Fillon and Jean-François Copé?

I tend to lean for the second option.

Even if I do not minimize that the possibility that left-wing voters may have voted in 2016 may have participated in the hysterization of the primary.