You surely know the starting block, this anglicism commonly used in athletics, which means, as the dictionary teaches us, block or starting hold. In fact, it is an adjustable device, made up of two holds for the feet, hands being supported on the ground, used at the start of the foot races, on the occasion of small or medium distances. We may use a brother expression to designate the opposite, that is to say a failed departure, the remaining athlete as blocked in the starting blocks, almost like a false start.
It is also this impression that our government releases, which is anything but “new”. No positive or large measure envisaged or that points to the horizon, or which, however little, attracts attention, mark the spirits, no glow, if only small, in a dark sky, everything is disconcerting. A government that gives the impression of permanently playing the famous play “Travel to the end of boredom”. A government completely like his leader, Lucky Luc, still called little Luke, who would like to be bigger (even in politics …), like one of his predecessors, the sage of Capellen. However, the first does not even arrive at the ankle of the second … But, Petit Luke is there, it’s already the essential point … for him. Not to do, but rather to undo, in the present case, our social model, in particular concerning the opening hours of stores, collective agreements, now the freedom to come together and demonstrate on the public highway, soon pensions etc., etc.
Also in the viewfinder, the Minister of Labor, who, to explain this or that, constantly refers to the Government Bible, I speak of the coalition agreement, which looks like a copy and paste to the program of the Chamber of Commerce of a few years ago. What a chance! You remember the former president of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, also called the Grand Timonier, who brandished, in the 60s, all the time, the Red Book containing his political philosophy. To die of laughter!
Question: if the coalition program is its permanent reference, the ultimate in its approach, Petit Luke should explain to us why the government proposes to “reform” the pension system, without being found even a minimum of scraps or modest indications on this subject in the government Bible, cited above.
Our Minister of Labor, the poor, has not yet understood that he has been put there, him, the former civil servant of the State, to deconstruct social legislation, attack employees of the private sector, because defense of touching the public service, the sacred cow in Luxembourg, all voters. Instead of punctually consolidating this same social legislation. And then there is little Léon, another puppet of the government, on the front line to fight the poor instead of fighting poverty. They are there to do the dirty work, in place of a employers’ organization, the Chamber of Commerce, which draws the strings and which practices the dismissal of permanent elevator with its former president, who became Prime Minister, without his own free will, as we would have said to the “Guignols of the news” on Canal +, a few years ago.
Be careful dear reader: if the banal term does not suit you, I leave you the choice of other synonyms, proposed by the dictionary in this context: which lacks originality, flaot, bland, impersonal, insignificant, tasteless, neutral, poor, small, flat, any, dull, worn, vulgar, conservative, reactionary … The list is not exhaustive! Complete it if you want!
Punitive ecology: what stupidity!
Another example among others: the field of the environment. At the ministry, we put a young person, with a permanent smile, in the face of angel, like the angel Gabriel, but with long teeth, not to build, but to deconstruct, to return to the time of the laissez-faire, leather, where we did not care about the negative spinoffs of the productive apparatus for the health and well-being of citizens, where, instead of implementing ecological or repair policies, Systematic and systemic legislative, the principle “The Solution of Pollution is dilution” was shamelessly applied.
As a compass, the conservatives imposed the ridiculous watchword of “punitive ecology”, a simple creation of the mind! The emergence of this expression is synonymous with retropedage, the ultimate goal of which is, in particular, to question the Paris climate agreement, signed in 2015 by more than 190 countries. This international treaty on mitigation and adaptation to climate change, as well as on their sufficient funding is diametrically opposed to the deconstruction strategy which has found its origin, in recent years, in the satche of economic environments which hate them that rules, minimum pollution, which refuse the climate transition and any major ecological policy, which are adding a world where special or entrepreneurial interest the rest. This is also true in the social field.
-This status quo strategy is based in particular on the display of a form of defense of individual freedoms, also arguing that any policy of ecological transition can be done, according to this thesis, only with measures to deprive freedoms. In particular, let us mention the questioning of economic growth, automotive speed limitations, restriction of plane trips or meat consumption, the prohibition of large sedans (SUV), etc., etc. You should know that all these restrictions are mainly aimed at limiting our carbon footprint, but are, alas, understood today as an attack on a certain mode or lifestyle immutable and declared untouchable. Or just selfish?
This strategy, notoriously highlighted by economic circles, prefers to have frank cubits to be permanently bored by public health considerations or other prevention, climate, biodiversity, even food security policies.
Note that most people who feel targeted or even attacked by measures of restrictions or prohibitions related to the climate and the environment, are the wealthiest categories of the population, those that are in controller in employers’ organizations and in public opinion. In Luxembourg a former Minister of Economy of the 90s regularly, imperturbably, tirelessly, systematically, religiously, like a conspirator or a negationist or a missionary, in stage, for decades, to denigrate any ecological policy worthy of the name. It has become viral with this guy, it became his mantra, his catchphrase, his litany. No comment! Admittedly, in the past, we may have underestimated the fact that any ecological policy must be accompanied by social compensation, otherwise it risks being rejected by a majority of fellow citizens.
Shouldn’t we talk about punitive stupidity? Because what, ultimately, risks being punitive is the inaction strategy to which we are steep, synonymous with total judgment of any somewhat innovative and courageous environmental policy.
We prefer laissez-faire what to do. We prefer to wedge ourselves in the depths of the chair instead of going to the front, we remain on hold, always a smile on his lips, we let in, no voluntarism, no course, no rudder, we manage current affairs, day by day, we especially take no risk, we just picked up only the ultra-mûrs fruits that fall from the tree, we lack ideas, vision is an unknown term. Meanwhile, it has the impression that, for some, each measure in favor of a better quality of the environment, the limitation of our carbon footprint, the reduction of emissions and other deterioration of the nature and the quality of life, etc., is similar to a punishment for the population. It’s really the world upside down!
For a positive ecology!
Instead of constantly castigating ecology by adding the adjective “punitive”, we better define a so -called positive strategy. Consequently, the Ministry of the Environment would no longer be the extended arm of economic circles only. Because, objectively, once the ecological issues are well surrounded, in particular those linked to the climate or biodiversity, which therefore directly concerns the (on) life of our planet and therefore of humanity, the protection of the environment becomes a quasi -natural thing, which should impose itself more easily against Has Been or other people who have their only material, personalist, and who are royally,
