Trouble on the home front for Ségo

Couples who work in the same business usually have a way of handling rivalry. Ségolène Royal and François Hollande, France's star power couple, were long admired for putting their relationship above the job but things have come apart this week. 

Royal, the Socialist presidential candidate, has fallen out publicly with Hollande, her party leader, partner of 26 years and father of their four children. 

The spur was a disagreement on tax policy (last Saturday post). But the spat has gone deep, exposing bitterness between their respective camps, with Royal's crew suggesting that Hollande wants to torpedo her presidential hopes.  Their troubles have added to a slump in Royal's previously charmed campaign for the April vote.

Socialist embarrassment reached a peak when Arnaud Montebourg, an MP who is Royal's spokesman, quipped on television: "Ségolène Royal has only one defect -- her partner."  [video below] The remark was greeted with glee by Nicolas Sarkozy, the centre-right candidate, who said: "I am glad he's her spokesman."

Royal, 53, suspended Montebourg for a month, but her reprimand seemed aimed at Hollande. "It should understood, particular by certain men, that they need to accept that women exercise their authority differently, but not more weakly than men," said Royal.

Thomas Hollande, the couple's 21-year-old son and manager of ségosphere, a campaign website, tried to limit the damage. His father's work in "rallying the party" was an exceptional advantage for his mother, he said.

The source of the trouble is simple. The couple have swapped roles, with  Hollande, the party boss and would-be president, now serving as number two and potential consort to the head of state.  Christophe Girard, a Socialist and deputy Paris Mayor, put it: "They make me think of Bill and Hillary Clinton, but she is Bill and he is Hillary."

The pair, MPs for rural constituencies since the late 1980s, have always shielded their privacy. They are opposites in character. He is easy-going and she is intense and controlled. But they have protected one-another, maintained a professional complicity and kept their family together at their Paris suburban home. They lead a fairly independent existence, spending long periods apart, friends say. They have long turned a deaf ear to a rumour mill that has coupled each of them with others.

Since last summer, Hollande, a sociable, old-style politician, has found it hard to mask his unhappiness at being eclipsed by the glamorous partner who was previously mocked by party elders as a lightweight. 

The Bonnie and Clyde of French politics, who met as students, rose together after they were spotted in 1980 by Jacques Attali, campaign manager for François Mitterrand. As President, Mitterrand employed them as advisers and launched their parallel careers, though he had a softer eye for Royal.

Until last year, Hollande, the jovial son of a doctor, was the senior partner, at least in rank. He was never a minister and does not enjoy a strong public image, but he was a respected heavyweight who rallied the broken party after the defeat of Lionel Jospin in the 2002 presidential election. By Socialist tradition, the candidacy should have been his to take.

Royal, the determined daughter of an authoritarian army officer, made more of a splash when she grabbed the spotlight as a junior minister in the early 1990s. Presenting her baby daughter from her maternity bed and campaigning against pornography, she had forged a strong enough image to plan a run for the presidency in 1995.

Hollande joked later that he had "grabbed her by the collar" to stop her. In 2004, when Royal won the presidency of the Poitou-Charentes region, he felt the wind turn. "I don't know if I can hold her back this time," he said.

In 2005, the party leader, who has always showered his partner with praise, was upset when she announced her possible candidacy without consulting him. He took a neutral stance as senior Socialists sought to overtake Royal  then last summer stood aside as she sealed her triumph with an unconventional outsider's campaign that connected with the public mood. 

In the past month, Hollande has sought to "remind people that he exists", as a friend put it. He has infuriated her campaign by staking out hardline leftwing positions on taxation that conflict with Royal's soft, almost mystical, serenade to voters. Royal has gone public saying that Francois did not consult her and was not speaking for her.

Both camps, the Royalists and the Socialists, are trying to pull together and repair the damage this weekend. Both know that the party's return to the Elysee Palace will depend on "François and Ségo" getting their act together.

Comments

[maggie]

It's time for Sego to Decide.
Does she really want a career at the top ? or does she want peace at home ?
If she chooses the former, as she obviously will, her family will split right down the middle as, sons will go with father.

It's the age old female dilema family V career, without
Hollande 's FULL support she's unlikely to have both.

This will test her diplomatic skills.

[GAG]

Great News that Mr Arnaud Montebourg, an MP, of sorts, has put his foot in it and been suspended.

Montebourg could easily win a French hypocrite of the year competition. Of course, hypocrisy is rife among socialists, yet anyone who has studied the political career of Montebourg will realise that this supposedly intelligent and charming young man will do anything or say anything to gain power. Mme Royale made a grave error in selecting Montebourg to be her spokesman. She has suspended him for one month only, but should have accepted his resignation. She’ll be sorry.

On another subject Charles, although the elections in France are of interest to readers, shouldn’t this blog soon move to Berlin, or Dublin, or any of the real powerhouses of Europe ?
GAG

[Frank Schnittger]

"n the past month, Hollande has sought to "remind people that he exists", as a friend put it."

Too bad it had to be at his wife's expense. It can't do too much for their relationship either if it results in her losing the presidency. Ah the vanity and egotism of those in power!

If Hollande were a true Socialist, his profile wouldn't have been important in the context of the Socialists, once again, winning the Presidency.

This is becoming to resemble a soap operaa scripted to engage the French electorate in the sort of familial tensions that all professional couples have to contend with. Who is going to put their career on hold to raise the kids? Who is going to puit their career on hold so that Sego can win the Presidency?

If Hollande doesn't get his act together soon, he won't be able to look forward to being even the Presidential consort. He will be the Knight in shining armour who played games when he should have been rescuing the "maiden in distress".

A promising career as a minor local politician beckons for him unless he is seen to publicly acknowledge his mistake and her leadership - and fast.

[christopher muir]

In a way. Christophe Girard is right to amusingly mention the Clintons. It might spur Sego to swat up on emergency damage control procedures. Her manual probably says that she needs to arrange a family photo op at the dining table (not too overloaded with luxuries) with Hollande jovially pouring the wine. A family walk in the countryside wouldn't do any harm either. The catch in any such ploy is that it requires Hollande's cooperation and family smiles all round.

[Maggie G]

"Too bad it had to be at his wife's expense."

I don't feel much sympathy for this 'wife'. She's done quite a few things at other people's expense. If she had wanted full support from François Holland, she might have done better than to announce her possible candidacy without even consulting him -- her leader and her partner.

I find that Ségolène Royal takes herself very seriously. She seems to think she's some kind of a messiah with a completely 'new' style of campaigning, but this new style of 'involving the public' appears more light-weight every day.

If she doesn't win the election, I can see her blaming it all on Hollande, when really it will be her own fault. She strikes me as rather selfish.

[Valentin]

"She seems to think she's some kind of a messiah with a completely 'new' style of campaigning"

There is a simple explanation for this approach: she is inspired by the South America's strong woman figures like Michelle Bachelet in Chile (now president), or Ingrid Betancourt in Colombia (senator, presidential candidate), both popular and both from the Left. Mme. Royal's secret dream is probably a popular wave triumphally raising her to presidency - of left inspiration, but having little to do with settled politic currents.

What she's forgetting, is that this is France, not Chile or Venezuela. People are well off, little religious, individualistic, well educated and used to distrust politicians. This is where Sarkozy's chance to win lies, in my opinion: bringing the debate back on earth.

[Valentin]

"If Hollande doesn't get his act together soon, he won't be able to look forward to being even the Presidential consort."

Hollande actually is one of the PS dinosaurs and a convinced socialist. His was probably less a gaffe and more a return to the roots (PS' "synthesis" program on which they so struggled to agree last year). He won't abandon his political ideology in order to win.

UNLESS, like some guessed, it's a bad cop - good cop role playing: he's frightening people with taxes, only to have her bring the Good News.

[moose]

I think it's pretty clear that if he really loved her, he'd shut up so that she can win. Is that too much to ask of your spouse? "Please shut up and give me a chance to be the leader of France" is not too much to ask. This is precisely what makes the modern, career-oriented, lifestyle so ridiculous.

[john gregory Flinn]

This presidential campaign seems to go from bad to worse.

Segoléne Royal has just upset the Canadian government with her call for sovereignty for Quebec.
She may be harking back to the days of De Gaulle with his famous 'Quebec Libre' call, but the PS are not Guaullists are they?
And voters must have noticed her amateurish footwork in Lebanon and Israel.
(No, Maggie G she is not married)

With the lack of senior support (Mssrs Chirac and Villepin at least) in the UMP for M. Sarkosy, who on earth is there to vote for?

[robert furlong]

in any other circumstances than their being married, hollande would be toast by now. but firing the father of your children in plain view of all france would seem a bit much, tho plainly he deserves it. why not a deal, a la the clintons, where she, victorious, later hands the candidacy off to him in exchange for good behavior? she's raised their kids and likely could care less what he thinks at this point. a royal divorce with sego getting sole custody of the party?? i think he's been put on notice to shape up or ship out. when playboy magazine does its female presidents of the world edition, sego will certainly be the centerfold. hillary and michelle will be fully clothed, one would hope.

[christopher muir]

On the TF1 video website there's an interview with Sego, dated 20th January. She is adopting a well-used
Anglo-Saxon technique when the interview gets tough: keep talking, don't give the interviewer a chance to interrupt. If her lungs can stand it, it'll be mandatory to use this ploy to protect herself from the Canadian gaff. After a while viewers can grow tired of these long monologues. Danger ahead.

[Richard Huxley]

Great stuff...did you see their faces when he said that...hahah.

If Sego wins i'm leaving France to Germany...besides its only 10 minutes away over the Rhine.

[Maggie G]

I sent this yesterday, but I don’t think it got through. After doing ten or fifteen of those eye test things, I gave up.

What does Quebec sovereignty have to do with the French presidential election?

Yesterday on the one o’clock news, Jean-Pierre Chevènement defended her, saying she hadn’t said anything about Quebec that hadn’t already been said by de Gaulle, Chirac, Philippe Séguin, Alan Jupé and I forget who else – maybe de Villepin too.

Mr Bremner, I think it would be interesting if you would do a blog on what the French have against Canada, and why the French government is so determined to support sovereignty in Quebec.

What’s in it for them? Do they think that Quebec would then come back to France, to be another overseas department like Martinique and Reunion and Nouvelle Caladonie?

Why, when he was running for mayor of Paris, did Philippe Séguin think it would help his case to write a book about sovereignty in Quebec? and why does Ségolène Royal now think that she will be taken as a more serious candidate if she spouts off about Quebec?

Quebec is not a ‘colony’ like Corsica, it is one of the founding provinces of Canada, and George-Etienne Cartier was one of the most important fathers of confederation.

We have regularly had French-speaking prime ministers from Quebec: Wilfred Laurier for fifteen years (1896 – 1911), Louis St Laurent for nine years (1948 – 1957), Pierre Trudeau for sixteen years (1968 – 1984), Brian Mulroney (francophone despite his name) for nine years ‘1984 – 1993) and Jean Chrétien for ten years (1993 – 2003).

If you read that carefully, you will have noted that from 1968 until 2003 – that’s thirty-five years – we were led by French-Canadian prime ministers from Quebec.

And yet a few years ago Alan Jupé somehow found it fitting to compare Quebec separatists to French resistants in the Second World War. “Quebeckers do not take the easy way out because they know the great lessons of history: the spirit of a people is never better forged than in resistance.” Was he aware that France was liberated by anglophone Canadians, and that very few French-Canadians even took part in the war? This was because France and Quebec had been alienated for such a long time that the people of Quebec were not moved by the plight of France. In fact, it was the bitterness from the conscription issue during the war that directly led to the separatist problem of today.

Quebec has its own system of law and its own system of education, and all the top jobs in Ottawa are reserved for bilingual people, which until recently meant francophones. Have you heard the joke about the life-guard that didn’t know how to swim?

Did you ever hear Jean Chrétien, our Prime Minister, speak English? He learned English fairly late in life and had a very strong French accent. He was prime minister for ten years, yet I never once heard him mentioned in the news here in France. They ignored him because he wasn’t a separatist. (The separatist spoke far better English.)

Yes, Mr Bremner, I think it would be very interesting if you would do a study on why exactly the French dislike Canada so much.

[john gregory Flinn]

According to today's news, Ms Royal appears to have hired an oxymoron from Greenpeace to help with her campaign. That has given M. Sarkosy a bit of a laugh!
What, or who is next? Any offers?

Right on Maggie G!

When I was there I understood that being a Brit, and a possible immigrant I could get a job in Quebec without any French, but the Canadians from other provinces had to have some fluency in French! So your joke about the life-guard is plausible.

Do you mean why the French dislike anglophone Canada, or Canada in general?
My impression is that the French view Canada somewhat similarly to the way the British do, but I might be wrong....?

[Frank Schnittger]

"Yes, Mr Bremner, I think it would be very interesting if you would do a study on why exactly the French dislike Canada so much." - Maggie G

Because it's British for Gods sake!

[Robert Marchenoir]

Maggie: the French do not dislike Canada, they ignore it.

The inclination towards Québec's independance is just a vague feelgood thing. They are French, sort of, so they are supposed to be oppressed by the Anglos, and we are supposed to support them, right?

It does not go further than that. It does not run deep, either, contrary to the French dislike of anything American.

On this specific incident, the motive was plain incompetence. Ségolène Royal was asked the obvious question from a Canadian journalist, she had not prepared a proper reply, and she did exactly what she does in front of a French audience in a similar situation: utter a few feelgood keywords, especially if the person asking the question has used them himself.

In that case, it was "freedom" and "sovereignty". Alas, there was "Quebec" in the same phrase, and in foreign policy, you cannot pepper words recklessly all over the place, and not suffer consequences.

Hence the turmoil.

[Maggie G]

Robert,

You say, "It does not go further than that. It does not run deep.""

I am not so sure about that. I have a book here entitled, "The Gaulist Attack on Canada 1967 - 1997" by JF Bosher, who taught the history of France and New France for forty years at King's College, London, the University of British Columbia, Cornell, and York University.
Published by McGill-Queen's University Press in 1999.

Here's what it says on the back cover:
"As part of their larger role to revive France's role as a great power, Charles de Gaulle and his followers, JF Bosher argues, have conspired to encourage Quebec separatism. Bosher bases his case on the evidence of France's actions in other former French colonies, especially in Africa, as well as the writings of such leading Gaullist conspirators as Bernard Dorin, Pierre-Claude Mallen, Pierre de Menthon, and Philippe Rossillon, who have boasted about their efforts to win Quebec away from Canada.
He criticizes the Canadian government for its failure to respond to, or even recognize, the Gaullist threat and argues that even now, by standing up to French aggression the government might weaken the separatist movement in Quebec, or at least diminish political support for it."

I read this book eight years ago, and flipping through it now, here are a few lines that I underlined at the time:
"The effect of these defeats [Indochina, Algeria] on de Gaulle and the Gaullists, was to convert their own nationalism into that species of imperialism that has been attempting to subvert the Québécois, the Acadians, the Walloons, and the people of the Swiss Jura ever since. Ther old empire lost, Gaullists took to developing another by encouraging the nationalism of French-speaking people in Quebec and elsewhere by precept, by indoctrination, by cultural exchange programs, and by financial assistance." He gives examples of Quebec students studying in France and returning as separatists. Many other things too, but of course I can't quote everything here.

Some more: "Since their revolution in 1789, French people have been taught to believe that language, culture and history define a nation as a political entity....In their view, the people of Quebec and Acadia, by virtue of their language, culture and history, are parts of the French nation and aught to be separate from Canada."

"Hand-picked for their pro-Quebec, anti-Canadian views, some of the diplomatic and consular personnel sent to represent France seem to have behaved like enemy agents."

"It appears that the office of the Prime Ministeer of France includes a section charged with stimulating agitation of French-speaking countries outside France."

(Those last two quotes refer to the 196O's, I don't know if they still apply today)

You may thing this is just a bunch of "conspiracy bunk", but I also have here Philippe Séguin's book, "Plus Français que moi, tu meurs! France Quebec: des idées fausses à l'espérance partagée". Published in 2000. Here is a quotation from page 96:

"Malgré l'hostilité prévisible de la grande majorité des Acadiens , ils préconisent l'intégration, à un Quebec devenu souverain, du territoire où ceux-ci sont majoritaires, en précisant que l'Acadie ainsi délimitée pourra avoir un statut de large autonomie....Quant aux autres Canadiens français, les mêmes font valoir que la plupart se trouvent en Ontario à proximité de la frontier québécois et qu'ils pourront demeurer dans la zone de rayonnement du nouveau pays...."

(For the people who don't understand French, he is proposing changing the boundaries of New Brunswick and Ontario so that their francophone parts will be included with the independent Quebec.)

Here is one of the most amazing things he says, referring to the end of the 19th century: "Et comme les Français ont quelque peine à distinguer entre Canada et province du Quebec, ils recevront avec la méme chaleur, en 1897, Wilfred Laurier, Premiere ministre de Canada (mais n'est-il pas francophone?), comme ils accueilleront plus tard d'autres Premiers ministres provinciaux".

In other words, he is surprised that at that time, France did not distinguish between the francophone federal prime minister and the francophone provincial premier, as they do today. Today they snub the federal prime minister because he is not separatist, even if his is from Quebec, while they treat the separatists like royalty. (There are many examples in the other book of French-speaking diplomats, governor general, or prime minister being snubbed in France.) Back at the time of Laurier, however, there were no separatists, and Séguin is surprised that Laurier got such a warm welcome in Paris.

Well, I think I've gone on enough.

[christopher muir]

So, Sego's gaffe in Canada is followed up by her being neatly tricked over the phone. An impersonator tells her he's the premier of Quebec and she swallows it one hundred per cent. What follows is embarrassing, but it shows that her advisers must be pretty distracted or simply worn out. Another mischievous comedian should be able to find Sego's direct number and announce himself to be Ahmadenijad, Kim Jung-il or Vladimir Putin. Am looking forward to hearing the possibly hilarious recorded conversations.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Maggie, the story of Philippe Rossillon is true, but it is old hat. De Gaulle died a long time ago.

This quotation is ridiculous: "That species of imperialism that has been attempting to subvert the Québécois, the Acadians, the Walloons, and the people of the Swiss Jura ever since."

In Belgium, the separatists are not the Walloons, it is the Flemish. Subversion of the Swiss Jura: absolute hogwash. Have the Swiss recalled their ambassador, threatened to bomb the Elysée palace or something? Not that I know.

The book of Philippe Séguin refers to 1897.

As for Acadians being united with Québec, yes it makes sense, don't you think so? However, I'm not sure the Acadians would agree. But with an autonomy status within Québec? Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe you should ask them.

That's not being against Canada. You know, what's with federalism, multiculturalism and nurturing a diverse society... There has been a discussion recently about having sharia law within some parts of Canada, so certainly we could have a bit of self-government for French-speaking Canadians, hmmm?

Anyway, if you guys object to it, we won't send you any suicide bombers with camembert-laden rucksacks, promised. Hope you can strike a similar agreement with your muslim friends.

By the way, about Corsica: I agree to their independance. It is the Corsicans who do not want it. They extract way too much money out of Paris and Brussels!

What I say is: if you want to go on with your stupid slogans, your criminal bombings, your racist traits, your backward worldview, your uninterrupted whining, get lost. Be independant. Good riddance. France does not need you.

I do not mind having to show my passport to go on holidays in Corsica. As a matter of fact, I would probably chose another place for my holidays.

We will still be able to listen to your folk singers. And anyway, most of your so-called Corsican pork products are not even Corsican, so what if we are not able to import them any more?

[marc de berner]

It is quite normal that the socialists can't agree on anything.. I will be good fun to watch the gazelle corner herself so the red elephants can move in and squash her.. Sarko doesn't even have to campaign, she's doing it all for him.
I have never heard a serious politician that wants to be elected from any country say that tax cuts are dangerous.
Oh and it was nice to see that she read the mood of the country and went on a beach holiday whilst the rest of us paid are last respects to ABBE PIERE..
Bravo sego carry on

[Maggie G]

Robert,

I beg your pardon? What do you mean, "Certainly we can have a bit of self-government for French-speaking Canadians, hmmmm?"

The people of Quebec ARE self-governing. Don't you understand that Ottawa is not Paris, and Quebec is not Corsica?

What exactly do you mean?