Show Hide image

The fire next time

Every attempt to make banks more responsible has made them more reckless. Unless the sector is radic

As the financial chaos that began with the collapse of Northern Rock in 2007 enters its second year, the question is: where do we want to be? Are the banks, as the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling has said, to use public capital to restore the relatively free-and-easy commercial conditions of the latter part of 2007? Or should we, as both Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy have suggested, try to use the 15 November meeting of the 20 chief industrial countries in Washington to establish a new era, like Bretton Woods in novelty if not character? With a new US president, in the person of Barack Obama, due to take office in January, the opportunity is for the taking.

Financial crises are like fireworks: they illuminate the sky even as they go pop. The disruptions of this autumn, the bank rescues, falling securities markets and currency turbulence, have revealed cracks and chips not merely in our financial system but in our general way of looking at the world. The expertise of the economists looks suddenly threadbare. As Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes's biographer, wrote in the Washington Post last month: "What is in even shorter supply than credit is an economic theory to explain why this financial tsunami occurred, and what its consequences might be. Over the past 30 years, economists have devoted great intellectual energy to proving that such disasters cannot happen."

Any new financial order for the world must tackle the three chief challenges of our age. The first is the privileges enjoyed by people in the banking and securities trade on a scale which would not have shamed the nobility of the ancien régime. The second is the perverse character of modern investment, by which financial surpluses generated by hard-working countries are channelled by the banks not to undeveloped nations that might turn them into prosperous future markets, but to the spoiled and elderly economies of western Europe and the United States, already awash with unproductive capital. The third is our most pressing engagement, which is to prevent further ravages to the natural environment and the general amenity of existence from the reckless combination of the previous two challenges.

The banking crisis that began in earnest with the failure of Lehman Brothers Holdings on 15 September, has lost its novelty as a public spectacle. As people turn back to their ordinary preoccupations, and to the prospect of President-elect Barack Obama, the bankers are lifting themselves up, dusting themselves down and preparing to do what they were doing before, only this time with £400bn of public money. However frightening the events of September and October, they were not frightening enough. As Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, put it: he did not expect the government, which has earmarked £17bn for a merged HBOS and Lloyds TSB, to "have an impact on our lending policies or conduct of business". At times our financiers sound like the Bourbon kings, who learned nothing and forgot nothing.

When the Bank of England cut the main rate of interest at which it lends to commercial banks on 6 November, by no less than 1.5 percentage points, the British banks must have thought Christmas had come early. When you can get your funds at an interest rate of 3 per cent and lend at 7 per cent, it is not hard to make money. With these windfall profits, the banks could soon rebuild their capital, repay the public loans and start making themselves lots of money.

The Chancellor and his team had other ideas. At a meeting at the Treasury on 7 November, senior commercial bankers were reminded, with the aid of some pertinent press cuttings, of just how unpopular they are. Now that the public owns Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, and is about to part-own Lloyds TSB, HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland, ministers can no longer be ignored. Even Barclays, which has gone to great effort to avoid taking the UK government's money, raising £5.8bn at higher rates and more unfavourable terms from reluctant investors in Abu Dhabi and Qatar, is faced with the same public distrust and political interference.

Losing your capital is like losing your trousers. It is a real humiliation, and one not to be soon repeated. The British banks will be forced by the government to advertise attractive mortgages and other loans, but they will only make these loans on good security, and it is security that is in short supply. In the market for private housing finance, I imagine we will revert to the conditions of the 1970s, when buyers were expected to provide a quarter or even a half of the purchase price. Northern Rock, which has been longest at this sort of retrenchment exercise, had already reduced its outstanding loans by 10 per cent by the middle of the summer. The Bank of England estimates that, even with the extra share capital underwritten by the government, the largest UK banks would need to reduce their books of loans by around one-sixth to revert to the normal or half-normal level of 2003.

Banks will also try to shrink their establishments, bloated beyond all reason during the boom years or, as in the case of bank branches, maintained out of idleness and sentiment. If Lloyds TSB manages to consummate its union with HBOS, it intends to cut £1.5bn per annum by 2011 in overheads, particularly wages, from the combined business. A rough calculation suggests this could means a reduction of 20,000 staff.

At the heart of banking is a suicidal strategy. Banks take money from the public or each other on call, skim it for their own reward and then lock the rest up in volatile, insecure and illiquid loans that at times they cannot redeem without public aid. Put another way, the assets of the banking system belong to the joint-stock banks, but their liabilities (as we have learned in the past two months) are always and only public liabilities. I guess that is what the Chancellor means when he talks of the "part-nationalisation" of the banking system.

It is a dilemma that goes back to the origin of joint-stock banking at the turn of the 18th century. Whereas private bankers staked their credit, reputations and fortunes on their decisions to lend or not to lend, the shareholders and managers of joint-stock banks carried no such responsibility. That is why, in Britain at least, it was not until the 1870s that joint-stock banks received the protection of limited liability. Until then, their shareholders were liable for losses to the extent not just of their shareholding but of their entire property.

All attempts to regulate the banks have made this prudential problem, as it is known, worse. The Bank of England, which like so many institutions has suddenly become obsessed with history during the crisis in the same way that other people "get" religion, published in its latest Financial Stability Report a chart showing the effect of regulation on the caution of American bankers. In the 1840s, American banks held on average one dollar in their own funds to two dollars of loans and other assets such as government bonds. That meant that half their money was not earning anything, but also that half their loans could go bad without causing loss to depositors.

With the Civil War and the passing of the National Bank Act in 1864, that proportion fell to 25 per cent. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was founded and the proportion fell to 18 per cent. Since then, the bankers have managed to get various classes of asset exempted, and the proportion has fallen to under 10 per cent. Each attempt to make the banks more safe has made them more reckless. According to the Financial Stability Report, before the crisis of this autumn the chief UK banks had £200bn of their own capital to support £6trn worth of lending, a proportion of one in 30. As the Bank notes in a sort of wonder at the majesty of financial phenomena: "Recent events have illustrated that banks can now incur losses much faster than they can recapitalise themselves in stressed market conditions."

By choking off lending, the banks have set in train a decline in general trading activity that looks to be worse than those of 1991, 1982 and, possibly, 1974. My suspicion is that the semi-orderly contraction in bank lending envisaged by the Bank of England will drop us off in roughly the same place as if the likes of HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland had been bankrupted. That, of course, can never be tested. Yet the result of the government rescue is to entrench a sort of banking nobility, endogamous and permanent, without responsibility and not subject to ordinary commercial law. It reinforces the vacuous and illiterate City culture of pecuniary display, cost-free philanthropy and nuisance travel. And it perpetuates banking practices whose eventual disintegration, ten or 15 years in the future, will make this crisis look routine.

So what is to be done with the banks? My own modest proposal, which has not many adherents, is to take away from joint-stock banks the privilege of limited liability which they abuse every moment of the day. That would certainly separate the sheep from the goats but would, perhaps, reduce the equity capital available to the banking system a little too sharply.

More realistically, now is the time for government authorities to begin slowly to peel back some of the other privileges, such as deposit insurance, that under the guise of protecting the public, merely protect the banker. What this means is that you and I will think for a moment before entrusting our money to a bank. We might ask for a balance sheet at the counter, the work of a few moments. We don't know how to read a balance sheet. The clerk will show us. The public, turned into infants by bank regulation, become adults again. Banks will be obliged by a discriminating public to carry more of their own capital. At Bradford & Bingley, the pretty woman in a green bowler becomes a plain man in a black one.

The second challenge, which arises from the imbalance of savings between west and east, is one that Keynes would have recognised even if, in his time, it was the US that had the money. The tendency of the west to borrow and spend and the east to save and lend is the shadow or phantom behind the banking crisis. China, Japan and the oil-exporting countries earned such colossal surpluses from their exports that they could find no other home for them than the indebted households and governments of the rich countries. In the case of the two Chinas, Japan, Russia and India, these hoarded surpluses exceed the entire resources of the International Monetary Fund, the institution set up at Bretton Woods to assist distressed countries needing access to foreign currency for their trade.

Meanwhile, the turmoil in the banking system has meant that entire countries - Iceland, Hungary, Pakistan and most of the poorer nations - can without warning lose all access to foreign currency to buy food for their populations. The answer is to increase the resources of the fund or some successor while recognising that the world has changed out of all recognition from 1944. The US is now a debtor, not a creditor, and the rich new powers of Asia need representation according to their wealth.

That leads to the final challenge of limiting the damage to the natural environment from the rapid expansion of trade and population in recent years. Even before the banks fell to bits, energy and grain markets, movements of people and climate patterns were frantically signalling that something was going awry with the worldwide commercial system.

At one level, the decline in business activity will be a blessing. Certain perverse projects, such as the expansion of the London airports, will not pay for themselves in the new world of tightened belts and shut wallets and must be delayed or even, God willing, abandoned. It is one of the bizarre features of our civilisation that money will do for its own preservation what we, for our own welfare, will not.

Here the conjunction of a new US administration and a disgraced business and financial Establishment is interesting, to put it mildly. If the investment, for example, necessary to limit or reduce carbon-dioxide emissions appeared to sceptics both uncertain and costly, the $3trn cost of cleaning up the current financial mess puts it into perspective. If some latter-day New Dealer is looking for counter-cyclical investment both to keep people in work and to raise public morale, the environment is by far the most promising field of activity. For example, the Detroit carmakers have jogged along for more than 80 years on a rich and combustive mixture of cheap gasoline and easy credit.

That era is now over, which is why the US motor industry is by almost every prudent measure utterly bust. There is no purpose in Barack Obama summoning from the tomb the corpse of Henry Ford. Any rescue operation in Detroit must take account of the new world of tighter credit and environmental standards and more costly motor spirit.

To concentrate merely on regulating the financial sector might buy stability for a year or two, but the weaknesses in energy and food supply and the degradation of the environment will not go away. The rainbow over the downtown skyscrapers will have but one meaning: no more water. The fire next time.

James Buchan is the author of "Frozen Desire: an Inquiry into the Meaning of Money" (1997). His latest novel, "The Gate of Air", is published by the MacLehose Press (14.99)

This article first appeared in the 17 November 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Obamania

Andre Carhillo
Show Hide image

The decline of the Fifth Republic

With the far right and far left surging in the run-up to a defining presidential election, the French seem intent on blowing up the political establishment.

On a cold Saturday evening in late February, cycling back to my flat in southern Paris, I accidentally ran into a pack of lads on a rampage. They were turning over bins, kicking over expensive motorbikes parked on the street, and obviously looking for someone to fight.

It wasn’t the first time that I’d seen this sort of thing, even in this relatively gentrified part of the city. Usually the best course of action is to stop, let them swarm past and allow the police to do their job. But on this particular night, although I could hear the buzz of a police helicopter above us, there were no officers on the ground. As I nervously became aware of this, one of the lads, no more than five yards away, looked at me and screamed: “T’es qui toi?” (“Who the f*** are you?”). His mates turned and gathered round. Now panicking, I saw that he was pointing a screwdriver at me.

I pelted down the street, heart racing as the young men followed me, so shocked that when I reached my apartment building I twice tapped in the wrong entry code. It was only once indoors, now safe but genuinely scared and sweating, that I understood what had happened.

This was a gang from one of the local ­cités – council estates – that border this part of Paris. They had been flushed out of their normal dens, where they deal in weed and mess about, by police using helicopters and unmarked cars, and were now taking their revenge on these unfamiliar surroundings. When they saw me, a tall, white, male figure, watching in the dark on my bike (stupidly the same dark blue as a police bike), they assumed I could only be one thing: a police spotter. In other words, their most hated enemy.

In the past few weeks, in Paris and across France, there has been a new and special danger in being identified by such gangs as a lone policeman. This is because the ever-present tensions between police and the youth of the cités have become particularly acute following the so-called Affaire Théo. On 2 February in Seine-Saint-Denis, north-east of Paris, four police officers violently attacked an innocent black man, identified only as Théo. The assault was caught on camera and allegedly involved the man’s “rape” with a telescopic baton.

The details of the case caused widespread outrage, right up to the highest level of ­government. In the banlieue, the suburbs where many young people feel excluded from mainstream French life, some felt a desire for revenge. And though their anger related to a specific incident, it was in keeping with the emotions sweeping across France, at all levels of society, in the lead-up to the first round of this year’s presidential election on 23 April.

***

France is in a state of political disarray. This much was obvious during the first live “great debate” on 20 March, organised by the television channel TF1, featuring five front-runners for the presidency.

Probably the greatest loser on the night was François Fillon of the centre-right party les Républicains, who served as prime minister from 2007 to 2012. Fillon has gone from being a sure favourite to outsider in the presidential contest, following allegations of dodgy financial dealings. Most damagingly, a formal judicial investigation has been launched into reports that he paid upwards of €800,000 of taxpayers’ money to his wife and other family members for jobs they didn’t actually do. Fillon, who denies any wrongdoing, has also been accused of failing to declare a €50,000 loan from a French businessman in 2013 (which he has since repaid). He held himself in check during the debate, trying to look dignified and presidential, but he has become the object of scorn from all sides, including his own.

Benoît Hamon, the candidate for the Parti Socialiste (PS), the party of the outgoing and discredited president, François Hollande, did not perform much better in the debate. Hamon identifies with the far left and green wings of the PS and favours a basic income, the legalisation of cannabis, and euthanasia. He resigned from Hollande’s government in 2014 claiming that the president had abandoned socialist values. But at every public appearance Hamon still looks surprised to be in the race. Although he has positioned himself as the “anti-Hollande” candidate – no surprise, as Hollande has the lowest polls ratings of any French president – even Hamon’s supporters concede that he has no reach outside the party faithful, and his dismal poll ratings reflect this.

In recent weeks, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a veteran left-winger and now leader of his own party, France Insoumise (“Unsubmissive France”), has surged in the polls. He has been compared to Jeremy Corbyn but is more like George Galloway, in that he can be trenchant and biting and speaks fluently without notes. Some of his views – anti-EU, anti-Nato, pro-Russia – are close to those of Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right Front National (FN). The candidate of the centre or centre-left is Emmanuel Macron, a 39-year-old former investment banker and protégé of Hollande, under whom he served as minister of the economy, industry and digital data. Macron broke with the PS in 2016 to set himself up as an independent candidate with his new movement, En Marche! (“onward”). He presents himself as a voice of moderation and common sense. He defends the EU and the eurozone and is an unashamed liberal globaliser. But Macron is also hard to love: his enemies claim that he is self-serving, an opportunist who cannot be trusted, and, worse, that he lacks experience of high office. On television he can be vain and testy – as was the case when he came under attack from Marine Le Pen, during the TF1 debate.

In many ways, Macron was a gift to Le Pen. She accused him of being out of touch and of not knowing what he was talking about. Even non-FN supporters, who didn’t necessarily agree with her views on security and immigration, conceded that Le Pen was the most convincing speaker. As I was told by a neighbour with an impeccable PS background, it was as if she was the only politician on the night of the debate in charge of what she believed. Le Pen’s popularity increased as a consequence.

So is it now possible to think the unthinkable: that Marine Le Pen could triumph not only in the first round of the presidential election but in the second as well? If that happens, not only would she become the first female president of France but she would transform French politics and further destabilise the European Union.

***

When I put this to Jean-Pierre Legrand, the leader of the Front National in Roubaix, a town of 90,000 inhabitants in the north of France, he shook his head. He wishes Le Pen well but fears that in the second round the mainstream parties will gang up and back whoever her opponent is. “This is what always happens,” he told me. “This is why so-called French democracy is actually a form of dictatorship. You can never really get your hands on power. It belongs to an elite, people like Emmanuel Macron.”

Legrand, 69, has been a supporter of the FN for decades. He smiles a lot and can be witty, but he also likes talking tough, like the hard-headed factory boss he used to be. He admires the way Le Pen has reinvented the party, shedding some of the old-school neo-Nazi trappings. But he is also faithful to, maybe even nostalgic for, the old FN of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who reached the second round of the 2002 presidential election (he lost to the centre-right Jacques Chirac). So I asked him if he was not really a democrat but, like Le Pen père, basically a fascist. “I am not afraid of being called a fascist, or even a Gaullist,” he said. “But all I really believe in is order and authority. And that is what France needs now.”

I had come to Roubaix because it is officially the poorest town in France. It is also, according to most media reports, one of the most troubled. It’s not far from Paris – just over 90 minutes on a fast train – but when you get there it feels like a different, distant place. The train station is scruffy and there is little sense of the usual Gallic civic pride; the stroll down the main boulevard to the Grand Place is drab and quiet, unlike in most French towns.

Roubaix has a large immigrant population, mainly from North Africa but comprising more than 60 nationalities. It has a reputation as a refuge for illegal migrants making for Calais and then the UK, and as a hotbed of Islamist radicalisation. In May last year the conservative news weekly Valeurs actuelles described Roubaix as “le Molenbeek français”. The magazine was referring to the suburb of Brussels where several of the terrorists and sympathisers involved in the November 2015 attacks on Paris, which killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan concert hall, grew up.

Legrand and his FN colleague Astrid Leplat offered to show me around the town, just as they had done with the writer from Valeurs actuelles. The article was criticised by the local newspaper La Voix du Nord as depicting a fantasy version of France conjured up by the FN. I was aware of this argument, but also keen to take up the offer of a tour: it was a rare chance to see an ordinary French town through the eyes of the FN.

I quite liked Roubaix. With its sooty terraced houses, empty textile mills, iron bridges and dirty canals, it reminded me of Salford in the 1970s. The town is neatly laid out even if the streets are scruffy. It is also busy with small businesses – Arabic-language bookshops, kebab houses and tea shops, as well as traditional French cafés and bistros. It looked no more menacing than Bradford or Rusholme in Manchester.

Legrand is proud of Roubaix, or at least of what Roubaix used to be, and has chosen to live here rather than in nearby Lille. Having been a blue-collar worker, too, he admires the noble ambitions and graft of the people who built the town. These were the original indépendants – the aspiring working class, much cherished by the FN, who believe in the values of hard work and public service. But Legrand told me that when he looks at the streets today he sees not the cluttered life of 21st-century, multicultural France but what he called “conquered territory”.

There are problems in Roubaix: 45 per cent of the town’s residents live below the official French poverty line of €977 a month. Describing the local poverty, Legrand used the term “misère”, a word that also translates as “wretchedness”. The unemployment rate is high (40 per cent in parts of town) and on a typical weekday afternoon there are many young men sitting around with nothing to do.

As we drove through some of the tougher areas, Legrand pointed out so-called Salafist mosques, most of them shielded from the streets by the high walls of disused factories. It is these places, unknown and unvisited by outsiders, which have given Roubaix its reputation for radicalism.

It is true that in the recent past Roubaix has produced many extremists. The most notorious is Lionel Dumont, a former soldier who is white and working class, and is viewed as the leader of radical Islam in the French prison system, where he is serving a 25-year sentence for terrorism offences that include trying to set off a car bomb during a G7 meeting in Lille in 1996. Islamists such as Dumont are, in effect, beyond the control of the penal authorities because French laws forbid the monitoring of prisoners on grounds of race or religion. One frustrated director of prisons in the Paris region complained to me that the French penal system was “the real engine room of radicalisation”.

The main reason why Roubaix has produced so many terrorists – including Mehdi Nemmouche, the gunman who fired the shots at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May 2014 that killed four people – is not immigration, as the Front National would have it, but geography. This part of France is depicted in the media as “a security black hole”, partly because of its proximity to the Belgian border. You can drive into Belgium from Roubaix in ten minutes, as I did with Legrand; the border is just a roundabout and unmonitored. The French and Belgian intelligence services are minutes away from each other but do not share information or collaborate properly. This allowed some of the terrorists who led the 2015 Paris attacks to escape after the killing spree.

***

Crossing the border to Belgium, you notice that the roads are lined with gleaming new warehouses belonging to Amazon and other technology companies. ­Roubaix suddenly seems like a ruin from the early 20th century. It must be difficult for its people not to feel trapped and abandoned – by the French elite to the south and the new economy to the north.

“If you live in Roubaix it is hard to feel connected to the rest of France,” said Hélène Robillard, a junior civil servant. I had come across her in the centre of town. She was leading a group of young women, merrily banging tambourines, blowing whistles and chanting slogans outside one of the
offices of the local council. They were striking against work conditions at the council, but having a laugh, too, in the best Made in Dagenham style.

I asked the women about the film Chez nous (This Is Our Land), which had been released only a few weeks earlier and was playing to packed houses across France. Set in a fictionalised town much like Roubaix, it tells the story of a young woman, Pauline Duhez, a nurse who is seduced into joining the FN and standing for a seat on the council. As she learns the party’s true positions, she becomes disillusioned and angry. The film ends with Pauline returning to the socialist values of her unemployed father, a former steelworker, culminating in a family trip to watch a game featuring the local football team Lens.

The women protesting with Robillard were all determinedly anti-FN. Those who had seen the film were full of enthusiasm. “It is our real life,” said one of them, laughing. “It shows our true values – not fascism, but football, beer and chips.”

Like Pauline in the film, the FN’s Astrid Leplat is a nurse. Jean-Pierre Legrand explained to me that this was why she had been hand-picked by Marine Le Pen to stand
as a regional councillor. The party has adopted a policy of recruiting fonctionnaires (civil servants), especially those who work in the health and support services. This is partly to demonstrate that the FN has left behind its neo-Nazi origins and is now the party of everyday folk, but also to undermine PS dominance of the public services.

When I asked Leplat why she supported the FN, she said that she had witnessed the disastrous effects of repeated budget cuts on hospitals, with overstretched departments and increasingly run-down facilities. “The Front National are there to protect us,” she said.

Leplat told me she hadn’t seen Chez nous and that she probably wouldn’t, because it would upset her. There were also political reasons why she didn’t want to see it: it had been financed with public money from Hauts-de-France, the northern region that covers Roubaix, as well as the television companies France 2 and France 3. When I pointed out that most French cinema relies on public subsidy, she argued that the film’s release had been deliberately timed to undermine the February launch of the FN’s presidential campaign.

“How else can this be explained?” she said. “The Front National is always persecuted by the establishment elites in culture and politics.”

***

Back in Paris, as part of a documentary I was making for BBC Radio 4, I interviewed Émilie Dequenne, the actress who plays Pauline in Chez nous, and the film’s director, Lucas Belvaux. We met at the production company’s office just off the rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré in the swish heart of Paris – a corner of the city that couldn’t be further removed from the streets of Roubaix. But both Dequenne and Belvaux are intimately connected with the region and the northern working-class life, because they grew up near the Franco-Belgian border and still have family ties there. I asked them whether the FN had a point about the film.

“The film is not ambiguous,” Dequenne said. “It is clearly a warning about being ­seduced by the far right. But it also has lots of [different] ambiguities. The main character, Pauline, is a good person, and not stupid. She wants to help people. She thinks that this is not the case with the main pol­itical parties. So she is attracted by a party that seems to care.”

“I agree it is a warning,” Belvaux said. “We are not yet a fascist country, but I do fear that this could happen.

“There are big social and cultural divisions in France. Not everybody who will vote for the Front National is a bad person, but there are many angry people in this country who feel hurt and damaged. When this is the case, fascism can arrive much more quickly than you think.”

Until now, voting for the FN has been a sign of protest, historically a safety valve for releasing discontent. Whenever the FN has got near to victory, right and left have come together as a bloc to exclude it from power. This is what happened in 2002, of course, when Jean-Marie Le Pen, the then leader of the FN, made it through to the second round of the presidential elections. Jacques Chirac won the run-off with 82 per cent of the vote, despite accusations of corruption. The rallying cry across all non-FN political lines was: “Vote for the crook, not the fascist!” Yet there is no guarantee that this will happen again, because Marine Le Pen has successfully reinvented and rebranded the FN, making it more acceptable to mainstream voters.

Even if Marine loses, there is another danger. If those French parties of the left and right which historically have been strongest continue to implode, there will be a new constituency of voters who in future will be “homeless”. Even if Macron wins – having blurred the lines between right and left – he will disappoint at some stage. When this happens, those who supported him may not find their way back to the established parties, thus opening up an avenue to power for the far right. Sylvain Bourmeau, an associate professor at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, told me that this was part of the Front National’s long-term strategy.

The withering of a historically strong party has already happened in the UK, where voters’ movement to Ukip and the SNP has undermined, if not destroyed, Labour as a national force. Marine Le Pen has already voiced her admiration for Ukip for “breaking the mould”. However, it is important to remember that the FN is not “populist” in the way that Ukip, or indeed Donald Trump, is. Nor are Roubaix and the north of France the same as the “rust belt” of the United States.

Rather, the present conflicts in France are ideological, with roots in the antagonisms and turmoil of French history. The FN’s ultimate goal is to get rid of the present French Republic – the result of the “mistake” of the “liberal revolution” of 1789. In other words, the promise of liberté, égalité, fraternité is to be replaced by an “awakening”, which would lead to a “national movement”: that is, the rebirth of the French nation. The FN is not just about racism, immigration or identity: it wants to send French history into reverse gear.

That is how high the stakes are, and why the coming elections are the most important in France since the Second World War. There is a generalised tension right now – the tension that I encountered on my bike on my own street in southern Paris – which sometimes finds expression in gang violence, anti-police riots and even terrorism, all fuelling the rise of the FN.

For all the polls, signs and omens, it is ­impossible to predict the election result. Whatever happens in the coming weeks and months, with the old political certainties melting away, it seems more than ever that France is set on a long and unstoppable journey into darkness. L

Andrew Hussey is the author of “The French Intifada” (Granta Books). He lives in Paris. His documentary “Culture, Class and Le Pen” will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on 24 April (8pm)

This article first appeared in the 20 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, May's gamble

0800 7318496