Bad news for Hollande as austerity bites

Hollande's focus on cutting deficits with revenues hasn't saved him from the downsides.

The French economy is on the rocks, in a move which threatens to derail president Hollande's economic reforms. The Observer's Kim Willsher reports:

The French leader has been hit by soaring unemployment figures, further factory closures and job losses, and plummeting popularity on top of growing fears that he and his Socialist government are failing to address the country's problems. Members of the opposition right-of-centre UMP have accused them of being "amateurs".

The news is bad, both for Hollande, and for proponents of revenue-side austerity. It is probably too soon to write-off the effects of the controversial 70 per cent tax rate – the pernicious effects of which are supposedly flight of high-net-worth individuals, rather than just a retardation of growth per se – but at the same time, it is clear that Hollande's agenda is, at best, no better than Sarkozy's was.

Despite the unpopularity of those revenue-raising measures amongst the economic elite, a meeting with members of various international organisations today – including the IMF and OECD – will reportedly focus on supply-side reforms "to improve France's competitiveness on the world market and restore confidence at home and abroad". The French labour market, with its ring-fenced working hours, worker protections, and strong unions, is frequently seen as being counter-productive to economic health.

The other major reason why the OECD and IMF are unlikely to press too hard on the question of high marginal tax rates is that, despite the fact that it has led to Hollande's government being seen as a standard-bearer for the left, they still fit very strongly into the narrative of "austerity".

The socialist government has made much the same pledges to be "realistic about the deficit" and practice "fiscal restraint" as we are used to hearing from all the parties in the UK. Where it has differed is in the method by which it has tried to reduce the deficit, focusing on increasing revenue rather than decreasing spending.

While this has driven some economists, like GWU's Veronique de Rugy, mad, it is a perfectly fair application of the principles behind austerity. What it also does, though, is expose the contradictions between those who genuinely desire to reduce deficits, pay down debt and "win the confidence of bond markets", and those who have used those as a convenient excuse to argue for shrinking the state.

Whether-or-not revenue-based austerity is as effective as spending-based austerity, however, it is clear that both are austerity. To those who have argued that, in a recession characterised by depressed consumer confidence and low aggregate demand, the state needs to temporarily push for deficit-funded spending, the bad economic news for France is yet more evidence in favour.

François Hollande. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496