Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is the French election headed for a run-off between Jean Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen?

France's Jeremy Corbyn is in touching distance of the French presidency. Can he reach it? 

The pollster changes, but the result stays the same: Jean Luc Mélenchon, the radical left candidate for the French presidency, is surging in the polls.  Up to 17 per cent with Ifop, Elabe and Harris, and up to 16 per cent with Opinionway.  He is miles ahead of Benoît Hamon, the Socialist candidate, has slumped to 10 to 9 per cent in all the polls.

For Mélenchon, finishing above the Socialist Party – which he left in 2008 after more than three decades as a member and elected representative – would be a victory in of itself, but the best could yet to come. One Kantar poll puts him in third place, ahead of François Fillon, the centre-right’s candidate for the presidency, just six points behind the centrist Emmanuel Macron and the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen.

Crucially, in all of these polls, the gap between Mélenchon and a top two finish – under the rules of France’s electoral system, if no candidate can get more than half the vote in the first round, the top two candidate go through to a run-off – is smaller than what is left of the Socialist Party vote.  

Can he do it? Mélenchon’s surges have coincided with the two televised debates, in which he performed well, and was declared the winner of the second, 11-candidate contest. There was to be one more debate before the first round of voting on 23 April – on 20 April. Another strong performance, coupled with a poor performance from either of the candidates he must overhaul could have seen him through to the second round.

But equally, a strong performance from Hamon, an effective debater who was off his game in both debates, could see a reversion to the mean. Hamon is now close to the seven to eight per cent that François Hollande was polling by December 2016, so it may be that he is closer to the Socialist party floor vote than he appears, making Mélenchon’s task harder.

Macron, too, turned in what the pundits generally declared to be a poor performance in the first debate and a slightly improved one in the second, though the polls immediately after declared him the winner of the first and the second-best after Mélenchon in the second. But a stronger performance in the 20 April debate could also have stopped the bleeding and hurt Mélenchon.

In any case, at Mélenchon's urging, that debate has now been cancelled. Mélenchon must now hope that the buzz around his candidacy can carry him over the line, which is a tall order. 

That aside, it is still perfectly possible that Mélenchon could beat either Le Pen or Macron into the top two, and face the other in the final round. It's worth noting though, that he enjoyed a similar surge before the 2012 election before falling back. He also underperformed his final poll rating slightly, so there is reason to be bearish about his chances. 

What would happen then?  There is a maddening dearth of final round match-ups that exclude Le Pen, but many of the wider political forces that would be brought to bear against an anti-system candidate of the far-right would likely be brought to bear against one of the far-left, advantaging Macron in a Macron-Mélenchon contest.

The more difficult question if what happens if Mélenchon faces Le Pen in the final round. According to the polls, he beats her by a greater margin than François Fillon but a smaller one than Emmanuel Macron. (For all that it’s worth, that’s my hunch as to how it would play out too.)

But there’s an important caveat here. The first is that the big variable in the second round is what the defeated candidates do. Do they urge their voters to keep out the candidate of the Vichyite National Front as they did against Marine Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002? Or do they sit on their hands?

What is undoubtedly true is that France’s large corporations and banks won’t weigh in behind Mélenchon, although the extent to which that is a plus or a minus electorally is up for debate. But it may also be that the centre-right’s politicians sit on their hands or worse, say outright that the two candidates are as bad as each other.

A lot of the bullishness about the obstacles to a Le Pen presidency hold on the idea that the “republican front” against the far-right that the left erected in order to put the centre-right Jacques Chirac back in office.  It may yet turn out that the centre-right is less willing to return the favour.

 

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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

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