Show Hide image

Socialists play the name game

Observations on France

The high drama during the French Socialist Party's recent leadership election goes far beyond the quaintness of French politics. It is symptomatic of the bitter struggle in one of the last mainstream European parties to call itself socialist.

Even Nicolas Sarkozy, who has controlled the news agenda in France since he was elected president in May 2007, could not overshadow the war raging at the party's headquarters on the rue de Solférino in Paris.

For two weeks, world recession and financial meltdown had to wait. All eyes were on the Parti Socialiste, or, as the daily newspaper Libération rebaptised it, the Parti Suicidaire. Who would succeed François Hollande, the departing general secretary who had overseen ten inglorious years at the helm: Ségolène Royal the reformist, or one of her arch-rivals: the economically liberal mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, the young left-wing MEP Benoît Hamon, or the apparatchik mayor of Lille, Martine Aubry? All polls pointed to a Delanoë victory but unexpectedly Royal's manifesto of fraternity and alliance with the centre right put her first, with 30 per cent of the vote. Delanoë and Aubry garnered 25 per cent each, followed by Hamon with 19 per cent. If the Paris mayor had proved the loser, Royal was not the clear victor.

A fin-de-siècle spirit presided over the party's conference in Reims. As the hours passed, it seemed obvious that la bande des quatre could not agree on a unity candidate. Delanoë threw in the towel but the other three maintained their candidatures. As the chefs couldn't decide, the members would have to.

In the first round, Royal went ahead of Aubry, while Hamon had to bow out. The second round should have been straightforward: Delanoë and Hamon had called on their supporters to back Aubry. Instead, when the result came Aubry was ahead by only 42 votes out of 137,000.

Both teams claimed tricks and cheating and denounced the other side. Insults flew, lawsuits started. Then Royal accepted the verdict of the party: that Aubry had won. The hatchet was buried, over the leadership, at least.

Aubry, who is the daughter of the former EU president Jacques Delors and introduced the 35-hour week as minister for social affairs in Lionel Jospin's government, is a reformer like Ségolène - although, unlike Royal, she believes in doing politics at the grass roots, away from the limelight.

Yet the issue of the party's title remains. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, nearly every European parliamentary party of the left changed its name - but not the French. In Italy, the words socialist and communist became such terms of abuse that in the early 1990s both those parties felt they had to change their names, resorting to neutral-sounding, floral expressions - "Olive Tree", the "Daisy" party - with which to drape their social and democratic concerns. By not changing its name, the French Socialist Party proves that it is anchored in the 20th century, or, more precisely, in that century's first decade, when it joined the Workers International. It has remained Marxist in spirit to this day. This is where the trouble begins.

No other European parliamentary party of the left is Marxist. The liberal pro-market mantra has been swallowed by most social-democratic leaders in Europe. France's Socialist Party is the only one of significance to oppose that view and promote regulation in all matters, from the economy to the arts to universities.

Today, just over half the Socialist Party under Aubry takes this line while the rest, represented by Royal, wants to move on to what it believes to be a post-Marxist world. Royal's deputy, Manuel Valls, in a book called Pour en finir avec le vieux socialisme, advocates that the party change its name. Tout est dit. Enough said.

This article first appeared in the 15 December 2008 issue of the New Statesman, The power of speech

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Is anyone prepared to solve the NHS funding crisis?

As long as the political taboo on raising taxes endures, the service will be in financial peril. 

It has long been clear that the NHS is in financial ill-health. But today's figures, conveniently delayed until after the Conservative conference, are still stunningly bad. The service ran a deficit of £930m between April and June (greater than the £820m recorded for the whole of the 2014/15 financial year) and is on course for a shortfall of at least £2bn this year - its worst position for a generation. 

Though often described as having been shielded from austerity, owing to its ring-fenced budget, the NHS is enduring the toughest spending settlement in its history. Since 1950, health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but over the last parliament it rose by just 0.5 per cent. An ageing population, rising treatment costs and the social care crisis all mean that the NHS has to run merely to stand still. The Tories have pledged to provide £10bn more for the service but this still leaves £20bn of efficiency savings required. 

Speculation is now turning to whether George Osborne will provide an emergency injection of funds in the Autumn Statement on 25 November. But the long-term question is whether anyone is prepared to offer a sustainable solution to the crisis. Health experts argue that only a rise in general taxation (income tax, VAT, national insurance), patient charges or a hypothecated "health tax" will secure the future of a universal, high-quality service. But the political taboo against increasing taxes on all but the richest means no politician has ventured into this territory. Shadow health secretary Heidi Alexander has today called for the government to "find money urgently to get through the coming winter months". But the bigger question is whether, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour is prepared to go beyond sticking-plaster solutions. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.