http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/all-that-for-this/ Tim King on French politics Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:51:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/all-that-for-this/#comment-5048 Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:44:57 +0000 http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/blog/franceprofonde/all-that-for-this/#comment-5048 Tim King is wrong – firstly Segolène is not representative of the old left and this is precisely why her position has been weakened by ‘the elephants’ as she was seen to take too much from the Blairite camp and not enough from the consistent old guard. But as we all know, it is precisely because the old guard had been a disappointment in the last election that we have them to thank for effectively putting in place Jacques Chirac in order to stop Le Pen becoming President. Tim King is also wrong in his analysis because he does not take into account the historical precedent that ensured the vote for the constitution failed as this was partly due to the importance of social programmes which the Mitterand and Jospin governments had put in place and the understandable intransigence of the Left to lose any of the hardly fought social rights for the benefit of an economic alliance. We in this country have lost much of that in the name of progress but this is what is coming back to haunt us and bite us where it hurts. What is sourly lacking in the UK is a social programme that will go a long way to stop the alienation that the poorest fringe of our society feels. Also, our so called economic success is surely on its way down if not out soon and we will see unemployment rise and more misery as more houses are being repossessed as well as a rapid increase in youth crime. So, yes the right solution should be far more radical than what Segolène proposes, but the third way is a myth that allows capitalism to carry on undeterred and social progress to be gently massaged but not sufficiently radicalised to ensure the right to work, the right to housing and the right to decent life and care remain visibly at the top of the agenda. At least Ms Royal is defending what is already there and encourages economic progress in partnership with social advancement and not at its detriment. Tim King is wrong – firstly Segolène is not representative of the old left and this is precisely why her position has been weakened by ‘the elephants’ as she was seen to take too much from the Blairite camp and not enough from the consistent old guard. But as we all know, it is precisely because the old guard had been a disappointment in the last election that we have them to thank for effectively putting in place Jacques Chirac in order to stop Le Pen becoming President. Tim King is also wrong in his analysis because he does not take into account the historical precedent that ensured the vote for the constitution failed as this was partly due to the importance of social programmes which the Mitterand and Jospin governments had put in place and the understandable intransigence of the Left to lose any of the hardly fought social rights for the benefit of an economic alliance. We in this country have lost much of that in the name of progress but this is what is coming back to haunt us and bite us where it hurts. What is sourly lacking in the UK is a social programme that will go a long way to stop the alienation that the poorest fringe of our society feels. Also, our so called economic success is surely on its way down if not out soon and we will see unemployment rise and more misery as more houses are being repossessed as well as a rapid increase in youth crime. So, yes the right solution should be far more radical than what Segolène proposes, but the third way is a myth that allows capitalism to carry on undeterred and social progress to be gently massaged but not sufficiently radicalised to ensure the right to work, the right to housing and the right to decent life and care remain visibly at the top of the agenda. At least Ms Royal is defending what is already there and encourages economic progress in partnership with social advancement and not at its detriment.

]]>