The Great Debate UK

Hollande’s programme marks return of the Ancien Régime


By Laurence Copeland. The opinions expressed are his own.

Seeing the dewy-eyed kids at the post-election celebrations in Paris, I couldn’t help thinking how crazy it all was. The youngsters were plainly convinced they had a president to take their country forward into the new dawn -  after all, he campaigned under the slogan  “Le changement, c’est maintenant”. In reality, Francois Hollande’s programme is unambiguously regressive, with its stop-the-world-we-want-to-get-off determination to go in the opposite direction to every other country, its refusal to countenance any erosion of the country’s ruinously expensive welfare state and its complacent confidence that there is nothing to stop France carrying on as before. What better place to greet the return of the Ancien Régime than the Place de la Bastille?

Of course, the new President promises that he is going to balance the budget in 2017 with the familiar prayer of tax-and-spend governments the world over: “Oh Lord, make me solvent! – but not yet…” Now, even allowing for the fact that France’s deficit is only 5 percent of GDP, it still means he is going to keep on borrowing until the national debt is more or less as large as GDP. (Remember: a balanced budget means no need for more loans, so the national debt is constant. To start paying off its debts, a country needs a surplus, something France has not managed for more than forty years).

Then, of course, the biggest question of all: how on earth is this fiscal miracle of a balanced budget going to be achieved, given the raft of spending commitments which so delighted Socialist voters? It’s rather like listening to someone promising to lose weight while he tucks into a large plate of chips.

However things work out, you can be sure that the burden of paying for France’s public sector will not be borne entirely by today’s taxpayers, given that France is already one of the most heavily taxed countries in the Western world and that a 75 percent tax on the super-rich will probably raise very little revenue (at least for France – it may end up raising tax revenue for Britain, of course, if the rich move to London).

Democracy vs. austerity


By Kathleen Brooks. The opinions expressed are her own.

Throughout history it has always been difficult to take something away from someone once you have given it to them. Europe is finding that it is extremely difficult to reign in public finances once they start to go out of control. Democracies don’t like to vote for austerity, which is why Sarkozy lost the Presidency in France, why a radical left party came second in the Greek elections and why the Conservatives got a drubbing at last week’s local elections in the UK.

This tells us something about democracy in the western world. Governments have to manage the public finances directly – they have to sell the debt, do the sums and present budgets. However, the people who vote them into (and out of) power are the public, who rightly in most cases, believe they have worked hard, paid  taxes and deserve the services and retirement promises made to them.