See our earlier post for context.

MADAME LA PRESIDENTE* WON'T MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE

November 22, 2006 (Telegraph) - [It] is clear that should the people of France elect next May Ségolène Royal as their president, nothing will change. This, of course, is not the view of Mme Royal or her cohorts. One of them was so confident not just of victory, but of the manner in which it would restore the majesty of France in Europe and the world that he felt able to tell our Paris correspondent of the terms that Mme la Presidente would be dictating once installed in the Elysée Palace. For a start, he observed, Britain would have to choose between Europe and America.

Oh really? And just how, I wonder, would that choice be forced upon us? Will the French navy blockade Dover, Portsmouth and Felixstowe until either we divorce Uncle Sam or agree to complete immersion into the institutions of the Euopean Union – constitution, single currency and all? Quite. Let us dismiss such twerpishness (or, as the French put it, connerie) as merely one functionary's exuberance in the afterglow of triumph, and remind ourselves what the realities of life after a Royal victory would be. The fact is that with France in the mess it is, the last thing she – or any other new president – would have time to worry about would be foreign policy.

But will she win? Possibly. She wiped the floor with her two opponents for the socialist nomination, Laurent Fabius and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, by managing to ensure they were associated with the decline of the Mitterrand years and the failed socialist governments of the late 1990s: but then she too had served Mitterrand. Rather like our own leader of the opposition, Mme Royal has come far on image, the manipulativeness of the public relations game, and an almost complete absence of policy. These things will not necessarily prevent her from becoming president of a troubled, confused and increasingly angry country that knows it is underachieving and wants "change". Regrettably, she doesn't offer it.

With sublime cruelty, Le Figaro – not a newspaper well-disposed to leftists – celebrated Mme Royal's coronation by publishing a huge table of her greatest gaffes during the campaign. She had, at various times, promised national service for young delinquents, longer working hours for teachers, a new policy towards Iran and nuclear weapons, and various other absurdities designed to make the flesh creep either of her own party or of the wider electorate. The article also listed choice epithets from her critics (which included, in a couple of instances, her common-law husband, François Hollande, general secretary of her party) and, in delicious detail, the squirm-laden minutiae of her backtrackings. So there will be no radicalism: and, for the avoidance of doubt, M Hollande said last weekend that Mme Royal would stick to orthodox socialist policies if elected. You know the score: high taxation, vast public sector, dirigisme, total absence of meaningful economic reform, and the concomitants of high unemployment, minimal growth and sporadic social unrest. Plus ça change, plus ce sera la meme chose, as the proverb almost goes.

... In Britain, we tend to accept results of elections with cheerful resignation if our party comes off worse: it is all part of our alleged sense of sportsmanship. What one fears for France, though, is that there will no such goodwill after May 6. It portends to be an election that serves not as the catharsis of a nation, but as an entrenchment of several toxic forces. The best man may well win: but what then?

[Emphases added. Hat tip: E-Nough!]

Many of the reader comments to the above op-ed are also worth the read:

Posted by cigar man on November 23, 2006 12:08 AM

Let us rephrase the question: "Britain must become a vassal of the EU or be punished by the EU." Does that sound better? Are we also to leave the UN or NATO because France querulously demands our full attention?

Posted by Julian Marshall on November 22, 2006 1:05 PM

[Reforms] will be carried out, because they must be, but only Royal has the slightest chance of success. Why? Because she is a woman, relatively young and pretty, and those attributes could be enough to persuade the French people that they are once again a nation of winners, setting an example for the world to copy. If they elect a woman president,it will go against centuries of macho dominance (in France, we men are barely obliged to do the washing up): national pride will swell, they will feel better about themselves (nobody here seriously feels the slightest pride in Chirac, who has done more damage to this country than any other political leader since Louis XVI), and they could then at last be persuaded to support, against the will of the powerful corparatist union minority (less than 8% of the workforce are members), the inevitable and sweeping reforms.

Posted by PeterFromTexas on November 22, 2006 6:20 PM

...Mitterand in a dress.

Posted by GOD on November 22, 2006 4:59 AM

Don't blame me for France!

* The very election may hinge on an appropriate form of address for a Royal presidency. L'Académie Française struggles with the tinkering:

Linguists point out that when referring to Miss Royal, the person, one should say "la Présidente". However, the Academy says that when referring to the function, the masculine form should always be used. This could lead to the bizarre prospect of using "Madame le Président" on official documents and "Madame la Présidente" in person.

PFFT (What is this?): | Rayonnement français 0