Rear View Mirror

Hindsight is an odd thing. I found these rather overly emphatic scribbles nearly a year after the Presidential Election in 2007. The first one was written before le premier tour and the second a l'entre deux tours.




The case for Segolene Royal... (21rst April 2007)

Though I may not have the right to vote in this upcoming election, I have through much deliberation come to the conclusion that France should vote Segolene Royal this Sunday and in the second round. I have come to this conclusion for three main reasons: firstly, her consistent programme, her accessibility,and thirdly, she is the only one capable of beating Sarkozy.

Throughout her whole campaign she has retained a consistent line in her programme, though sometimes tinted by odd populism (which is inherent to being a politician) such as all the french should learn la Marseillaise and brandishing French flags. She is not however prone to outbursts of machoism and one-upmanship which characterises the election trails of karcher brandishing Sarkozy or the "virile" Bayrou. She has kept a strong modern socialist programme which is much more palatable then the vacuum of Bayrou (who doesn't know his right from his left) or the liberal-dirigiste-multiculturaliste-nationaliste muddled promises of the candidat UMP.
She may not be a fantastic orateur but one thing she does have is an interaction with the people which Sarkozy (who hasn't stepped anywhere remotely banlieux since the riots) or Bayrou could only dream of... To put it simply she hasn't cut herself off from a whole part of the French population. She has the capacity to debate with people which is at once refreshing and bold since her programme is a systhesis of the wishes of the french people (from all backgrounds and origines). She has been criticized many a time for a lack of consistency but in the last month she has turned up trumps proposing a very concrete programme and a vision of France which is at once forward looking and pragmatic. She hasn't got the arrogance of Bayroux or Sarkozy who assume that their ideas are the ones the french need, she has made herself open to debate and rid herself of the shackles of the French socialist party ideology, while allying herself with intelligent and strong men of the left such a Strauss-Kahn. People say she hasn't revolutionised the Socialist party into a "nouveau party socialist" but as I said before she is not constrained by the party and to add to it, the French left once in power seem to be a lot more pragmatic then the right.

Finally France needs Segolene Royal because Sarkozy is dangerous and she is the only one who can beat him. Anti-Sarkozysme has become a past time in France for a whole part of the population, no other man in French history has been so popular and yet so loathed. He has many assets, but his authoritarian nature ("misnistre de l'identite nationale et de l'immigration" for one) and lack of communication beyond police shields and angry words to a whole half of the french population, makes the prospect of a Sarkozy presidency unthinkable. A president should be capable of communicating to the whole French people, he doesn't have that capacity nor does he wish to. She has the depth and strength to beat him, unlike Bayrou who is as Le Pen so correctly put it a "bulle sondagiere".
She has many faults and she is in no means representative of all my beliefs but she appears to be the best and the only one who won't sink France lower then it has already sunk, and who offers a real alternative to Gaullism which has cursed France since the great man was president himself.In conclusion France needs her.




The end of one man's dream and a nation's nightmare? (26th of April 2007)

From the day the results were shown everybody said Sarkozy will win hands down. With a historically high score nothing seems capable to stop this man from holding the keys to the coveted Elysee Palace. Segolene Royal, though she herself receiving a high score in the first round, has been told many a time that she will not be able to "rassemble" around her a sufficient amount of people to beat Sarko on the 7th of May. With an electoral base of around 40% the left in France has never had a tougher challenge. All the sondages gave Sarkozy a hands down victory against Royal ranging between 55-45 or 53-47 in favour of Sarko.

Things now however do not seem so sure with the results of a recent poll showing the gap between the two becoming smaller (49-51 in favour of Sarkozy). This slide coming from the sudden surge in optimism of a reinvigorated left throwing away the dark shadow of 2002 and combating more fervently against the negative and populist election slogans of a politically muddled Sarkozy, who finds it normal to quote Jaures and Blum in his speeches, when he knows nothing of the words compassion, humanity and dialogue.

Madame Royal is also gaining ground on the electorate of M. Bayrou. Unlike Sarkozy, she is perceived as a more centrist candidate. To add to this the manner in which she wishes to woo the UDF electorate is one of discussion and debate, unlike M.Sarkozy's threats and masochist flexing of political muscle, which shows clearly the different ways in which the Presidential hopefuls wish to govern France in the future. One can therefore understand why the Bayrou electorate is expected to vote in favour of Royal.

The election day is looming closer and closer, France will have to make a choice between two visions of the future. One in which intolerance, violence, "false promises" and "deception" (as Sarkozy said himself about the post election period), reign or one in which compromise, dialogue and hope will be King (pun not intended). The choice is clear.

The Presidency is Obama's to lose.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama is set to clinch the Democratic nomination for the Presidential election this November. He holds a comfortable lead in the delegate/super delegate count (a 112 advantage) along with a string of impressive wins in Primaries over the past fortnight from a strong and highly organised/active grass roots movement. This gives him an undeniable edge over his ever weaker rival, Senator for New York, Hilary Clinton. However in the process of getting the nomination and the bitter factional war between him and the former first lady, his election campaign may have been weakened and could subsequently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Leading to another guaranteed four years of a Republican Executive and a disheartened Liberal America.

REVITALISED DEMOCRATS AND FACTIONS

The old popular anecdote of waiting for a bus, then two coming along at the same time is oddly reminiscent of the Democratic Primaries. After a revitalized party following the 2006 Democrat controlled Congress, fresh and challenging blood was thrown forward in the search for a rupture with the morose Bush years. The search for a figurehead to lead the Democrats and reverse the period of Democrat decline since the loss of the Congress in 1994, was in full swing once the novel and interesting line up of candidates was presented last January. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton presented an opportunity for change, both being controversial candidates, for understandable and patently obvious reasons, though very different in approach. Since the shock of Iowa and the loss of it's air of invincibility, the Clinton campaign has been on a slow decline, however she has not gone down without a fight. Her highly competitive and ruthless campaign team, has torn into Obama on many an occasion and bred resentment for the Illinois Senator within her camp, which could defect to either Nader or McCain. Obama's support rests primarily on the middle class, independents and a youth base, the last of which is susceptible to being unreliable on election day. The importance of the Clinton/Obama feud is to assess how much of an electoral crossover we can establish between Obamaniacs and Clintonites, not to mention the effect of the McCain nomination.

CLINTON'S BASE

Clinton's base of mostly white collar and more conservative factions of the Democratic Party (though this is not more widely recognised) does not cross over naturally to Obama. Americans have a strong non- partisan tradition in voting behaviour and voting patterns, as the party system is primarily based around candidates not the party system or ideology. This is best exemplified by Reagan's Democrats in the 1980's which helped push through much of his agenda and the Senatorial Defections following the loss of Congress in 1994. Clinton also has strong support among certain minority groups such as Latinos and South East Asians, not to mention a strong showing among the black population, though that seems to have been eroded by Obama. The immigrant vote is likely to transfer directly to him. Obama does benefit from the establishment of a new party system post Bush, which gives way to a more polarised party political spectrum, the shift of the conservative democrats to a Republican base, has given the political parties are more defined idealogical framework (though compared to their European parties are still very weak). A democratic party which is more centred on anti republican feeling and a strong liberal agenda (Universal healthcare, troop withdrawal, end to 2001 Bush tax cuts,...) is going to benefit Obama.

THE COMEBACK KID

The Crossover of Clinton votes to McCain, not to mention the interaction between the electoral bases of Obama and McCain is also interesting to look at. McCain is also quite an exceptional character in Presidential Candidate terms, beyond the bland and depressing accolade of being the oldest person to receive the GOP nomination, he is less conservative then the incumbent Republican administration, and his support eclectic. His main backing is Liberal Republican and he has a strong pool of support among Independents. He has a high crossover into democrat territory with political endorsements from the more Conservative factions of the Democrat Party (Lieberman for example)and is more appealing to white working class electorate then Obama, which means a strong showing among Clintonites. He also appeals to more conservative factions, though he does not have much weight in Evangelical quarters, his inevitable nomination of Mike Hukabee, ex-governor of the U.S. state of Arkansas, as running mate however should secure a certain amount of Evangelical support. Obama needs to draw the focus away from his obvious weaknesses: foreign policy and his disconnect with the more conservative forces in America (who still flex a lot of political muscle). McCain has a lot of advantages to draw from a resentful Clinton base, strong foreign policy credentials, a broad conservative base and an uncertain and inverted nation. In other words his kind of Conservatism is one which is reassuringly "American" unlike that Barack Hussein guy who wants to take the oath on the Coran, went to Jihad school and had a pot addiction during college.




It would be overly pessimistic to downplay the extraordinary nature of the Obama campaign and it's rather remarkable development over the last year or so. The benefits he can draw on are immense however he must make sure his support does not lose momentum or the Clinton base. I had my hopes pinned on a Clinton nomination but things have not played out rightly, the best thing one can hope for is an elegant bow out of the race by Clinton in the next couple of weeks, followed by a public endorsement of his candidacy. A offering to Clinton of a high profile cabinet or departmental post (Secretary of State?) would seal and ease up Clintonite support for Obama. His clinching of the nomination will be a victory unto itself but the Party base must not tear itself to pieces in the search for a candidate, and compromise it's chance to represent a broad and interesting expression of public discontent in the face of an overly conservative esablishment.

He has no IDea

There is supposedly a plethora of reasons for having ID cards. However once confronted over this Government ministers tend to mumble embarrassed into their chests something about illegal immigration, fighting terrorism and utility, then run off feigning moral "conviction" and introducing them via a wasteful consumer lead system.


The Cards will be made compulsory for Airport Workers, guest workers and students who open a bank account after 2008, a voluntary scheme has also been set up. Should the trial prove successful and the Brown administration is re-elected in 2009/10 ID cards will be made compulsory for anyone over the age of 16. This is not a popular party line, but unlike the Government backed Lisbon Treaty it's not a good one either.




The idea that somehow a plastic card with your fingerprints, details and biometric data will stop illegal immigrants and strengthen borders is laughable. The only conceivable use in that context is to make public services not accessible to them, which is clearly not humane. Nor would ID cards have stopped Mohammad Sidique Kahn, Shehzad Tanweer, Germain Lindsay and Hasib Hussain blowing up London Buses and Tubes on 7/7 since they would have had them anyway. All but one was born and bred in the UK and the other was naturalized at the age of five. As for utility and identification, a passport, driver's license or student card should suffice to prove one's identification (after all the data on a passport is difficult to forge).


Jacqui Smith and Ed Miliband have also trumpeted Crime prevention as a reason. This argument does have some weight, in that not only could it prove useful in a Criminal investigation but it would also prove a disincentive to crime. However to use the often stated and tired phrase (though no less relevant) one ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty,...we cannot ignore what is a cornerstone of our judicial system and our moral compass. A system of collecting data from serial offenders and more serious criminals should be adopted as in Scotland, a blanket data collection system is not right and should be deemed unconstitutional.

In terms of Data safety it is important to remind people of the gargantuan nature of the State bureaucracy. It is a regular and expected occurrence that data is lost, whether under Thatcher, Blair, Brown or even (heaven forbid) Cameron, data will be lost, it would be ridiculous to label an executive "incompetent" because of a bureaucratic mix up. The most recent case involving the loss of 20 million people's benefit data is one among 30 in 2007. There is no strict impermeability because of possible bureaucratic irregularities and mistakes, but also the leaking into the private sphere for criminal or business ends.

It seems to me that the Government should scrap the plan, as it is not necessary, nor is it preferable. Gordon Brown wants to prove that he has substance and conviction, he should therefore break with some of these ridiculous and misguided Blairite vestiges (extended detention time, flouting of constitutional conventions among others) to establish his own view on freedom, rights and the balance of power... a passion of his he has talked up many times. He should distinguish himself from his predecessor by focusing on civil liberties and reforming the legislative/executive process. A healthy refocus of government priority and agenda should be addressed to push back the tide of Care Bear Conservatives and the Callaghan/Major comparisons. New Labour has nothing to fear by proposing an alternative to the old party line on constitutional and rights legislation, or in fact challenging it, since it is a passion of our Prime Minister and is an area where Labour can contrast with the weak chinned Cameroons.