Authoritarian and Neoliberal

It is tradition for the various parties in the Chamber to invite members of the press to so-called parliamentary group dinners before the summer break. On Thursday, it was déi Lénk's turn, and the party took the opportunity to settle its accounts with what it sees as the government's neoliberal and authoritarian bent.[1]

David Wagner, one of the Left's two MPs, drew his conclusion: there had only been two of them, and they could perhaps have done more, and perhaps they still would. Between them, they had nevertheless got things done and had acted as the left-wing pole in the Chamber. If the party emerged stronger, it would keep pushing positive, social and progressive issues with still more force.[1]

He underlined that it was on the initiative of the Left that the right to abortion had been enshrined in the constitution. "Contrary to what is sometimes said," he argued, "this was not a purely symbolic contribution. On the day, one hoped it never came, when reactionary forces gained ground and perhaps a majority, that inclusion would prove far less symbolic, since it would then be considerably harder to strip away."[1]

Marc Baum argued that the CSV-DP government had come forward with the most neoliberal programme in decades. Even so, with the Left's help, the party had managed to slow that policy down. He pointed to the pension reform, the debate on the national representative body, and other social issues. The Left had been a brake, not a spectator.[1]

Whether the ADR was the reactionary force Wagner had in mind was not entirely clear. It would not have been much of a stretch, since he had, shortly before, accused the ADR of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and climate scepticism. The dinner was held in the same restaurant the LSAP had used the week before. The message was not quite the same. The LSAP had said "not a crisis." The Left said "authoritarian and neoliberal." Both are opposition parties. Both are describing the same government. The adjectives are different. The diagnosis is the same: the government is going somewhere they do not want it to go.[1]