At the end of this week, the United Kingdom will have a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Many people think of Prime Minister Blair as the beneficiary of Thatcherite policies, the PM who benefited most from the Thatcher Revolution, and they would be right. If the Iron Lady had not swept aside all dissenting voices, negated protesters' actions and been so one-track minded to plough through with her reforms, the UK would still be a country run by the traditionalists, the big spenders and the quasi-welfare state would now be taking more tax off us than we earn. As it happens, that might not have been such a bad thing. If you look around at all the countries at the top of the quality of life league, they are all big tax and spenders. Further down the list you find countries such as the US and the UK, who are more in the business of making you pay for what you want, while sympathising with, yet neglecting the needs, of those below the poverty line.
This was what Mrs Thatcher and Presidents Reagan and Bush (Snr) advocated way back in the eighties. They wanted to free-up the world market to make things more flexible, make it easier to hire hard-working, ambitious people and fire the job-for-life comfortable no-gooders. However, their high-yield strategy has some unwelcome side-effects: the sale of anything and everything to pay off national debts and increase buyer power, thus forcing employees to succumb to working for foreign bosses and getting used to their way of working, ending national rules and regulations on working hours, rights and leave, emphasising competition, productivity and client importance.
The result? While some things have been going very well (telephony, energy, to name two), others have paid high prices for their introduction to the free market (public transport, cars). Enterprises which for decades were British (Rolls Royce, British Steel, British Gas) now found themselves in the hands of venture capitalists and free marketeers whose only objective is to get a higher year-on-year profit. We never truly understood just how far we had gone until Mittal and Tata, Indian companies, made their entry into the European markets, and China made moves to establish itself as a new world economic superpower.
Other, more sinister side-effects were also turning up: workers were free to come and go, outsourced companies could have their contracts torn up at any time, and products became more flimsy as enterprises tried to make higher profits.
We have also been slowly de-patriotised. I mean by this that as enterprises buy foreign companies, like for example if Mercedes-Benz were bought by the Spanish or Renault became Estonian, our own national sense of who we are is being eroded and undermined. We hark back to our traditions, like the Queen's Birthday or the FA Cup Final (sponsored by a German company) but our roots are being pulled up by mergers and acquisitions from outside. Coupled with that is migration and freedom of movement Europe-wide. A brilliant idea, but one which needs tracking, because whilst a cosmopolitan Europe is to be applauded, it could have negative consequences resulting in a public outcry to repatriate workers whom they claim have stolen their jobs.
In amongst all this, Tony Blair, the Labour Prime Minister, who had to pander to the new rulers in their executive suites while staying true to his socialist roots. If we compare modern British socialism to that in France, it is quite easy to say that Tony Blair had a lot more in common with Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Silvio Berlusconi than he ever did with Lionel Jospin's socialists. But this makes him the only leader in the world who can cross the frontiers of ideology, persuading leaders that just because you are from the Christian Democrats or the Socialists, there is no need to adopt everything your party ideology dictates. The outcome has been quite interesting. Tony Blair's Third Way has muddied the waters of European politics, making it quite acceptable to mix and match policy to either European norms or to make your laws more competitive.
This Blairite Europe he has created means that in effect all the big decisions are made at the Council of Ministers in Brussels, the 27 leaders taking decisions affecting us all Europe-wide, making it binding and most importantly totally inconsequential which party is in power at national level. Without realising it, Europeans are in a superstate whether they like it or not, because the crux of the matter is Tony Blair and his allies have laid down an agenda which will have far-reaching consequences in future European matters. I am of course not talking about public services (unless they have been subjected to market forces), but the economic and labour sectors have definitely been taken over Europe-wide, and Tony Blair had the largest hand.
The newspapers yesterday said that he might be a future European President when the constitution (or the treaty) is ratified, removing the 6-month rotating presidency from national governments and creating one post at the top. Will he be elected? Who knows? I doubt it. Yet another reason for the tabloid press to moan at undemocratic European ways. I, for one, would have mixed feelings about this as although it is a logical step, it makes it more difficult for governments to make their views known, and would be yet another muddying of the waters.
Showing posts with label Sarkozy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarkozy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Mrs Blair vs Mr Thatcher: the French presidential candidates
So the French elections are entering their final episode, when the proud people of that nation cast off the 5th Republic's statuesque leadership and finally enter into the political world of the 20th century. They have been waiting for this moment since the massive strikes of the nineties. France is no longer the place it used to be: people accept the need to make their country relevant outside Europe. They also know they have some problems internally. But do they?
Let's look at the facts:
France has one of the best health services in the world
It is one of the leading tourist destinations, battling Spain and the United States for supremacy
It has a reputation for fine wines and aesthetic food
It has the highest amount of people taking part in sport in Europe
The architecture and infrastructure of most of its towns are very nicely organised
This means a high standard of living
It has a world-class working ethic, balancing family and profession
But:
It has a high ethnic minority population which feels disenfranchised from the "real France"
It suffers from high unemployment and a flagging industry sector
It subsidises agriculture to the point where it is no longer to produce food, but to keep angry militant farmers in jobs
It props up all types of meaningless traditions, jobs and ways of life to stop its members revolting
It boldly tries to form an alternative to the "American Way", and would have great success, but for nobody taking it seriously enough
And this is where the problem lies: France doesn't really have anything to worry about, none of its problems can be solved overnight, but not all of them are incurable. Its people are just suffering from a temporary inferiority complex brought about by the realisation that they are no longer major players in Europe or the world at large. This realisation came in two waves. Firstly, in its drop from on high:
- When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, France understandably went into a period of inward-looking self-pity, thinking that the "Anglo-Saxon" (as some of the detractors like to call the UK and the US) hegemony was dangerously extending into deep-seated French creations like the modern Olympic movement. I seriously believe London won simply because its final presentation focused on the Games themselves, not on the smiling faces of its inhabitants in the videos which accompanied them. Paris was a gimme until that final moment.
- Another was its loss of linguistic and political power in the European Union. Until the arrival of the 10 newcomers, France and the French language were in control of most of the European debate. With the arrival of countries like Estonia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Malta, where French has few learners, let alone speakers, the shift eastwards meant English was now the only realistic working language of business and politics in Europe. More importantly, it also meant the European monetary mentality and political mindset had shifted from social state to market economy.
Its second realisation was waking up to find its young people, its unemployed but most of all its minorities feeling threatened and intimidated. The future of France, excluded from the workplaces and ignored in discussions on its direction, left outside of any meaningful roles to play. Cities quaked with fear as cars were set on fire, shops looted and what were communal areas became empty by day and fraught with lawlessness by night. The French way of life was taking a battering. Those with jobs knew they had a job for life no matter what, as long as they didn't rock the boat or challenge their bosses. The hierarchy ruled and those below waited until a place became free to move up. The rest just stood in line catching the leftovers thrown from those on the ladder of employment.
These two factors have pushed France to accept it needs to change, but nobody has a plan yet. Ideas are abundant, opinions everywhere, but actions are not forthcoming.
Enter the two candidates:
Mrs Blair, alias Ségolène Royal
Mr Thatcher, alias Nicolas Sarkozy
Ms Royal has so far shown she is a listener and a sympathetic mother-figure who wants to reform the country but she has not set out any policies in stone yet. She has attacked Mr Sarkozy for his immorality and bloodthirsty ambitiousness but she has tried to copy Mr Blair's image-conscious election campaigns and vague election promises. Mr Sarkozy on the other hand has shown his hand and nailed his flag to the mast. He seems to have some draconian views on France's problems and his popularity has risen, Thatcheresque, by his controversial views and hard-line reform packages. Like Mrs Thatcher, he has gained further popularity by his sheer bloody-minded insensitivity to what people think of him.
If France is to change, it is going to have to put up with a lot of pain. It seems the country is bent on re-invention but this may just come with a change of leader and the rest will take care of itself. Alternatively, the new leader may seek to curry favour with the whole population and continue to give in to the unreasonable demands of its more militant inhabitants. I think it will depend on who gets his/her message across better when in power. Sarkozy is likely to be blunt, forthright and obstreperous in his pursuit of overhauling the system. Royal will probably be explanatory in her vision yet vague in the way she wants to do it, in order to persuade the population to adopt her methods.
Mr Sarkozy's main downside is himself. If he can get through the message that he is serious about his policies, some (like his reduction of tax, which seems unrealistic at this juncture) which curry favour with the honest worker and some (no Turkey in the EU) which further disenfranchise the minorities, there could be some turbulence ahead.
Ms Royal's main problem is her much-too-benevolent ideas ("consolidate" the 35-hour week, raise the minimum wage by 250 euro) which seem to just make a mockery of France's need for reform.
Whoever wins in the early hours of Monday morning, one thing is for certain: both will be accused of u-turns and lies to win the Elysée. For Royal to further subsidise the poor and for Sarkozy to maintain tax levels to support his agenda, I fear nobody is fooled by the insincerity and idealism. They will both have a shock when they see the small budget they have to carry out their plans.
Let's look at the facts:
France has one of the best health services in the world
It is one of the leading tourist destinations, battling Spain and the United States for supremacy
It has a reputation for fine wines and aesthetic food
It has the highest amount of people taking part in sport in Europe
The architecture and infrastructure of most of its towns are very nicely organised
This means a high standard of living
It has a world-class working ethic, balancing family and profession
But:
It has a high ethnic minority population which feels disenfranchised from the "real France"
It suffers from high unemployment and a flagging industry sector
It subsidises agriculture to the point where it is no longer to produce food, but to keep angry militant farmers in jobs
It props up all types of meaningless traditions, jobs and ways of life to stop its members revolting
It boldly tries to form an alternative to the "American Way", and would have great success, but for nobody taking it seriously enough
And this is where the problem lies: France doesn't really have anything to worry about, none of its problems can be solved overnight, but not all of them are incurable. Its people are just suffering from a temporary inferiority complex brought about by the realisation that they are no longer major players in Europe or the world at large. This realisation came in two waves. Firstly, in its drop from on high:
- When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, France understandably went into a period of inward-looking self-pity, thinking that the "Anglo-Saxon" (as some of the detractors like to call the UK and the US) hegemony was dangerously extending into deep-seated French creations like the modern Olympic movement. I seriously believe London won simply because its final presentation focused on the Games themselves, not on the smiling faces of its inhabitants in the videos which accompanied them. Paris was a gimme until that final moment.
- Another was its loss of linguistic and political power in the European Union. Until the arrival of the 10 newcomers, France and the French language were in control of most of the European debate. With the arrival of countries like Estonia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Malta, where French has few learners, let alone speakers, the shift eastwards meant English was now the only realistic working language of business and politics in Europe. More importantly, it also meant the European monetary mentality and political mindset had shifted from social state to market economy.
Its second realisation was waking up to find its young people, its unemployed but most of all its minorities feeling threatened and intimidated. The future of France, excluded from the workplaces and ignored in discussions on its direction, left outside of any meaningful roles to play. Cities quaked with fear as cars were set on fire, shops looted and what were communal areas became empty by day and fraught with lawlessness by night. The French way of life was taking a battering. Those with jobs knew they had a job for life no matter what, as long as they didn't rock the boat or challenge their bosses. The hierarchy ruled and those below waited until a place became free to move up. The rest just stood in line catching the leftovers thrown from those on the ladder of employment.
These two factors have pushed France to accept it needs to change, but nobody has a plan yet. Ideas are abundant, opinions everywhere, but actions are not forthcoming.
Enter the two candidates:
Mrs Blair, alias Ségolène Royal
Mr Thatcher, alias Nicolas Sarkozy
Ms Royal has so far shown she is a listener and a sympathetic mother-figure who wants to reform the country but she has not set out any policies in stone yet. She has attacked Mr Sarkozy for his immorality and bloodthirsty ambitiousness but she has tried to copy Mr Blair's image-conscious election campaigns and vague election promises. Mr Sarkozy on the other hand has shown his hand and nailed his flag to the mast. He seems to have some draconian views on France's problems and his popularity has risen, Thatcheresque, by his controversial views and hard-line reform packages. Like Mrs Thatcher, he has gained further popularity by his sheer bloody-minded insensitivity to what people think of him.
If France is to change, it is going to have to put up with a lot of pain. It seems the country is bent on re-invention but this may just come with a change of leader and the rest will take care of itself. Alternatively, the new leader may seek to curry favour with the whole population and continue to give in to the unreasonable demands of its more militant inhabitants. I think it will depend on who gets his/her message across better when in power. Sarkozy is likely to be blunt, forthright and obstreperous in his pursuit of overhauling the system. Royal will probably be explanatory in her vision yet vague in the way she wants to do it, in order to persuade the population to adopt her methods.
Mr Sarkozy's main downside is himself. If he can get through the message that he is serious about his policies, some (like his reduction of tax, which seems unrealistic at this juncture) which curry favour with the honest worker and some (no Turkey in the EU) which further disenfranchise the minorities, there could be some turbulence ahead.
Ms Royal's main problem is her much-too-benevolent ideas ("consolidate" the 35-hour week, raise the minimum wage by 250 euro) which seem to just make a mockery of France's need for reform.
Whoever wins in the early hours of Monday morning, one thing is for certain: both will be accused of u-turns and lies to win the Elysée. For Royal to further subsidise the poor and for Sarkozy to maintain tax levels to support his agenda, I fear nobody is fooled by the insincerity and idealism. They will both have a shock when they see the small budget they have to carry out their plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)