The difficult question of the end of "whatever it costs"

Emmanuel Macron will bring together all of the unions earlier at the Elysée. A first since the start of the epidemic.

The previous meetings had taken place by videoconference. This time, everyone will be physically present, which adds to the symbolic aspect of this moment which could remain as the first social act after the Covid. The first signal of a possible other policy, since it is now fashionable to ensure that nothing will be as before. Except that before, it is necessary to pass a crucial, extremely delicate stage: the end of "whatever it costs".

The "whatever it costs" is this rule announced by the President of the Republic at the start of the epidemic. 

Yes, to promise that the State would not let anyone down, either in the hospital (which was done), than with companies and employees. The "whatever it costs" was the maximum mobilization of emergency services, and it is the tens of billions of euros poured into the economy to help employees maintain most of their power purchasing, and businesses to avoid bankruptcy.

Problem: we must now start turning off the aid tap, simply because we can no longer assume, we can no longer finance everything. But cutting too quickly, too hard, would risk ruining what has been saved until then. The head of state will therefore discuss with the unions a mechanism to replace aid, probably modeled on an idea of ​​shared responsibility: that everyone, the state, companies, employees, make an effort and take charge of part of what "whatever it costs". 

Obviously, unions are very vigilant. 

Yes, and not just them: within the majority, the demand for more social is strong. With ecological issues, this is clear, in particular from the claims of the left wing of La République en Marche, finally from those who did not choose to leave the party to found their micro-structure (a very in vogue at the moment).

The same is true among public opinion, which has put fear of unemployment ahead of that of the virus in polls since the epidemic seemed to be under control. And then, the image of Emmanuel Macron still suffers from a social deficit, an image that the pension reform had obviously not improved.

Okay, but it was abandoned, this pension reform.

Yes. And part of that on unemployment insurance has been suspended. But to give up on the ongoing reforms does not make for an exciting political project. No more than going back on the abolition of the ISF or the work orders, which would be a major political concession to his opponents (a real defeat, in reality).

This is the difficulty of the choices that Emmanuel Macron must make. Its pro-business policy (rather on the right) worked in the first part of the five-year period (employment recovered, growth started again, investment too). To give it up to make it more social (to make it more to the left), would be to risk the same error as all its predecessors at the Elysée: it would be to do, to defeat, then to be beaten.