SHARE
COPY LINK
READER RANTS

GOVERNMENT

Why ‘sacked’ French ministers deserve no pity

In the latest of our Reader Rants series writer Dan MacGuill takes a swipe at the French ministers who, after losing out in the recent cabinet reshuffle, have wallowed in a bit of self-pity, despite having other well-paid, taxpayer-funded jobs to fall back on.

Why 'sacked' French ministers deserve no pity
Ministers who lost out in the reshuffle have plenty to fall back on, unlike France's thousands of unemployed laments Dan Macguill. Photo: Bertrand Guay/AFP

Spare a thought for Hollande’s orphans. Since the French cabinet reshuffle earlier this month, who has stopped to consider the plight of those 17 ministers and junior ministers who were cast into the political wilderness in the process?

Let’s see how they’re holding up.

“Political life is rough,” Thierry Repentin told Le Parisien on April 12th, reflecting on his fresh sacking as junior minister for European affairs. Stoically downplaying his ordeal as “a difficult time”, Repentin will now face the ultimate indignity for a public representative – an election.

In 2012, Thierry sacrificed his position (and taxpayer-funded €99,266 salary) as senator for Savoy, when he got promoted to cabinet. There, his day job as junior minister (Secretaire d’Etat) bagged him €113,316 a year, plus perks like free first-class rail travel, car with driver, and free flights, according to recent figures from the Journal du Net.

Now – in keeping with parliamentary rules – he’ll slide back into the role of senator until an election in September. As Le Parisien points out, he’s likely to lose, given the electorate’s current dire opinion of the ruling Socialists. It just keeps getting worse for old Thierry.

After this probable double-defeat, he’ll face the humiliation of falling back on his job as ‘Conseiller général’ (Councillor) in the department of Savoy – a part-time gig he’s had since 1998, and for which he gets paid €25,080 a year.

Reader rants: Why do the French just not do charity?

Presumably he’ll also be able to keep his mind somewhat active by putting in a few hours a week as deputy mayor of the town of Sonnaz, a post he’s earned €7,527 a year for, since 2008.

That’s right – because of French politicians’ blatantly self-interested insistence on keeping the “cumul des mandats” (dual mandate), elected and appointed officials like Thierry Repentin can draw down multiple taxpayer-funded salaries on the national, regional and local levels of French politics.

Token limitations mean that guys like Thierry must bravely give up certain roles in order to take up others. But the practice of having placeholders (“suppléants”) effectively keeping your seat warm for you, means that a smart French politician could spend decades shifting back and forth between jobs, moving from taxpayer-subsidized apartments in Paris to their family homes, and back again.

In the midst of his orgy of self-pity in the pages of Le Parisien, Repentin wistfully described his last-minute duties, like writing letters of recommendation for his staff while they could still avail themselves of the ministerial letterhead. “We’re like a job centre,” he grimaced with irony.

A job centre. That’s a good one. He’s sardonically comparing himself, you see, to the Pôle Emploi – the national French agency dedicated to helping people find employment.

That’s funny. Especially since, in February, the Pôle Emploi counted a total of 3.34 million unemployed men and women in France – yet another record high under the leadership of President Hollande, former PM Ayrault, and the cabinet Thierry Repentin served in.

How many of those who were fired in France lately had a slightly less lucrative back-up job waiting for them, as Mr. Repentin does?

Since being removed as junior minister for the elderly, Michèle Delaunay, for her part, told the newspaper that she had withdrawn to her garden to lick her wounds; she has apparently been using a pair of shears to help her “take out her revenge” on her bushes.

SEE ALSO: Minister Delaunay stands by her dog after attack on child

Remember this: when Michèle Delaunay is finished venting her outrage on her shrubbery, she gets to return to the National Assembly, at the taxpayer’s expense. If the unthinkable ever happened, and she had to leave politics and slink away to the private sector, she is a dermatologist by training with a reported €5.4 million personal fortune she shares with her husband.

Sacked agrifood junior minister Guillaume Garot described losing his taxpayer-funded political job in the reshuffle as "harsh".

After losing his ministerial portfolio, he’ll be forced to return to his €66,180 salary (plus perks) as a member of the National Assembly.

That’s a whole lot of harshness to have to come to terms with. Good thing for him, then, that he’s able to take an impromptu break in Madrid and spend some time swimming and reading by the pool, as he told Le Parisien.

If that’s “harsh”, though, what adjective can we possibly use to describe the ordeal of the 24,000 factory workers (many of them in the agrifood sector overseen by Garot) who in just one year (2012) lost their sole, often low-paid jobs without proper warning or compensation?

Reader rants: The French can't take a gentle bashing

If age-old political game-playing among an elite group of eminently educated, hyper-connected, and often very wealthy individuals can be called a “humiliation”, what on earth do we call the penstrokes by which virtually whole French industries have been outsourced, at the cost of tens of thousands of livelihoods?

If France wants to really reform its political system, then start by ending the dual mandate. Incompetence and arrogance will only be replaced by service and dedication if wayward politicians are properly sacked, rather than rewarded with yet another cushy political gig, and a holiday in the sun.

Dan MacGuill is a freelance writer and former reporter at The Local France.

If you have something you want to get off your chest about something to do with the French or life in France, whether positive or negative, then we'd like to hear from you. Send your ideas to [email protected]

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.

GOVERNMENT

Was Norway ill prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic?

A report from a Norwegian commission appointed to assess the country’s management of the Covid-19 pandemic has concluded that while the government handled the situation well, it was poorly prepared for the crisis.

Was Norway ill prepared for the Covid-19 pandemic?
Photo by Eirik Skarstein on Unsplash

The 450-page report was submitted to Prime Minister Erna Solberg by medical professor Stener Kvinnsland, who led the review.

The commission found that, generally, Norway had handled the pandemic well compared to the rest of Europe. That was in part due to citizens taking infection control measures on board.

“After a year of pandemic, Norway is among the countries in Europe with the lowest mortality and lowest economic impact. The authorities could not have succeeded if the population had not supported the infection control measures;” the report states.

However, the commission’s report also outlined that Norway did not properly prepare itself for the pandemic.

“The authorities knew that a pandemic was the most likely national crisis to have the most negative consequences. Nevertheless, they were not prepared when the extensive and serious Covid-19 pandemic came,” it said.

Prime Minister Erna Solberg said during an interview with the commission, conducted as part of its work, that the government did not have an infection control strategy of its own.

“We had a ‘we have to deal with a difficult situation’ strategy. We had to do everything we could to gain control and get the infection down. It was really only at the end of March (2020) that we found the more long-term strategy,” she told the commission.

Low stocks of personal protective equipment were another source of criticism in the report.

“The government knew that it would in all probability be difficult to obtain infection control equipment in the event of a pandemic. Nevertheless, the warehouses were almost empty,” Kvinnsland said at a press conference.

Norwegian health authorities were praised for the swiftness with which they implemented infection control measures. But the commission said that the decision should have been formally made by the government, rather than the Norwegian Directorate of Health.

READ MORE: Norway saw fewer hospital patients in 2020 despite pandemic 

The implementation of restrictions in March 2020 was critiqued for failing to ensure that “infection control measures were in line with the constitution and human rights.”

One-fifth of municipalities in Norway lacked a functioning plan in the event of a pandemic according to the report, and the government did not provide enough support to municipalities.

“We believe that government paid too little attention to the municipalities. The municipalities were given much larger tasks than they could have prepared for,” Kvinnsland said.

The report was also critical of Norway’s lack of a plan for dealing with imported infections in autumn 2020.

“The government lacked a plan to deal with imported infections when there was a new wave of infections in Europe in the autumn of 2020,” the report found.

“When the government eased infection control measures towards the summer of 2020, they made many assessments individually. The government did not consider the sum of the reliefs and it had no plan to deal with increasing cross-border infection,” it added.

The report also concluded that Norway allowed itself to be too easily lobbied by business when deciding to ease border restrictions last summer.

The division of roles in handling aspects of the pandemic was scrutinised in the report. Here, the division of responsibilities between the Ministry of Health and Care Services, The Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health were unclear.

The prime minister has asked the commission to continue its work.

“We are not done with the pandemic yet. Therefore, it is natural that the commission submits a final report. There will also be topics where the learning points can only be drawn later,” Solberg said.  

SHOW COMMENTS