What it revealed — if a reminder was even necessary — is the fact that this government is totally at the mercy of the Rassemblement National (RN). The RN’s current line is “For now we’ll let you stay in place, but you’ll have to prove yourself.”

I don’t believe that the political center of gravity in France is on the Right. One thing can’t be denied: the Left came out on top in summer’s elections. It presented itself as a coalition under the banner of the Nouveau Front Populaire, sharing out the constituencies among its joint candidates. All this was made very clear to the electorate — and that coalition finished with the largest share of seats. We can’t say that France is totally right-wing. That the Left came out on top is very significant and revealing.

In this election, the Rassemblement National was defeated in the runoff votes. I’m not entirely happy with the results of the second round, of course. We still have the Rassemblement National at its height, gaining a huge share of seats compared to the last parliament. It represents a major threat, even more than in the past. Emmanuel Macron has not taken this threat seriously. This new government is the result of closed-door discussions. It reflects neither the strength of the Left nor the French people’s expressed desire for a change in political direction.

That’s not how it works. Parliamentary elections result in the election of one MP per constituency. Of course, the Left did not win an absolute majority. But on the other hand, these elections sent a very clear signal that the president has been in denial about: people want a change in the political direction of this country. Ultimately, that applies for the people who voted for the Nouveau Front Populaire, which came out on top without an absolute majority, and those who voted for the Rassemblement National.

Yet it’s remarkable now how little has changed. It’s Emmanuel Macron who single-handedly decided on the dissolution of the National Assembly last June, just as it was Emmanuel Macron who put this government together. Don’t think for a minute that he didn’t approve all the ministers in the government. He was the one who chose his prime minister after months of delay. He clearly doesn’t seem to have understood what the French want.

I remember the frustration. I was both an average voter who supported the NFP and an organizer who did a lot of work for the campaign from my civil society role at the Nos Services Publics collective. I remember thinking to myself, how do we respond to people at a dinner party when they jokingly say, “Oh well, maybe it is just time to give the RN a chance”? I’d spent my nights campaigning and I was disappointed and worried that the union of parties would explode. From below, however, the aspiration for unity was and remains immense.

The somewhat practical or even cynical reason would be that each party found it unbearable to be represented by a figure from one of the other parties, not someone from their own camp. But I also think there is a growing realization within the parties that civil society needs to be given a major role on the Left. What we’re seeing is that parties obey their own internal logic. They get bogged down in fighting for their own positions. That’s normal; it’s linked to the way party structures work and to their democratic function. Parties are very useful for structuring thought and ideological debate. But they will only be as useful as they can be if they maintain an open dialogue, which we’ve been able to keep going up to now.

It’s funny, because everyone tells me that: “You must have been very disappointed.” But it’s not that simple. It had become quite clear that he would marginalize and avoid us by any means. What I knew, though, was that we had to be beyond reproach and do things as cleanly as possible. And I think that we did just that. We went to see him united as a bloc, agreeing that it was my responsibility to open the negotiations. We played the institutional game: we went and we said, here’s what we propose. We gave Emmanuel Macron no opportunity to go on and say, “Oh no, they’re a bunch of clowns.”

As everyone knows about Macron, he tells you what you want to hear. It was a courteous exchange. People have claimed that I was too optimistic in my first remarks to the press afterwards. In fact, I chose to relay quite simply what he had told me and make him face up to his responsibilities too. He said that the French want a change of political direction and so I obviously repeated that.

Our call for a change of governing methods is one of the major points that distinguishes us from Macron. We want to govern differently and would not shy away from the need to compromise and reach agreements in parliament. Emmanuel Macron has stretched our society and institutions to their limits by trying to work without any dialogue with intermediary bodies like trade unions or even parliament. We could even add his cabinet to that list. I don’t know if there has ever been a president in French history who has taken the lead on so many policy initiatives, going over the heads even of his own ministers.

But we also laid out our priorities and principles, from the need to strengthen public services like health and education and invest directly in the ecological transition to increasing ordinary people’s purchasing power. We also needed to show that our plan is well grounded financially. We’re not the lunatics burning up the Treasury. That’s what Macron’s government has been doing for seven years now.

Our goal was to build off our program by choosing issues where we thought it would be possible to build agreements in the National Assembly, also with votes from beyond the NFP itself. On public services, for example, even many right-wing MPs would have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they did not vote for a bill to fund schools and hospitals. So we would have been able to choose which “rupture” measures would make it through this parliament while waiting for the Left to come to power.

We have a major cultural battle to fight. This means explaining that what we’re proposing in terms of fiscal policies and ecological investments is credible — and works. We need to make it clearer to people that maintaining the status quo is the real danger. People often say that the Left is proposing things that can’t be done. But what’s unrealistic is not preparing for the direction that our society is heading. We’re struggling to get this message out and we need to work on it. I’ve been struck by this for quite a long time: the Left is sometimes inaudible, and many people aren’t turning to us to prepare for that future. We have a lot of work to do in terms of talking to more people and taking more ownership of the way they express their needs, demands, and concerns.

It’s disastrous, quite simply — and it’s linked to one of the cultural battles that we need to win. That the government is proposing such drastic budget cuts is directly linked to the mistakes made by the president over the last seven years. We must stop thinking that the difficulties we find ourselves in come out of nowhere. They’re the result of political choices that weren’t the right ones, namely the enormous hole in revenues created by years of tax cuts.

The second point is that we’re in a situation where we’re going to intervene against what even standard economic theory would recommend. We’re hovering on the brink of a recession, and we’re going to continue to cut spending, which will further compress economic activity. Above all, this budget will further cut back public services, which are already in a deplorable state. We should be investing massively in public services. There are also many economic inefficiencies. For example, reducing reimbursements for medical services and checkups will further push people to pay for private plans. But we know that in the very long term, this will cost a lot more.

It’s important to remember that Barnier is proposing €20 billion in exceptional tax revenue, whereas Emmanuel Macron’s policies have led to €60 billion less revenue per year. The taxes look like they’re going to be a one-shot deal, whereas the €60 billion revenue hole is permanent. It’s a very minimal concession compared to what has been done. The Macronists have made lowering taxes a dogmatic totem, and so the president and his allies see raising taxes as a kind of breach in their tacit pact with the Right.

The prime minister is aware that he couldn’t just find €60 billion in savings by cutting spending alone; €40 billion in savings is already very hard to come by. They’re worried about what feelings this might provoke among the population. We’re making the working classes and the least well-off pay for the tax gifts that Emmanuel Macron has given to the largest companies and the wealthiest households during his seven years in power.

Our public services are already stretched to their limits. People are dying in emergency room corridors. Some ERs are closed at night. For example, the infant mortality rate is on the rise in France. In my son’s school, rainwater leaks from the hallway ceilings. At schools in Seine-Saint-Denis, there are whole classes that have to make do with teacher shortages that sometimes add up to several months of lost schooling. What that boils down to is children finishing elementary school who can’t read or write as well as others. We have to think about the long-term consequences.

These are proposals that have been in preparation for months by a team of economists, policy experts, and party representatives. Our alliance’s program calls for €150 billion in new annual revenue by 2027. For now, we’re proposing €49 billion in additional revenue for the 2025 budget. We’re only going to touch on revenue sources that will have little or no negative impact on economic activity. We’re really going after the most privileged classes, those who today contribute proportionally little to the national effort.

That’s true. But again, take the [Barnier government’s plan] to reduce public spending on reimbursements for medical consultations. This leads directly to more payments to private insurance companies. In other words, we’re replacing a socialized expense with a multitude of private expenses that cost more on average. It’s what you see in the United States. The average American pays much more for their health care than the average French person does through taxes.

If we can demonstrate this very concretely, I think it will get into people’s heads. The problem is that many people view taxes as a waste of money and thus a loss for them. But when you look at the public services that are financed by taxes, two-thirds of households are net beneficiaries. We’ve not made it clear enough what our taxes are used for.

It’s very worrying. The interior minister has explicitly called into question the rule of law itself. I dare to hope that if there’s an immigration bill that makes the situation even tougher, then a wing of the Macronist bloc will do something about it. I’m being very sincere. I met an MP from Horizons [a center-right party in Barnier’s governing coalition] in this very café who told me that he entirely disagrees with the government’s escalation on immigration.

There’s a power struggle over what I represent: the NFP alliance, bringing together four party structures. One wing of the alliance — what some call the “elephants” of the Parti Socialiste — is against any pact with France Insoumise. So they put the viability of the alliance at the heart of the question of picking a potential prime minister.

On a personal level, I don’t make much of an issue over whether I’m the candidate or not. What I think is most important is that there must be a candidate. If it’s not going to be me, it needs to be someone who has sufficient legitimacy among the parties to lead a government. Since I appeared to be the solution, I didn’t shy away from it and I said okay. If it turns out that I’m no longer the solution and we manage to find another figure who can bring us together, that’s no problem for me.

I’m not a member of France Insoumise, so I can’t say much about their internal dynamics. What I can say is that they were supportive this summer and have been good partners. Over the long term, they have significant strengths in terms of voter mobilization and the production of ideas. When [Macron] asked me if there would be France Insoumise ministers in our government, I obviously said yes.

I do have my differences in terms of political style and culture. Sometimes they use terms that are not necessarily my own or the ones I’d use, but we don’t have to agree on everything. In any case, I think that anything that leads to caricaturing other people’s positions, whether it’s France Insoumise or the right wing of the Parti Socialiste, only makes it harder to preserve the unity that is expected of us.

For now, Faure is holding the line and the Parti Socialiste remains in the NFP. But there are differences of opinion within the PS. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. We just have to distinguish between fruitful debates and excessive personal ambitions.

That’s the great danger. The Left needs a single candidate, and everyone has to be responsible and put their energy behind the most legitimate runner. Obviously, it won’t be easy to decide who that should be.

It’s too early to tell when there’ll be new elections. Nobody saw the dissolution of the National Assembly coming this past June. But it’s important to have democratic legitimacy, and I have great respect for our representatives. I’ve had the advantage of being from outside that world, so it’d be a change of position for me. I’m not entirely sure.