French socialists take a left turn

Arnaud Montebourg's supporters hold the key to next weekend's primary.

As of 8.30 this morning, with some of the 2.5 million votes cast still to be counted, the results in the French socialist primary were as follows:

* François Hollande - 39 per cent
* Martine Aubry - 31 per cent
* Arnaud Montebourg - 17 per cent
* Ségolène Royal - 6 per cent
* Manuel Valls - 6 per cent
* Jean-Michel Baylet - 1 per cent

It was expected that it would be the two éléphants (big beasts) of the PS, Hollande and Aubry, who'd be contesting next weekend's second round. What few commentators had foreseen, however, was quite how well Arnaud Montebourg would perform, and quite how dismally the 2007 presidential candidate Ségolène Royal would do.

Montebourg, a deputy in Saône et Loire and president of the departmental assembly there, has run an insurgent campaign from a position well to the left of Hollande and Aubry, the watchword of which has been "démondialisation" (de-globalisation). He has argued for much stronger regulation of the financial system and "protectionism" on a European scale. The other eye-catching part of his programme is his call for thoroughgoing political and constitutional reform that would lead to the establishment of a "sixth republic".

Montebourg is expected to announce which of the two remaining candidates he favours this evening. In the meantime, Hollande and Aubry will be working out how best to appeal to his supporters. At a reception at Montebourg's HQ in the 20th arrondissement of Paris last night, one activist told Le Monde: "The people who campaigned for Montebourg clearly prefer Aubry, who has always been more to the left [than Hollande]. We can win in the second round."

Both Aubry and Hollande's campaign teams are putting pressure on Montebourg. Pierre Moscovici, who has been coordinating Hollande's campaign, said: "He [Montebourg] must ask himself who is capable of rallying the most support." Meanwhile, former prime minister Laurent Fabius, one of Aubry's most prominent supporters, insisted there was an ideological "convergence" between his candidate and Montebourg (Hollande is the more centrist of the two frontrunners; Aubry's responsibility for legislation passed in 2000 introducing the 35-hour week ensures she gets some support from the left).

Asked by the television channel France 2 for his views on Montebourg's "de-globalisation" agenda, Hollande seemed to hedge his bets, mindful that he needs the younger man's support (and supporters): "On de-globalisation, this is not my vocabulary. ... But, on a certain number of points, it's clear that limits must be placed on globalisation. But that can only be done at a European level."

The second round of voting takes place on Sunday 16 October.

Jonathan Derbyshire is Managing Editor of Prospect. He was formerly Culture Editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leicester City's ascent shows how being a good loser can make you a great winner.

Claudio Ranieri wasn't expected to take a team to the top of Premier League. But dignity can earn you second chances.

Dignity isn’t so dated after all. Claudio Ranieri, champion; José Mourinho, unemployed. Dignity, it turns out, earns you second chances. It’s the Machiavels who run out of time.

The story of Leicester City’s Premier League triumph – one of sport’s finest – ended at Stamford Bridge on 2 May when Tottenham, Leicester’s nearest challengers, only managed a draw against Chelsea. In some respects, it also began there. Superficially, Ranieri “failed” during his stint as Chelsea’s manager from 2000 to 2004. Yet he never lost his dignity in one of football’s craziest jobs. He was courteous and amused to the end: the same qualities that helped to make him a winner at Leicester.

People remembered, both inside football and beyond. Ranieri’s sense of perspective and lightness of touch, evident during those hard times at Chelsea, brought him well-wishers in his better days at Leicester. His dignity as a loser has been recast as a benevolent and advanced form of strategy. Let’s hope that it is widely copied.

There is a danger of reading too much into Leicester’s splendid success. A small industry is already specialising in undercutting and puncturing overblown editorialising on “the meaning of Leicester”. Fine. Let scepticism have its moment, too.

But can we agree on a compromise? The romantics must concede that Leicester have a darker side, too. It wasn’t all charm and self-sacrificial teamwork. There was also a good measure of sports science, data analytics and street smarts. The Premier League has not become a laboratory of sporting social justice overnight. Leicester, it is true, also benefit from foreign capital. And the big guns – with their even bigger bank balances – will surely be back, sooner rather than later. History may yet record Leicester’s time at the top as a surprising interregnum in a war between giant dynasties.

Yes, I concede all of that. But will the cynics at least acknowledge some happier truths? First, a central defect of the Prem­iership has been its lack of competitive equipoise. It’s a great show but it always flirted with dangerous predictability.

Even its magical moments, such as Manchester City’s last-minute triumph in 2012, were unlikely only in the manner in which the story unfolded. Goliath beat David – on the day and over the course of the whole season – but it just took him a long time to finish the job. Yet we hailed the story, even though the favourites won, as evidence of redemptive uncertainty. Now, by contrast, we have the real thing with Leicester City’s win: genuine surprise, sport’s most precious currency.

Second, it’s time to wave goodbye to the lazy assumption, increasingly common in modern sport, that there is something intrinsically advanced about nastiness in players or managers. This meme continually creeps into the way we think about success. A manager’s rant is explained away as: “He really hates losing.” A scarcely veiled personal attack on a rival is justified as: “Real winners are all a bit like that.” Sneering contempt is whitewashed away, accepted as a burning hunger to win.

It all adds up, logically and unavoidably, not only to a lame justification of unpleasantness but also an implicit attack on behaving decently. If we say that John McEnroe’s racket-smashing is what makes him a winner, we are subtly belittling his opponent for keeping his cool.

In sport’s professional era, “good loser” has turned from one of the highest compliments into a patronising put-down. Being a good loser used to refer to behaviour when the ball was no longer in play, a virtue unconnected with winning or losing out on the pitch. Garry Sobers, Bobby Jones and Stefan Edberg were good losers. They were pretty good winners, too.

Somehow the notion of being a good loser turned 180 degrees, especially in English sport, which suffers from self-hating guilt about amateur values. It came to describe someone who is literally adept at losing – comfortable with defeat, adjusted to living that way. This accusation was levelled at Ranieri at the end of his term at Chelsea, as he suffered the humiliation of a public search for a replacement. José Mourinho, the chosen one, turned the knife when he was asked why Chelsea were sacking Ranieri. “I was told they wanted to win,” he scoffed. Mourinho voiced a widely held view: in place of a good loser would come a serial winner.

And now? The good loser is still with us, now a great winner, smiling and deflecting the credit. Ranieri almost missed the match that secured Leicester City’s victory on Monday night, because he had flown to Rome to have lunch with his 96-year-old mother. A little too stage-managed? If this is PR, let’s have more of it.

What of the bad loser who knew only victory? Mourinho is casting around hopefully, looking for another chance to mould a dressing room in his image. Yet it’s a risk, isn’t it, to give power to bad losers? And his prospective patrons are feeling risk-averse. The catastrophes of Real Madrid and his second stint at Chelsea, in which Mourinho lost the team, are hard to forget. Bad losers, contrary to the myth, are risky propositions because the earth is scorched when things don’t go according to plan.

Ranieri left Chelsea in good shape, having signed or identified most of the players who would go on to become the core of the team’s glory years. Mourinho, by contrast, left Chelsea in despair, the players seemingly mutinous and losing matches almost by design. Talent is powerful and Mourinho may be back. But it’s time to de-correlate winning and unpleasantness.

Machiavelli had the best aphorisms but he wasn’t always right. Leicester are champions and a good loser wears the crown. How much more can sport do?

Ed Smith is a journalist and author, most recently of Luck. He is a former professional cricketer and played for both Middlesex and England.

This article first appeared in the 05 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The longest hatred