Vive Blair! -- or not.

Tony Blair is in Paris today on the first stage of his farewell world tour. He is calling on President Chirac then dining with Nicolas Sarkozy, who takes over in the Elysée Palace next Wednesday.

Blair's presence and the changing of the guard on both sides of the Channel have prompted a bout of French stock-taking over le Blairisme, as the Prime Minister's doctrines are known.

The occasion is especially ripe because of the misery of the French Socialist party after Ségolène Royal's defeat last weekend. Ségo -- like Sarkozy -- is a big admirer of Blair. She was stamped on by the party and media early in her campaign for saying so in public. The unreformed French left sees blairisme as a bad thing and the Prime Minister as a traitor to the "progressive" cause.

Blair has long served as a touchstone in France.

Putting aside the Iraq war  which is universally deplored, he is both the symbol of much that France abhors and the model of much that it admires.

The political world is in awe over the way that he modernised the antique Labour Party and managed the British "economic miracle" as it is seen here. Tributes over the past two days have focused on Britain's near zero real unemployment and in Blair's success in making his country comfortable with globalisation -- while France cowers from it in fear.

That is also what many in France don't like about Blair. He is seen, and not just by the left, as the smug and irritatingly successful apostle of an unpleasant new world. This is a mediocre, cut-throat, English-speaking place with bad food and without the social "solidarity" that France prizes. It is a place where money and celebrities are worshipped, where children grow fat, schools compete with one-another and the quality of life has collapsed. That is a caricature but it is how many in France view Britain and the globalised world.  "It is a nation of miserable unhappy people," said a listener who called into a discussion Blair's Britain this morning on France-Inter.

One of the presenters appeared to agree, noting that there must be some reason why so many Britons move elswhere, not least to France.

This was, however, an exception in a discussion which reflected the high esteem in which Blair is held in France -- higher than in his own country. Bernard Guetta, a leftwing, usually anti-Anglo-Saxon, radio commentator, delivered a eulogy to le Blairisme, which he said was a doctrine of historic significance. He praised Blair for making the British left abandon its dogma of statism and trade union power. Blair had understood that "the left would never return to power without support from the ascendant services sector and that it could no longer lean on the public sector and a declining working class..." That is of course what the French Socialist party has still not decided to do, despite Ségolène Royal's modest attempt in her election campaign.

Libération, the leftwing daily [today's front page left], also urged the French Socialists to study his example. "Blair the free marketeer developed the economy at the same time as strengthening the instruments of (social) solidarity," said Laurent Joffrin, Libé's editor.

Le Monde said tonight that Blair is leaving an impressive legacy. "The 10 year reign of Mr Blair will remain synonymous with sustained growth, controlled inflation and unemployment vancquished."

"Over the years, le Blairisme has exercised an attraction, often unadmitted, beyong the United Kingdom -- especially in France," said Le Monde.

Blair, in office for a decade, is the model for incoming Sarko, who is two years younger. Sarkozy has re-invented the French right, breaking with the welfare emphasis of Chirac and Gaullism, by adapting le Thatcherisme and le Blairisme for French needs. Britain should be France's biggest example for reform, he wrote last year.

Our partners have succeeded in changing, without losing their separate identities and even living rather better. The most dramatic case is that of Great Britain, which at the end of the 1970s seemed to be a country completely out of its depth with GDP 25 percent below that of France... The British GDP is now 10 percent higher than that of France and the standard of living of the British is higher than that of the French...

In a million years, Jacques Chirac would never have uttered those words. He and Blair had a prickly relationship, with Chirac treating Blair like a bumptious schoolboy. But they respected one another as sparring partners. It is difficult to see Sarkozy the brash, physical Sarkozy hitting it off quickly with Gordon Brown, the introverted and austere Scot who is likely to take over in Downing Street. For a start, they will have to use interpreters. Neither speaks the other's language, while Chirac and Blair could converse in both English and French -- though not well enough for serious business.

The handovers in Britain and France are a reminder of how the two neighbours are décallé -- out of phase. Britain, under Blair, has been pumping money back into public services and recruiting thousands of civil servants. Sarkozy is coming in to do the opposite, cutting taxes and spending in order to let France have a crack at a more competitive existence.

Closing note: The Prime Minister's name lends itself to a great pun for his French detractors. They say "Je ne peux pas le blairer".  In slang means "I can't stand the guy".   

Comments

[Frank Schnittger]

The two countries are decalle because Britain has had almost 30 years of battling against the trade unions and the strangle hold a very inefficient public sector had on the nations wealth.

The problems of dealing with a bloated, lazy, cosseted, self-satisfied and conceited public sector workforce are almost universal, and don’t be fooled into thinking that Margaret Thatcher managed to solve the problem in Britain: Public Expenditure as a proportion of GNP was as high at the end of her reign as it had been at the beginning.

Laudable as it may be to give professionals the security of state jobs, pensions, long holidays, generous benefits, and freedom from dismissal for anything but the most heinous crimes, in practice this generosity is often rewarded not with self-less service, but with an arrogant contempt for those who have paid for the service through the taxation system.

A lot of this is down to the childish immaturity of those who have never had to grow up and live in the real world where you are only paid for work actually done, and done to a higher standard than available elsewhere.

But there is also a much larger political problem which will confront Sarkozy as much as anyone else who has ever attempted to reform the public services: In most social democracies the State takes over around 50% of the nations wealth, and employs the largest single and most cohesive block of workers who control all the key functions of the state. The whole democratic system can be brought to it’s knees in a matter of days.

Sarkozy’s democratic victory may count for nothing if this state sector decides to mobilise against him. He can hardly call in the army to restore order because the army does not have the capacity to provide essential services. What you will get is an effective coup d’etat where the democratic election is overturned by the people who are supposed to be the servants and not the masters of the state.

There is, of course, a huge conceit in this whole process. The privileged public servants also control the purse strings for the most disadvantaged in society – the old, the young, the unemployed, and the sick who are totally dependent on public services to maintain any quality in their lives.

The public sector oligarchy can therefore present themselves as the protectors and benefactors of the weak, even thought all the money to fund those services has been extracted from taxpayers who have to earn their money in the real world.

Taxpayers are therefore being subverted by their own money. It is being used against them to fund the public servants who hold them in contempt and to bribe those poor citizens who would otherwise be their natural allies.

Sarkozy would need to have the leadership powers of a Gorbachev who persuaded the ruling Soviet Communist Party elite to give up their monopoly powers on the state bureaucracy in return for the insecurities of a market economy.

[Dominique]

Terrible public service indeed.

Please note that civil servants pay taxes. All the verbal logorrhoea from Franck is pointless. He just does not accept the idea that public services do create wealth and do not only spend it.

[Coral]

Hi,

I’ve been reading and re-reading the various hate blogs that vilified every aspect of Tony Blair and his policies. These blogs are purportedly written by Conservative Councillors hailing from various parts of Britain, mostly from the London area. These so-called Councillors are probably paid stooges sitting in prison cells with nothing better to do. Apparently, there’s no law against stealing another person’s identity if the impostor gains no financial rewards, but merely ruins the reputation of the owner of the name he has stolen.

At least, with a definitive departure date, Tony Blair has shut these charlatan bloggers up once and for all. Yesterday and today’s pages are unusually insipid and lacking in content - most have announced an end or a hiatus in their blogs. I wonder why?

Regards,
Coral

[Frank Schnittger]

Three questions Dominique:

1) What percentage of France's GNP is spent by the State.

2) What percentage of France's GNP is produced by the State?

3) Where does the difference between what the French State sector produces and spends come from?

[Stephen Bull]

I owe this to Eric le Boucher (le monde)in March. Across the channel, two and a half hours away, the PS have under their eyes a left-wing policy which has worked, but they persist in calling it a right-wing policy that has failed. This error is now as obvious as the nose in the middle of your face. One can hope that even the PS can see the result; if Bayrou can take 18-22% of the votes its because the PS has abandoned the centre to a reborn UDF.
The entire readjustment of the debate between left and right which will follow depends on the recognition by the PS of their error: Blairism is not simply left-wing, it is an intelligent answer by the left to the world economy. To be clear,, it is not just the future of the PS that is at stake but the return of France, late as it is, to reality. Let us now look at a demonstration of how left-wing the policy of Blair and Brown has been since their arrival in power in 1997.

unemployment reduced by 3% to 5.5% in ten years
75% of the population between 15 and 64 in work compared to 63% in France
creation of a minimum wage in 1999
inequalites which were increasing until 2000, tending downwards
half of the new jobs created in the public sector
record investments in health, education and transport
public expenditure has increased since 2000 by 8% of GDP to 45.6% which is nearly at the German level. If this goes on comrades, Blair is not just left-wing, he is a communist!
But Segolene swerved!

[D]

unemployment reduced by 3% to 5.5% in ten years
75% of the population between 15 and 64 in work compared to 63% in France
record investments in health, education and transport

- 5.5% hides a lot of people on social aid who are not counted for different reasons, more or less serious, but unemployed nonetheless;
- 75% population in work rather means they are forced to work by the outrageous increase of the minimal retirement age; old age sucks if one’s left with just 10 years of peace after a lifes work
- record investment: according to the Economist the Blair’n’Brown team has done quite a terrible job in what concerns health, education and transport; quality levels are dropping, subsidies dont go where they should, infrastructure is crumbling down. Brown is such a genuine and honest left-wing man, yet he has such awfully mixed record in all traditional left domains of interest.

[Dominique]

Franck,

1) so what?
2) so what?
3) so what?

GDP is no criteria for wealth. Can we talk about serious subjects such as health, obesity, life duration, time spent at work versus time spent with family, sunshine, the beaches, the Alps etc?...

[D.Strohl]

Dominique,

I would absolutely not call Frank's post "logorrhea" - it is an argumented text, written in an excellent English (as far as I can judge since I am French, as you are). I would like to be able to write with a similar talent in my native language.

But I am able to understand that you are not pleased with the general tonality of the posts here. You are a civil servant and I am sure you do your best to make a good job, as many other civil servants do also. So you are entitled to believe these posts to be unfair.

The problem stems from the unions, and mostly from "la CGT" whose evolution (if any)is very slow. It is the cynicism they use to manipulate their troops in "la défense du service public" which is an agression for ordinary people who are not dumber than the CGT "militants", but who have no possibility to defend themselves with equivalent means.

But they do have the possibility to cast a ballot sensibly and they used it this time, as I DID. People understand now that the world has changed and that we have to adapt to it, and not the other way round. In other words, the celebrated "exception française" is now ripe for the museum of economics.

PS :
Let us come back to Charles' article(very good as usual) and especially to its "Closing note", about the pun with Mr.Blair's name.
In French slang, "blair" means "nose". In classical French, one says "Je ne peux pas le sentir" - I can't smell him. In German, it is the same (schmecken).

Charles and Frank used the word "décallé" - if it is derived from French, it should be spelled "décalé". I didn't find this word either with one "l" or with double "l" in my king size Webster's (1989 edition, purchased in Dallas, Tx...)

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

A presenter on France-Inter says there must be some reason why the British move away, especially to France. There are, of course, tax dodgers and VAT (TVA) dodgers, and young adventurers, but in the main they are retired, and France is cheap for property. It is also cheap for booze and food and wine are beyond compare. The extraordinary thing is that when the Brits went on their package tours to Spain there was a saying by Spaniards: "We go to your country to work. You come to my country to play." Sarko recentlly visited London seeking votes from the 400,000 French there. They went there to work, free of French bureauccracy and other barriers to starting a business. Imagine it: "We come to your country to work. You go to my country to retire and rest!" British Francophiles would never go to Benidorm or the Costas and parents who sell up in England want their children to speak French and get an education often denied them in England, as French teachers demand results. Few Brits go to France to find work. An English girl with a Nantes degree tried 30 firms in SW France and had to return to England. A Belgian girl tried for 20 jobs and was told: "Why don't you try Portugal?" "Why should I?" she demanded. "Because you are Belgian, and you will not get a job in France."

[Sam Young]

I don't get this perpetual debate between the Anglo-Saxon model and the French model. Is it all just for good fun? In France, there is lots of talk of the suburbs. And how about the leafy suburbs of London, home to all those thousands of French people who go to London to work. If Dominique and others wish to continue with their head in the sand, then good for them. People like him will never change their minds. Their kids will leave the country. That's all. Then, when over visiting them, Dominique can tell them that they would be better off back in France. And like their Dad, they won't listen.

[christopher muir]

Dominique, As I mentioned in a previous post, it can be expected that there will be complaints about the inevitable impact of extended French working hours. Some upwardly mobile professionals will relish the extra pay as a consequence, but eventually a realisation that not having to be hooked up to a computer and mobile phone twenty-four hours a day for work messages does have advantages. Think of Asian time zones as an example of a potential for interrupted sleep. Pastimes - like reading novels - become quite a luxury, but in the end it's productivity that counts. Or so the theory goes. Ultimately, there's nothing like a healthy balance between work and play. Le 24/7 has its drawbacks.

[Ros]

Personally, I think Frank writes excellent english & I would like to be able to do the same in french - however, this is neither here nor there - when Mr Bremner used the word "décallé" , maybe he did put in an extra "l" but he wrote it in ITALICS to show that it was a french word which we poor Bloggers are unable to do as this page is not in html (surely The Times can do better?)
Probably the main interest in Blair's visit will be where they are going to dine ? Tour d'Argent perhaps but Blair has probably already visited all the best Paris restaurants!

[1400]

Dominique,

You mention that the civil service creates wealth. Could you please expand?

Thank you,
1400.

[Ros]

I cannot understand why there are certain articles by Mr Bremner on The Times website and not in this Blog - I've just read one about Sarkozy called "Why all this fuss"?
It was very very amusing & I like to have a laugh in the morning - e.g. a paragraph called "Sarko l'Américain" (no insult to anyone but just simply funny) - one remark = "In his free time he affects an American look, wearing Ralph Lauren and a near-permanent pair of RayBan sunglasses " !!!

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

So Blair means "nose" in French slang, and smell in German is schmetter. Ah, the beauty of language. An Englishman boasts that butterfly is a most beautiful word, but the Frenchman says papillon is much more beautiful. The Spaniard says that mariposa is even more musical and elegant. The German, annoyed, says: "Oh? And what about ein schmetterling?"

[Frank Schnittger]

1) so what?
2) so what?
3) so what?

GDP is no criteria for wealth. Can we talk about serious subjects such as health, obesity, life duration, time spent at work versus time spent with family, sunshine, the beaches, the Alps etc?...

Posted by: Dominique | 11 May 2007 22:35:16

Of course we can talk about all these wonderful things Dominique, but you are changing the subject, aren't you, having failed to justify your own assertion that the civil service creates as much wealth as it consumes.

And the answer to the question is that you can enjoy all those wonderful things because other people are paying for it - by producing goods and services which generate income for France and the tax base to fund your luxuries.

But instead of thanking them, treating them respectfully, and proving them with efficient and courteous public services you show your contempt by saying WHO CARES? (A bit like Marie Antoinettes – “let them eat cake?”)

And the answer to that question is: THEY DO - THE TAXPAYERS working in the real economy who have to succeed in the world marketplace you hold in such contempt.

They are funding your lifestyle with their taxes to such an extent that they cannot enjoy the same level of luxury because much of their hard earned wealth goes to pay for your luxuries.

But you are insulated and cosseted from that real world because you are paid even for providing a poor, inefficient service by force of law.

The reality is France is a class society where one class – the Civil Service – rides on the back of the other (the free market sector) – and keeps whipping it to work harder. But the one thing the free riders won’t do is get off peoples backs so they can live freer and more productive (and yes, leisurely and more comfortable) lives.

And the reason you hold those working in the free market in such contempt is because they are fool enough to fund you and allow you to make their lives a misery by countless bureaucratic demands that add no value to the quality of either their lives or work

And the reason you are so afraid of Sarkozy is that he might dare to stop this oppression and force you to work productively for a living. Oh the horror!

[Frank Schnittger]

Thanks for the compliment Ros. TYPEPAD does allow italics and bold text and also the insertion of URLs. Also the annoying CAPTCHA heiroglyphic we are required to fill in before our comment is posted is optional. However these are all options/functionalities which are set by the Moderator. (If you you don't know how to set these options, Charles, then Michael Morgan of the Timesonline technical staff will be able to do it for you).

[Robert Marchenoir]

Charles, could you explain one day what makes you write that Ségolène Royal admires Blair? Did you discuss the man when you interviewed her at length?

It seems to me that the few pro-blairite noises she made early on were quickly forgotten, and that all she said afterwards squarely contradicted them.

Also, "Blair" or "England" is an ambiguous yardstick for a French politician.

If you admire Blair, which side of him do you like?

The son of Thatcher, who has no qualms about free enterprise, and tries hard to attract wealth to his country? Or the nanny-state enforcer, who keeps a large number of his people afloat with social allowances and invests heavily in public employment?

The leader of a country wich has very little unemployment thanks to liberal policies, or the father of Asbos, political correctness gone mad and CCTV all over the place?

I have an uneasy feeling that what Ségolène likes in the man, if anything, is rather the second part of the equation.

This fundamental misunderstanding is easy to prove. Discuss the British health system with your typical French left-winger.

Aha! he goes: here is the proof that free-market theories do not work. Witness these poor British, queuing up for months outside their hospitals with their guts in their hands. Witness the cruelty of the capitalist jungle.

Forgetting all along that the National Health Service is, well, national, built on a 100% state model, infinitely less liberal than the French health system where doctors are self-employed and hospitals are, to a significant extent, private.

And that, if its sorry state proves anything, it is that socialism does not work, not the other way round.

[Maggie G]

Great message to Dominique, Frank. Waiting to see how he'll answer this time.

You and Robert are the two best contributers to this blog, in my opinion -- always clear and informative. I've learned a lot from reading you two. I also like Valentin's posts.

[terry]

Frank did leave out one other troubling detail in his brilliant analysis of the civil servant. Raises. Raises in the private sector are given on merit. In the public sector, they are guaranteed based on years of service.

Dominique is a teacher. I don't know if he is a public or private school teacher. (Public school teachers are civil servants, Dom) Teachers also have a tendency, like civil servants, to collectively immunize themselves from the marketplace and competition. And then they sneer at private sector, as Frank has noted and Dominique has proven.

Maybe teachers really do want to teach kids. On the other hand, maybe they just can't compete in the real world and want to lord it over ten year olds.

[Dominique]

Franck,

Sorry for the word "logorhea" as it is probably one ofthese "faux-amis". In french, "logorrhée" means a flow of useless words. It does not mean that they are badly written. I would never dare writting anything like this on an eglish blog, neither would I on a french blog. Sorry for that

I was talking of the endless rhethoric on what you call "public sector oligarchy ". This is a well known ideology "down with the state" wich we are getting tired of.

Yes, public service creates wealth. For exemple,

having an army creates wealth for a country,
hospital create wealth,
education create wealth,
schools create wealth,
police creates wealth,
freeways create wealth,
trains create wealth,
electricity creates wealth, protection of the environmet creates wealth,
building swimming pools create wealth,
clubs of football for children create wealth,
public health policy creates wealth

etc...

I think i do not need to go beyond that do I?

On the contrary, i would like to know what wealth comes from : junkfood for children,
violent video games for children,
etc...

do i need to go further?

I can't either help myself telling you about Johnny Halliday's wife who claimed this morning that "working more than 50% of the time for the state is unacceptable!". If only she had worked one single day for it, we would have noticed! What a shame. She does not even notice that she just does not work at all. It is like Paris Hilton explaining what the tax policy should be with the "absolution" of Sarkozy with whom she had dinner at the Fouquet's on Sunday night. I am sorry to say that she is the one you should compare to Marie Antoinette famous "let them eat cake".

Alain Finkelkraut (not known for being a leftist) wrote yesterday in Le Monde that he was ashamed of the first 3 days of our new president. And i do agree with him.

So the civil servants are all to blame according to you. badly paid, often children of immigrants or ethnic minority who had the opportunity to pass the "blind concours" allowing them to get a job without having to face the humiliation of discrimination as compared to the private sector the just "chooses" people on their own will, never clearly saying why they choose him or she. So they are the ones to blame of course.

Not Bolloré and his "pavillon de complaisance" cheating with the french and european laws, claiming his has no contract with the state, eventhough he does (we know it thank's to the press),not Johnny's wife complaining that she has to pay taxes eventhugh she never spent a single minute doing anything.

"They are funding your lifestyle with their taxes to such an extent that they cannot enjoy the same level of luxury because much of their hard earned wealth goes to pay for your luxuries."

Please note that I am not a civil servant, that i pay a lot of taxes (yes i do...!) and that pay for civil servants wealth. And i am glad to. I believe in something called "interet commun". I am not sure this word exists in english, as Mrs Thatcher said once that for her, the society does not exist.

By the way, why should'nt civil servant enjoy life? Is it reserved for Johnny's wife & corrupted friends?

"The reality is France is a class society where one class – the Civil Service – rides on the back of the other (the free market sector)"

You obviously have no clue of how things are handeled here. So, the nurse working at night and cleaning up people in hospitals for 1000€ are the upper class? I am afraid it is actually Johnny's wife who is riding on the poor's back when she avoids paying her tax eventhough all the money she gets comes from the french "taxpayers".

So we need to accept what you call the "real world" and stop trying to organize? What is politics for then? Rubbish? stop voting! just do what your told, don't even think of doing differently! It's globalization, it's the world, you can do nothing!

The very purpose of politics, and of a state, is to try to organize things so that the "rule of law" replaces the "rule of the strong". We disagree on that point.

[D.Strohl]

Dominique,

"Johnny's wife & corrupted friends" - do you know them in person and do you have hard evidence to support your affirmations?

A wealthy person "de droite" is not automatically a dishonest (corrupted) person and a poor person is not automatically a saint, even if he or she is "de gauche".

Let me add a commentary regarding globalization : yes, one can do something against it but not with the "ligne Maginot" mentality and associated brilliant rhetoric, but with hard work and a good school system (have a look at the "brilliant" results we got in the PISA studies a few years ago, compared for instance with the Dutch which have similar immigration problems and which got much better results with less money spent per capita); of course, some unions (especially the CGT)should understand what the common interest is instead of trying to lure "customers" out of their competitors ranks with unrealistic demands to the employers, state included. Of course, some employers should also try to look a little bit further than the tip of their nose (or "blair"), which is directly connected to their wallet...

[Valentin]

Dominique said:
"You obviously have no clue of how things are handeled here. So, the nurse working at night and cleaning up people in hospitals for 1000€ are the upper class?"

I suspect Franck wasn't speaking about nurses. It is especially the administration, SNCF and EDF people that behave as if it is not them in the service of the country, but the other way around. Who dealt with the French administration knows what it means: behaving as if they're above everybody, all powerful Representatives of the State, treating the "administered" like underclass - a perfect example of the much-touted equality...

Let alone the teachers. A TV program comparing French and British teachers showed the French ones as arrogant, complaining, refusing all improvement, refusing work, often on sick days (payed by the dear social security of course - that is, our taxes). The same attitude at EDF or SNCF. Why? Because of their lifetime guaranteed jobs (=> "we can do whatever we like, no one can touch us") and the power to block the country.

[terry]

Dominique:

Your purpose for the state may be to "organize" things. The main role of any free state is to protect life, liberty and property. Not to "organize" things. People who go into public service aren't usually very good "organizers". That's why they are not in the private sector.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Thank you, Maggie G. I also find Frank's posts illuminating and wise.

[Sandrine]

Bravo Dominique !!! Well said... I always appreciate your posts, compared to those of some people who clearly despise the French.

I won't even try to say anything on this post as I'm a civil servant. Thanks for trying to defend us, but on this blog, it's clearly impossible ! According to people here, the civil servants are all useless and lazy in France, not need to say more. Whatever you'll say will be wrong. No matter what.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"I believe in something called 'intérêt commun'. I am not sure this word exists in English."

Dominique, if you want people to pay attention on an English blog, avoiding to insult the 380 million-odd who speak the language might be a good start.

As an equivalent of "intérêt commun", what about "the common benefit, protection, and security of the people"?

As in: "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

(Bill of Rights of the constitution of Virginia, 1776)

Alternatively, you could try "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

As in: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

(Declaration of Independance of the United States of America, 1776)

I could also suggest "general welfare".

As in: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(Prologue to the Constitution of the United States, 1787)

Please note that all these great English texts predate the French Revolution of 1789.

You obviously do not realize how much French arrogance is disliked worldwide.

[Ros]

I think one could safely translate "interet commun" by "public interest" - but not sure of course!

[Dominique]

Robert,

Who is arrogant?

I was not talking of America. I was talking of Mrs Thacher in the 80's.

Stop thinking it's all about america. Please note that the word "english" is not the same as "american". Not all english speakers are american!
Open up!

PS : even some french people speak english! (how arrogant indeed! how do they dare?)

As for being "open", i wish more englishnative speakers were able to talk foreign languages, that would allow them to open their mind and think differently.

Really, in today's world, who is closed to others'ideas? lefties or liberals?

[Sherry]

Dominique,

I can understand your frustration with the constant criticisms made here towards the current French system. Having lived in France for several years, I, for one, agree with many of the assertions people make here, but that's my point of view, you're entitled to yours.

However, it's completely unacceptable to assert as you did in your post that we have no word to represent 'interet commun' in English. That's a downright insult to all those in the UK, US, and other English speaking countries that work everyday to tackle societal issues. How about all the non-profits/ngos, think tanks, as well as government officials (yes civil servants, we have them too) that have devoted their life to this? Perhaps you should actually spend some substantive abroad before drawing these ridiculous conclusions...

And as for the rich, yes you have money grubbing fools out there. But you also have lots of wealthy people around the world who give generously (financially and their time) to tackle the many of the world's issues - Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Sir Richard Branson, just to name a few.

On the topic of discrimination, another ridiculous assertion. One should work to fight discrimination, not vilify the entire private sector because it occurs. Last time I checked, there's quite a bit of discrimination in the public sector as well, particularly in its leadership (as Ségo pointed out numerous times - have you forgetten about les elephants?). In fact, the private sector dedicates a lot of effort, time, and money to create more 'diverse' working environments (particularly in US and UK). It's not perfect, but for goodness sake acknowledge that we have come a pretty long way from where we were even 10-15 yrs ago!

[Frank Schnittger]

Thank you, Dominique, for your apology and for a considered response. Please be assured that I never take personal offence from things written about me on blogs, and neither do I intend any of my remarks to be taken personally.

I do however disagree very fundamentally with your economic ideas which are contrary to both classical and Marxist economics.

Take, for instance your contention that various public services such as armies, police, hospitals etc. create wealth. In both Classical Economic and Marxist terms these are deemed to be part of the “Superstructure” of the state. They provide necessary services but are not part of the “means of production” which generate wealth. They have to be paid for out of the surplus generated by the productive processes in society.

An army, for instance, only creates wealth for a state if it plunders the wealth of other states – as in colonisation – but it does not actually create that wealth itself, it plunders it from others.

Police forces and health services are necessary for the “intérêt commun” as you say – which translates in English political theory as “the Common Good” – but they are a net cost to society in terms of the resources they consume.

You are confusing the terms value and wealth. I’m am not saying that public services have no value – they clearly can contribute a lot to the common good – but that they are cost which must be borne rather than a net source of wealth to society.

What is at issue here is not whether such services are necessary, but how well and how efficiently they are provided. In other words, what is the value for money they provide: How well are they managed in terms of the quality of services provided and the cost of providing them.

In the free market sector value for money is assured by competition. If a Company provides poor quality goods or services at exorbitant costs it will soon go out of business and be replaced by more efficient firms.

There is no comparable discipline imposed within the public sector because there is effectively very little competition. Thus a Government organisation which provides poor services at exorbitant cost can carry on indefinitely. Further, there is no incentive for the management and workers to provide a better service for lower costs.

I have known Government departments to actively resist efficiency improvements because that would reduce their budget allocation in the next round of Government spending.

The problem is particularly severe in heavily unionised environments because the job of a union is to improve the benefits of their members, not the services to the general public.

I have also known public service employees to be reprimanded by their peers for working too hard, or providing to good a service, because that would show up their co-workers as lazy and unproductive by comparison.

But the problem is not with the existence of Unions or Lazy workers per se: the problem is a systemic one. There is no incentive within the system for individuals and groups and organisational groups to produce better services at less cost.

What is currently happening in Europe is that the free market sector is having to become hugely more efficient in order to compete with China and India etc., but there is no comparable pressure for the public sector to become more efficient.

And the reason why the free market sector frequently can’t compete with China or India (despite access to superior technology etc.) is because the free market sector in Europe is much more heavily taxed than in any other part of the world – because it has to support a very costly and inefficient public sector – when compared to public sectors elsewhere in the world.

The ultimate outcome will be that either the Free Markey sector in Europe will go bust – and then there will be no source of wealth for the public sector to tax – or the quality and range of public services will have to be drastically cut, or else the efficiency with which those services are provided will have to be amazingly improved.

That is the challenge facing all advanced European countries. Either we dramatically improve the efficiency with which our public services are provided or there will have to be huge cutbacks in services, or, worse still, a complete melt down in our economies.

France is teetering on the edge of this crisis. Future pensions cannot be paid unless there is a huge improvement in the competitiveness of the French Economy as a whole – and that includes the competitiveness of the free market sector and the taxes it has to pay to the public sector.

The problem is that the free market sector realises this – but public sector employees do not. They continue to think and act as if the world owes them a comfortable living no matter how inefficient they are. They are in for a very rude awakening. Those who say “Who cares?” today may have no state pension tomorrow because the French economy will not be able to bear the cost .

The issue of Bolloré and Johnny Halliday is a complete “red herring” or irrelevance to this debate. Of course there is another class of the super rich who are internationally mobile and who can invest their capital and pay their taxes wherever they want. You can hate them all you like, but they will simply invest their money elsewhere.

I have written on previous blogs here how stupid Sarkozy was to allow himself to be linked to this jet set because it gives the impression that symbolically, this is a battle between the super rich and the relatively much poorer French workers – in both the public and private sectors.

This is the myth the French left are trying to perpetuate, and it used to be largely true. However in today’s Globalised world,. wealth will simply go where it can obtain the best return on its investment, and that, today, isn’t in France.

And if you think France can reverse Globalisation you are living in cloud cuckoo land…..The only question is whether it drags much of the rest of Europe down with it in a vain attempt to do so. Even the Common Agricultural Policy, which used to protect farmers from world competition, is being dismantled. The costs are simply unsustainable.

Competition in the world economy is preferable to war. But the consequences of losing competitiveness could be almost as drastic as losing a war.

[Valentin]

Robert is going a bit far on the common interest, Dominique is just being polemical on the anglo-saxon individualism as opposed to European social-ism.
Also, there sometimes are no English equivalents for French expressions, as is the case the other way around.Pointless to feel insulted.
(this is for Rocket too, you need to realize English is not our mothertongue, it is not easy and should stop mocking our sometimes simplistic formulations).

People here are not against public workers or public services, no one said they're lazy and useless. But there are too many public workers, they have too many advantages and benefits and tend to consider themselves untouchable.
No one says there should be no public services, but that they need less employees and they should not be used to block the country whenever Monsieur Thibaud decides with his PC mates.

Holland or Germany efficientized (sorry Robert for torturing your mothertongue :)) their public services, use much less workers (who are more professional and respectful) and deliver the same quality.

[Robert Marchenoir]

"According to people here, the civil servants are all useless and lazy in France, not need to say more. Whatever you'll say will be wrong. No matter what." (Sandrine)

How about: "As a civil servant, I am dedicated enough to the common good [another possible translation of 'intérêt commun' which works equally well in England and America, Dominique] not to mistake criticism of the civil service organization with personal attacks on its members; I am mature enough to acknowledge that a system conducive to waste and laziness might be faulty, regardless of the character of its members; and as a civil servant, I am the first to criticize vigorously the civil service faults, because I believe that the civil service is primarily at the service of the people as a whole and not of civil servants themselves; therefore, I do not feel despised or personally attacked when someone criticizes the civil service in front of me; on the contrary, I am glad he is as concerned as myself by its proper management and consequences on the people's welfare; and I joyfully enter into an earnest discussion with him, without childish posturing about being despised and misunderstood by everybody"?

I gaurantee you that most people would agree with you if you said that.

Strangely enough, we practically never hear that tune from French civil servants, on blogs or anywhere else.

All we hear is the age-old vilification of its opponents by the French Left: if you do not agree with our political views, it is because you hate us and because you are morally flawed.

This old trick, Sandrine, does not work any more. Make no mistake: it is one of the most important meanings of Sarkozy's election.

The French have realized, at last, that this is was a scam organized by the Left to try and keep its power, moral, intellectual, political and financial (yes).

It is all over now. This is a shift of historical significance. The sooner you realize it, the better off you will be.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Valentin, you have absolutely no need to apologize, especially about my mother tongue: I am French.

[Peter Mason]

I'd suggest that the nearest English language term to 'interet commun' would be the old term commonwealth ('commonweal' a few centuries back). Originally this meant "the common good"/"the good of society" and as such became incorporated into the names of "English" political entities such as Cromwell's republic, New England states e.g,. Massachusetts, and the Australian federal government.

Dominique, I'm not sure why you abused Robert Marchoir for responding on 'interet commun'; you clearly said that you didn't know whether there was an equivalent term in English, not England. As an English speaker he duly gave you examples familiar to him. If you'd intended your comment to be anti-English then you should have phrased it to be clearly so.

In your reply to Frank on how the public sector contributes to wealth, were you suggesting a Keynesian contribution to wealth or or some more ethereal 'measurement'?

Some-one commented upon the number of Britons emigrating, this exodus is a continuation of a process started in the 16th century and most go to countries which are English-speaking with an Anglo-Saxon culture. Emigration to France, for example, tends to be retirees seeking low cost housing and is offset by immigration to the UK from, mainly young, Frenchmen and women. I'm not sure if any comparative data is available but from subjective data I'd suggest that prior to the1970's many of these retirees would have emigrated to English-speaking countries as well but changes in policy in countries such as Australia and New Zealand have reduced the possibility for this hence the adoption of a 'plan B' ...to retire to France, Spain and so on.

[Dominique]

Sherry says : " In fact, the private sector dedicates a lot of effort, time, and money to create more 'diverse' working environments (particularly in US and UK)"

Sherry,

This is a blog about France. I am sure the UK and US private sector do a lot to fight discrimination. But i am writting about the french private sector that very often only hires the people they know well. That is called here the "réseau", and is also well known with an english word : the networking.

Of course this is not a "discrimination revendiquée comme telle" (discrimination heralded as such...sorry for thepoor english), but it leads to the same : when you hire only the one you heard of, you just don't hire the one you never heard of.

As opposed to the public service where people are hired through a blind concours, without knowing either their name or their skin color.

As for people that are shocked when I say "Johnny Hallyday's wife & crrupted friends", i would say that i don't know them personly of course. I just read the news and see that they are friends of Sarko : How do you call making gifts to people that are in a position of giving it back through their use of power? We have a word : "tentative de corruption"

More, the Yacht does not belong to Bolloré. It belongs to the bolloré group, selling several tousends of euros a night. Same for the plane. Same for the Fouquet's : it is not someone's second home. It is a hotel in witch one needs to pay for spending a night in.

So, when the press says that he was "invited" by his friends, this is wrong. Some friends of him made gifts of more than 100 000€. They are using their industrial group for their friends. That goes against the french law and we do have a word for that : "abus de bien social".

So, i don't know them personnaly, i just see what they do.

As for Terry,

You may think that the private sector is good at organizing things, but i don't. The private sector is good at making money, wich is very different indeed.

[Sherry]

Dominique,

Yes, I am quite aware that this is a blog about France. However, you're the one who regularly uses (negative) examples of what transpires in other countries (namely the US and UK) justify your points of view, countries which I have been yet to be convinced that you really know anything about.

And I work in France in the private sector and actually know quite a bit about what's going on here vis-à-vis discrimination. You're absolutely right about the problems here concerning discrimination due to the 'closed system'. However, instead of whining about it, there are many people here who are starting to push to change it. There are numerous women's networks (réseaux - of which I am in a couple), increasing numbers of 'minority' organisations (even given the anti-communitarisme sentiment and laws here), ngos etc that are working to change the system here. Unfortunately, your biggest problem seems to be a lack of will to change the things that you correctly point out as problems. It seems you've conceded that this is just how things are and how they will always be. Well, I suppose for some it's just easier to vilify all those 'evil capitalists', rather than to do the hard-work of helping to address the problems here...

And btw, I'm one of those 'rare' as you'd call us Anglophones who also speaks french - I believe réseau is network in english not networking ;-)

[Shiranai]

I don't understand how the survival of the fittest (liberalism) can be seen as a new world... It's the oldest natural law in this universe. So what is new about that?
Can someone explain that to me??

[Maggie G]

Dominique,

Sorry to be picky, and also to be referring to this particular post when you've done several since.

You say that Johnny Halliday's wife claimed that "working more than 50% of the time for the state is unacceptable!".

And then you say, "If only she had worked one single day for it, we would have noticed! What a shame. She does not even notice that she just does not work at all."

What is the connection? It's like the mailman saying, "Five euros for a baguette is too much!" and the bricklayer replying "And the baker's wife wasn't even in the shop this morning."

So what if the baker's wife wasn't in the shop. Five euros is still too much for a baguette. And so what if Johnny's wife doesn't work. Handing over sixty percent of your income to the taxman is still unacceptable.

You'll have to come up with better reasoning than this, Dominique, if you want to score points.

Also, you have not been very consistant lately. You are the man who famously said, "What does cheating the idiot taxpayer have to do with being a good president? All presidents do not cheat, but good ones do."

Now you say to Sherry, "So we should accept corruption at the top and not complain?"

And you said to Frank, "The very purpose of politics, and of a state, is to try to organize things so that the "rule of law" replaces the "rule of the strong".

And you said to someone else that Sarkozy would have been fired if he had been elected in Sweden, because in Sweden ministers get fired if they don't pay for their own meals.

And you were so concerned about Sarkozy's 'free' holiday on a billionaire's yacht that you corrected the person who said it was 'at no cost to the public purse', replying that it was at no IDENTIFIED cost to the public purse.

Yet you still insisted to Rocket the other day that you saw nothing "immoral" or "corrupt" in Mitterrand
paying for a luxury appartment for his lover and secret daughter (for many years) out of taxpayers' money 'a leur insu' (behind their backs).

(By the way, Mr Bremner, is this a true story, or is it just rumour? There are so many rumours circulating about Sarkozy, which many people take to be gospel truth, that it has started me wondering if it is not the same with some of the stories about Mitterrand.)

It makes no difference here if the story is true or false, the point is that Dominique saw nothing wrong with it.

So what's going on Dominique? Are you wishy-washy and inconsistant? Or have some of the people on this blog managed to influence you, and change your position on presidents and cheating?

Wow! What a thought! All the efforts are beginning to bring results! Dominique has changed some of his whacky theories!

Bring out the champagne!

[Maggie G]

Another super posting from Frank. Surely even Dominique will not be able to find fault with such beautiful clear reasoning.

But he will! Never fear, Dominique will tear it to pieces.

But ever so slowly, ever so surely, Dominique is being convinced.

Thank-you, Frank!

[Valentin]

I think it would be useful to take into account the particularities of France. I know this can get of some bloggers' nerves, still the exception française does exist and when we debate French politics, doing it from an exclusively anglo-saxon viewpoint can skew perspective.

France is particularly sensitive to topics like social sufferance, social justice and the sort. Sarkozy turned his whole discourse to the left before the 2nd round, repeating "I will leave no one in the gutter" to exhaustion.
To this kind of argument, often carried to downright victimization, *no* reasoning can resist. French will declare they would happily pay 90% of their income so that there be no "plus-démunis" left.
Replying that this is demagogic or hypocritical or economic suicide is beside the point.

Another idiosyncrasy is the reading between-the-lines. From my experience, French are obsessed with being overtaken by someone or by some event. They always try to anticipate and outsmart one another. The rat race Ros was speaking about exists in France too, only in a very different shape.
The result is that *everything* is over-interpreted and searched for possible hidden intentions. I for one never met such hairsplitting people before in my life.
Therefore when someone speaks of need of efficient public services, public employees will understand that they are judged as inefficient, therefore lazy, therefore useless and so disposable. This kind of reasoning (may someone contradict me) is automatic in a French mind. Hence the overreactions you've witnessed.
Criticizing the way we do here - in the anglosaxon way - is simply not done in France.
The liberties of language and manner that Sarkozy takes are for many completely unacceptable. If he says those things out loud, what will he DO when in office ! Heaven help us!
Going out on a yacht when he was supposed to ponder in solitude on the burden of the Presidency is sheer provocation (and I suspect actually a voluntary one) and for less than that people took it to the streets in the past.

Overinterpretting, continuously reading between the lines, overprotecting and turning social to emotional, is how things are done here. Individualism à l'anglosaxonne is seen as egocentrism and asociability (and the truth probably is somewhere in-between). Money and obvious materialism is mauvais goût (which does not mean people don't appreciate nice houses or BMWs while voting left).
Judging France in an anglosaxon way is pointless, things which to us seem obvious, common sense, self-evident truths comme disait l'autre, are looked at here from a very different perspective, which is not necessarily archaic, or even outdated.
(and I must say the exact same goes for Holland, for instance - I heard some very stunned comments from american expats there)
Not taking these into account will make it a very nice debate between us here and clarify things for ourselves but lose an important part of the connection with French reality.
Those tempted to say there is no such thing, let them be assured they are wrong, probably because they never experienced it.

Finally, Dominique is right about Sweden, a politician using a billionnaire's yacht would be out the door the next day, as this kind of stunts rarely come for free.
What reassures me a little is that Sarkozy did it openly, so I hope there really is nothing to hide.

[Dominique]

Dear all,

Please note that I am very flattered to see you all commenting my views. It’s an honour!

Sherry,

"Unfortunately, your biggest problem seems to be a lack of will to change the things that you correctly point out as problems"

I was at start defending public service against those who claim that civil servant are pressuring the poor tax payers. So I was just showing that the blind concourse is at least not discriminating as opposed to the private sector selection. I never said that we should not do anything. I really wonder where you saw that. It is really like saying “the sky is blue” and being blamed for not saying “the sky is not red”. Please also note that “réseau” is “network”, but the mechanism of meeting people and trying to be known by as much people as possible is identified in French as “ faire du networking”.

Franck,

“And if you think France can reverse Globalisation you are living in cloud cuckoo land…..”.
I never said that France can reverse globalisation. Globalisation is a fact and France, like any other country needs to adapt to it. But if you think that adapting to globalisation means getting rid of the state and public services, then I believe you are wrong. Globalization is a mechanism that escapes to people’s and democratic will. It is like the weather I would say. It is a mechanism that is making fun of laws and habits. So either you adapt to it by giving power back to elected representatives, either you don’t and you just send democracy to the cemetery. We are in some way in the same situation as when the nation state was not invented. We need to re-invent it as it is the only frame for democracy. Aren’t you surprised that, nowadays, unelected people such as Bill Gates or Bill Clinton can do more than the elected people actually in charge? This to me is the first step to the destruction of democracy.

“Competition in the world economy is preferable to war. But the consequences of losing competitiveness could be almost as drastic as losing a war”
Of course, I believe the very opposite : Competition in the world economy always leads to war (See WW1 and WW2). And the consequences of agreeing with international social standards could be almost as successful as avoiding a war

The “intéret commun” : I am sorry I wrote this too quickly. I meant “intéret general”. Linguists, back to your dictionaries! ;=))

Robert,

How nice of you to rewrite Sandrine’s view according to what you think. Unfortunately for you, you can not control other’s brains. As Ségolène said during her dabat against Sarko : “laissez moi choisir moi meme mes propos”. You then end up with an incredible “people would agree if you said that”. Of course you would agree if people were writing things you agree with. I am sorry you’ll have to deal with disagreements.

How about for you agreeing with : "As a private sector stakeholder, I am dedicated enough to the individual freedom not to mistake criticism of capitalism with personal attacks on its supporters; I am mature enough to acknowledge that a system conducive to waste and laziness might be faulty, regardless of the character of its members; and as a private sector stakeholder, I am the first to criticize vigorously the private sector faults, because I believe that the private sector is primarily at the service of Wall street; therefore, I do not feel despised or personally attacked when someone criticizes the private sector in front of me; on the contrary, I am glad he is as concerned as myself by its proper management and consequences on the people's welfare; and I joyfully enter into an earnest discussion with him, without childish posturing about being despised and misunderstood by everybody"?
Then, you’ll probably be able to start a discussion with the CGT.

Maggie,

Do not be sorry to be picky. I am very flattered. If you do not see the connexion between Johnny Halliday’s wife declaration and the fact that she never worked a single minute in her life, then I feel sorry for you but it just means we do not share the same values.

I do not get your point about Sarko being fired if he had been elected sweedish prime minister. I maintain it and see no contradiction with defending the rule of law. Also, I am not concerned about Sarko’s free holidays. I am concerned about the gifts he receives and when I write that it was at no IDENTIFIED cost to the public purse, I meant of course that it was at a cost that was NOT IDENTIFIED YET. As once again about Mitterand, I maintain that the duty of the Republique is to protect it’s president from lobbies’s pressure and possible blackmail so he can not be bought. It is obvious that Sarko already has a huge debt.

wishy-washy and inconsistant? Up to you, I do not mind.

Dominique
I'm admiring you, clashing swords (almost alone and with "panache"!) against that noisy flow of worshippers of Smith (you know, the guy on the back of the £20 note). They believe that's their duty's to spread their holy faith in the "Invisible Hand"... Kierkegaard used to say that "In any attempt to build a system of proofs of the existence of god by a believer, a non-believer will just see a muddle of axioms and vicious circles"
AFAIC, I'm fed up with those cliches in US, UK (and some french) press about a vanishing France, those lazy frogs, their long vacations, their overweighted public services and so on.

Work productivity: France is second in the world slightly behind Denmark, before UK and USA.
France: 4d exporter after US, Germany, Japan and before UK
Foreign investment in France: € 88.4 billion. 3d after US and Japan (What the hell would all those US and worldwide investors do in an “economically dying France”? Are they so stupid? )
More?
Overweighted public sevices?
SNCF (As they say in USA: "French have bullet-trains, we have just bullets")
No, I won't be nasty, I won't say anything about french trains to an UK's audience.
Just read http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF, you'll find the digits
EDF: 640 TWh (22% of EU production)
Health services:
“France has the best healthcare system of the world” World Health Organization.
Life expectancy: Male: 76 / Female: 83 per 1000 (US 75/80, UK 76/81)
Child Mortality: M: 4 / F: 3 per 1000 (US 8/7, UK 6/5)
Want more? Read it by yourself:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/5/4/113029/9034

Regards

[D.Strohl]

Dominique,

I am the "people" who is "shocked" by your way of denouncing (rich) persons only because they are rich and have made "gifts" to "friends" - in your opinion, this is "tentative de corruption" and "abus de bien social".

These wealthy persons are quite lucky that you are not (or are you?) a judge, otherwise they would possibly find themselves right away "en détention provisoire" (temporary detention) for 2 to 3 years - the time needed to collect evidence, if any.

Luckily, France is still "un état de droit" (state governed by law)) and even self-promoted righteous judges like you (still) have to prove with hard evidence what they believe to be the truth. And this takes time and efforts, at least in France.

In other countries, justice is more expeditious (sorry, "fast"), for instance in China, as we were duly taught by Ms Royal in her usual haughty manner some time ago. It is a pure coincidence, but I watched a part of a documentary film on TV (Arte? - I am not sure) this evening, about women prisoners in China. If the accommodation seemed to be all right (for a prison), the poor girls are clearly submitted to a permanent brain washing, which the (invisible) censors did not really try to camouflage.

This is not the type of society most of Charles' readers here are dreaming of. And I may safely assume that you will join our group, at least on that particular matter. With other matters, this "convergence" seems to be more difficult ...

[OSM]

It is undemocratic, unpatriotic, and immoral for trade unions and civil servants to take a country hostage like they do so often in France. The French used to stand in solidarity with many of their petitions but it is becoming increasingly clear that the general public is fed up with outrageous union and civil service demands that no ordinary worker in France would expect to gain.
These people are to serve, not blackmail La Republique. I find it so interesting that fundamental change is only just when they are the ones demanding it.
Sarkozy is not an extremist, he is a pragmatist. The bottom line is that the large number of unemployed people in France could take these jobs and would be grateful for the generous pay and benefits that come along with them.
These strikes do nothing but harm the economy by making foreign investors more hesitant about doing business in France and by impedeing the work of the rest of the public. Vive Sarko.

[Sandrine]

Robert, je vais vous répondre en français parce que c'est plus facile pour moi.

Je fais partie de la jeune génération de fonctionnaires, (je le suis depuis un peu moins de 7 ans). Régulièrement avec les autres jeunes, nous discutons de la fonction publique en général et figurez-vous que nous souhaitons aussi qu'elle change ! Elle nous parait bien sclérosée et archaïque par certains côté (la notation par ex), nous souhaiterions aussi plus de facilité pour passer d'un ministère à un autre (donc privilégier la mobilité) si nous le souhaitons, sans avoir à passer par des commissions où nos dossiers sont systématiquement refusés... Et bien d'autres choses encore.

MAIS personne n'a souhaité engager une réforme pareille (c'est à dire en demandant l'avis des AGENTS et non celui des syndicats, qui à part parler du salaire sont incapables de voir autre chose). Je suis prête à ne pas avoir d'augmentation si on allège les "charges" abracadabrantes qui pèsent sur nous.

Cela étant, je pense qu'un bulldozer comme Sarko n'est pas la personne idéale pour faire cela. Je suis pour le changement, les fonctionnaires ne sont pas des moutons sous-diplomés qui la ferment (c'est fini, maintenant, même les catégories les plus basses sont plus diplomées qu'il y a 20 ans, c'est un fait). Mais dire que les fonctionnaires sont trop feignants et qu'ils coutent cher à la société (donc qu'ils ne foutent rien et nous bouffent notre pognon hein ??), ça me GONFLE vous ne pouvez pas savoir à quel point. J'en ai plus que marre des généralités à la c.. sur nous.

Les fonctionnaires ceci, les fonctionnaires cela, et bien sur, jamais rien de positif, alors après comment voulez-vous que je ne me sente pas agressée ???? Ici à Wash, nous avons voté le samedi, je suis venue BOSSER toute la journée pour donner un coup de main, je l'ai fait volontairement car cela m'intéressait. Je n'ai pas pu rester jusqu'au bout parce que je devais m'occuper de ma fille, mais j'ai des collègues qui ont bossé ce jour là (un samedi je le répète), de 8h du matin à minuit ! Et sans demander une quelconque augmentation, ni même une récupération. Et ce fut le cas dans le monde entier, à l'occasion du vote des Français de l'étranger...

C'était juste un exemple pour vous montrer que les fonctionnaires bossent et ne passent pas leur temps à se plaindre ou à pleurnicher comme vous semblez le penser.

Juste un peu de reconnaissance ne nous ferait pas de mal, je vous l'avoue !

[Ros]

"The “intéret commun” : I am sorry I wrote this too quickly. I meant “intéret general”. Linguists, back to your dictionaries" - to me this quote from Dominique is not important at all -the two expressions mean more or less the same thing. If one really wants to be pinicky go into the Bbc Radio Four Message Board (Word of Mouth) -once a thread is started there , they are so pedantic that it can go on for months, even years!!
Let's keep to the subject.

[Frank Schnittger]

Dominique to Frank - "But if you think that adapting to globalisation means getting rid of the state and public services, then I believe you are wrong."

If you think I said that, then you have not understood my post. What I did say was that you have to compete successfully if your are going to be able to afford to pay for good public services, and that also means providing them more efficiently and at more competitive costs (to the taxpayer).

And if you think you can avoid competition simply by agreeing to "international social standards" you are also very mistaken. You cannot wish away competition simply because you do not like it. Even a block as large as the EU has had to recognise that and is in the process of dismantling the CAP.

Valentin - I fully appreciate there are many "particularities of France". My problem is that some French seem to think that "exception française" is the ONLY exception in the world!

EVERY country is different and it is nonsense to speak of Anglo-Sanons as if they were a single homogenous entity. There is very little in common between Bush and Blair’s econmic and social policies for instance, even if they did make common cause (and a disastrous mistake) over Iraq.

Even a small country like Ireland (I am Irish) has pursued very different economic and social policies than either England or the US. So forgive me if I sometimes feel that those who keep going on about "exception française" are a little insular (and perhaps arrogant) in their approach.

France is not the only country that is different, and please stop treating everybody else as if they are all the same and adopt the same "anglo-saxon" individulaistic approach to life! These are clichés of the French imagination!

(For what it’s worth the examples of the French mentality you mention remind me very much of the Irish mentality of 30 years ago! I am not saying, by this, that they are outdated, simply that they are not unique to France!)

[Valentin]

"EVERY country is different and it is nonsense to speak of Anglo-Sanons as if they were a single homogenous entity. "

Every country is different, yet Anglo-saxons do form a distinctive category, as you will hear from any other nation in the world. Of course american, english, australian and irish are certainly not the same. They (you) do share however a certain set of mentalities, reflexes and axioms ("self-evident truths", I love this) that we call "anglo-saxon".
You surely realized your diamond-like logic has inspired much of my post. The point is that kind of logic best applies to countries that share the aforementioned Common Set. Culture and mentality change everything, it is why economists rarely make good politicians.
Denying the peculiarity of the French exception is just along my line above: it proves you didn't experience it yet.

As to us here, it suffices to see who's posting: english, american, irish, canadian and australian interested in France. Save Robert and Dominique, you don't see any French (exceptions like Sandrine and Christine confirm the rule).
Ergo, we really are a bunch of anglo-saxon types commenting much on the same line, individualism, free initiative, money is not shameful, small government and so on.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Frank Schnittger's posts describing the public sector certainly apply to that in the UK (and maybe Ireland), but are generalisations -although individual employee attitudes may correspond. I don't know how much he knows about the public sector in France but if it's similar to me it's limited.

However, Dominique is correct when he says that the French public sector creates wealth. The French Government owns the vast majority of EDF and that generates electricity for France, and which also sells abroad in the UK and Belgium (at least).
This creates wealth for France.
EDF, and therefore the French government also owns (private) electricity supply companies in the UK that used to be part of the the old state-owned electricity supply monolith, the CEGB.
The French Government also has a large share of EADS through SOGEDA, which manufactures Airbus and other Aerospace equipment.

I'm not sure if Frank and Dominque equally understand what each other means by 'wealth creation', in spite of the posts.
One test is if a 'public service' in France can be sold externally to a foreign nation to compete on level terms, and generate independent revenue for France. For example, EDF pass this test and so do EADS. Also, the French Health service has a record of providing British citizens with more timely and efficient treatment than the NHS. And for which the NHS has to pay. So that may pass as well.
Clearly, there are other French public services that could not meet such a test.

Frank identifies one of the principal problems with modern liberal democracies, the similarity of our public sectors in general with the totalitarian systems of the old USSR where the public sector owned 99% of the economy.
The one and only difference is that; in the USSR membership of the only political party - the communist party - was a prerequisite to most employment and certainly the top jobs.
To my knowledge membership of the PS is not (yet) a prerequisite to employment in the State Sector in France although I would guess it helps.
In Britain membership of the Labour party is commonplace in the public sector but not obligatory, although it certainly helps one's career especially if one is 'activist'.
And, of course, the Trade Union Council support the Labour party.
Whereas, I believe French trade unions may accomadate both political wings. For example, there are two Teacher trade unions at my daughter's Lycee in Pas de Calais. One for the left and one for the right. Needless to say the one for the left is much the largest of the two.

To protect against the kind of coup d'etat that Frank postulates the State share of the economy must be minimized. Ideally, the answer is to privatise everything. At one time even Tax Collection and Armies were privately run, so it is not impossible. Although, I suppose practicalities must be kept in mind....

[Denis in Paris]

Dominique wrote : "Competition in the world economy always leads to war (See WW1 and WW2)." This is an old Marxist cliché. Today, no self-respecting historian would try to blame WW1 on "competition in the world economy". A tragic combination of widespread nationalism (an ideology usually closer to protectionism than to free trade, by the way) and some poor diplomatic choices is the explanation. About WW2, the cliché is even more absurd : during the 30s, all countries were indulging in protectionism, and international trade (hence "competition in the world economy") was actually decreasing.

[Frank Schnittger]

"Ergo, we really are a bunch of anglo-saxon types commenting much on the same line, individualism, free initiative, money is not shameful, small government and so on." - Valentin

But I don't advocate individualism or small Government or money for its own sake! Does that make me French?

The lack of French participation here may have more to do with the fact that the Times is a British paper and few French feel proficient enough in English to argue their case with the refinement and sophistication which is their norm in French. French after all, used to be the languge of diplomacy!

[rocket]

Sandrine

"Bravo Dominique !!! Well said... I always appreciate your posts, compared to those of some people who clearly despise the French."

So if we diverge on our opinions about france we are French hating?

You sound like the cheering section down at the corner cafe

[rocket]

Valentin

"(this is for Rocket too, you need to realize English is not our mothertongue, it is not easy and should stop mocking our sometimes simplistic formulations)."

Then how are we supposed to know what some of the contributors are trying to say.

By a heavenly miracle?

By the way the only French person on this blog that I can't "pige" is Dominique and in the end I don't think it's a question of language.

[Emmanuel]

Alas, Dominique is the perfect example of Frenchman that illustrates the desastrous image of resistance to change.

I believe the previous election clearly demonstrate that we are not all the same.

First of all I do not disagree with all what was said by Dominique but I feel compeled to comment some of the opinons here in a more nuanced manner:

1. About hiring policies in French public and private sectors:

Dominique's assumption that hiring in private sector is done ONLY trough acquaintance and networking is flawed. Although this exists, a big chunk of recruitment is done on basis of competence otherwise business would fail;

Anonymous exams for public sector hiring is a nice tradition that was very efficent and relevent a couple of centuries ago when carrier did not need to be flexible but in the modern world, you cannot capture a position description and set it. New hiring mecanism such as recruitment by comitee are effecient remedies againtst "piston".

My wife works for the public sector but with a private sector contract (contractuel). Basically, these contractels bears the flexibility for all other civil servants.

2. About the French Exception

This one has been overplayed a lot however, there is indeed a French point of view about things. I believe the biggest difference between French and let us say full blown liberalism is that we do feel that the worlds needs to be organised by the public States. We do believe that public intervention is necessary in criitical issues such as energy, transportation, etc. We believe that private sector is unable to sustain long term projects that are critical to our future wealth or even survival.

One good example of that is Gallieo that was handed to a private consorsium and that EC needs to restart projetc on public funding.

A liberal approach, on the same topic would say that nationalism of the involved actors prevented the free market to works properly. We have a different reading.

The other obvious example is Eurotunnel. French would say that private sector CANNOT fund and control such an heavy and long term project. A liberal Englishman would have a different reading.

Last example: California High Speed train. This one is BADLY needed but is not going to happend unless the governor will inject political will and funding in the project.

French have this believe in States necessary role because historically, our country was built that way and franckly, despite problems and economic stagnation, there are things that are still working pretty well here.

3. About public sector in France

I agree with Dominique that our public sector is an asset. Because they do offer some good service and build a stable environment where business and life in general can grow. But it NEEDS to change.

- It needs to improve while costing less. This is possible mainly by reorganising and clarifying the responsibilities of each and all adminisrtative layers (central state, regions, departements, communautés d'agglomeration).

- Competent people need to go where the problems are: in the subburbs and not shy away and live a confortable carrier in a whealthy area.

- Dominique's comments demonstrates how far are some these people are from down to earth reallities that are obvious.

- Public sector does not need to be dismantled it needs to be reinvented.

4. About French and English language.

As a native French speaker I find the differences fascinatings.

Dominique, comments about the supposed lack of equivalent expressions in French English although very arrogant bear some truth. Both languages illustrates a subtle difference in the way we see the world and analyses situations. This difference is to me hard to describe but I would write pages about it.

Because of this, I have the feeling that a problem is not fully understood unless I examine it in both French an English.

And Dominique, read some work about the Creative Commons licence. I believe that you will find the closest approx. of "bien commun" that you are looking for. It is to be noticed that this commons is defined the Engish way: by the gathering of free goodwill rather than by the intervention of public force under the People's supervision.

[Dominique]

Frank,

You surely would have more french people arguing their cases on a french new parper in french. Don't blame the french for that!

I think one of the reason for these disagreements between so called "french" and "anglosaxon" views come from the language.

For instance, the french very often use the pronom "on" when the english use most of the time the passive way. For instance, the french would say "on m'a volé" while th english speeking people say "I was robbed".

This clearly shows that the french always try to find either an explanation or the one responsible for what happened while the english often take things just as they are.

The french "on" is very present in the french language. It is sometimes anoying because it makes things appearing like someone had organized them. Of course, this "someone" is to blame.

But on the same time, this "ON" represents the "interet commun" that allows us to try to organize things. The "ON" as a mandate. while the absence of "ON" in english just shows the english people just do not expect anything from what they would call an "imaginary superior organisation capability". This is really pragmatism versus cartesianism. "Effects do have a cause, let's find it" versus "no to organisation!"

I do not know if i am clear enough, but i would say :

- in french, the "ON" is politics! it is present in every sentence, blamed for everything and on the same time carries all hopes

- in english, well, there is nothing like the "ON".

[Valentin]

Frank,

For a moment I've been tempted to do a little research through your latest posts. That's not the point though.
Just take look at Sandrine's reply to Robert if you will, she confirms precisely the remarks I was making roughly at the same time. It shows a huge difference in style, this is why French and A-S do not come to terms. I said this before, it leads to them qualifying us as heartless capitalist and materialists, and to us labeling them as hypocritical, whining, arrogant and unrealistic (see Terry vs Isabelle I think, or Rocket and Dominique). As we're far more numerous and skilled in English, it always ends with them quitting the debate and us happy with scoring points.
The problem is that we're self-righteous, because we count the points according to our own rules that we think universal.

There is no self-evident truth, after all. Culture, civilization, history, are closed systems providing axioms for their members. All is relative in this case - except maybe the notion of democracy, because of its antique origin.

Maybe we should try to do this in French from time to time, and see how it goes (Terry might even profit from it for his famous trip to France! :))

[D.Strohl]

Frank,

You are right - the lack of French participation is mostly due to the fact that few French feel proficient enough in English, even to be able to write a simple business letter in an acceptable English. And of course, their spoken English is mostly broken English ...

The reason is that it took several decades after WWII for the "egg heads" ("grosses têtes" i.e "big heads" in French) of our "Ministère de l'Education Nationale" (and for their political bosses) to realize and admit that French was no more the "langue universelle et langue diplomatique" it used to be in former centuries where it was strongly backed up and "exported" by numerous divisions (Staline about the pope: "How many divisions does he have?").

Now, things are improving, but rather slowly. I retired 11 years ago. I have spent the last 15 years of my professional activity in the semiconductor industry. The working language there was and still is English. The Germans, the Dutch, the Swiss and to some extent the Italians with which I used to work in meetings had no problem whatsoever with English; this was not the case of most of my French colleagues and customers. Generally, they used to be rather laconic in the meetings, which is somewhat "unfrench"...

[Valentin]

"MAIS personne n'a souhaité engager une réforme pareille (c'est à dire en demandant l'avis des AGENTS et non celui des syndicats, qui à part parler du salaire sont incapables de voir autre chose)."

Very interesting, so if I understand correctly, we should not identify the CGT and FO unions with the mass of public employees. Well, maybe those fonctionnaires that are not reactionary and extreme-left should speak up more often and more loudly - just like the majority of students who want to go on with courses when extreme left minorities block the universities.
You should speak up for reform and improvement, and not leave others take the stage.

Finally I would SO like some railway workers to speak up against the outrageous benefits drivers, controllers and other cheminots enjoy only because of the rule of the "droits acquis" in another age, when work conditions were much harder.
Oh well, great expectations...

[Dominique]

S.Strohl,

Ha ça ira ça ira ça ira,
les aristocrates à la lanterne,

Ha ça ira ça ira ça ira,
les aristocrates on les pendra !

[Little Big Horn]

Sandrine and Dominique, you don’t have to justify anything, as France don’t have to justify to be what it is: a real state, not a “nation of shopkeepers”. “The French are sooooo French” Anglo-saxon eternal complaint is not your problem, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Some people come on this blog, as Mr Marchenoir, complaining lately about French arrogance, to explain to themselves what France should be. Why so much respect? Aren’t you happy in conservative England or biblical America? Do the French ask you tolerant people to adopt their “stalinist” and “cheese stinking” society, and become French? They don’t. No pulsion of domination here, no colonialist instinct, no frustration. But intelligence (to be able to understand and accept the difference), and dignity for ourselves (not telling to another Nation what it should be).

The French may be arrogant, (and France a disaster as you like to describe it to hide your admiration), but at least is not teaching to the rest of the world, as in Iraq: Briething, Dignity, Generosity, Understanding, Peace and Culture (oups sorry, not Culture for an Anglo-saxon). And France is not making a lot of bloody profits with death, suffering, and destruction to make and save your cheap junk “democracies”. The American people, weak, rotten by money, packaged by the medias, uncultured, have shown that their country is no longer a democracy at all, but a warlike theocracy, and a shameful plutocracy (poor Lincoln, poor Ford). And the English, as usual, fascinated by power and authority, lay down. France, on the contrary, say no to you all. That is Freedom, will, and independance, not arrogance. “To be, or not...”

I was expecting from this blog more enlightning comments and (fine) analysis about France and French society, without any indulgence, but at least fairness, and it seems impossible to get from les anglo-saxons. Most of commentators use this place (that does honour the French thanks to the Times and Mr Bremner) as it was a teenage diary, to express their complexes (latent francophobia) and frustrations (bashing for not being French). Are their authors dreaming a sort of victory upon frenchness in a specific way? That would be a rather pathetic ambition, childish and vain. I do hope it exists, somewhere in Britain or in America, educated adults who can leave aside the general trend, cattle’s one, and accept that the whole world don’t want to have an Anglo-saxon face. As the Emperor once said: “You measure a man’s greatness by the quality of his friends, and the quantity of his enemies.” Try the quality for a while, and Vive l’Empereur!

The perpetual, never-ceasing hate and rage against the French “stalinian” system here, sang in unison by a bunch of open-minded pro-market repressed communists becomes boring, very. France exists, has a state, is a State. You can’t argue with that. It is the condition (physical and metaphysical) for being. It’s easy to understand why the English are in terror with this reality. In their outdated puppet regime, the state is a ghost, a nightmare, embodied by an anachronistic colourful-dressed scarecrow. To save this illusion of sovereignty from time, the psychotic (conservative) Anglo-saxon have no other option, than market, than money, which become more than a value, a salute, for a rotten world. The French are different. In their history, they always maintained the State, in life, against decomposition: Jeanne d’Arc, Louis XIV, Napoleon, De Gaulle,... and most of all, monsieur Guillotin. Again, “to be, or not...” Because France go forward, and believe in life, the only monarch. This is her grace.

France is a capitalist and a communist country, and try to find a balance between two necessary tendencies, required for the country’s health. The State, and the market. France has civil servants, who work as hard as any others. This is their honour and dignity, to serve something else that the circulation of money. To think that communism (to have something, life, in common) could be nothing, and capitalism everything (a totalitarian and nihilist neo-liberalism) is an utopia, in France, as in the “real world”. The Conservatives believe in god, money, things, markets, merchants, technologies, medias, businesses, wars, toys, heroes, entertainment, commercials, consumption, fear, terror, churches, bible, and garbage. That’s their problem, a huge mistake, and the result of a moral and mental decline. Money doesn’t produce any wealth, but only death. This religion extinguished Nature (which is not environment), Culture (which is not consumption), the presence of the Sacred (which is not in the obsolete monotheistic religions), and humanity as the necessary measure and finality of things (a virtual world is the negation of life and humanity). Besides, the market produces mostly miseries (physical, mental, material, cultural, psychological, spiritual,...), the falsification of our lives, of the world, and a state of suffering for millions and millions. The neo-liberalism and adoration of money will never bring any wealth, because money goes to money, which is a wealth, a value, for miserables only. For example, there’s enough food on the Earth to feed twice the population today. But 24000 individuals die everyday of malnutrition, and more than 800 millions suffer of it each year. The greedy conservatives, a basquet of well-educated crabs, or bandits, won’t change anything to that, even with their shameful charity, because “change” is a vocable that means impose conservatism, and misery is their absolute condition for.. being. The holy market will ever produce one thing: nothing (well, except for teenagers maybe). As usual, people have to choose: to profit, or to resist. There's no other alternative. That's not a matter of power, an illusion for children, but conscience.

I wouldn’t like the Anglo-saxons to become French though. That’s another difference (maybe one day the French will save something of English and American culture and identity, after their “decline”). Don’t laugh. To each his own egotism and arrogance.

[Sandrine]

Rocket, of course you can diverge on your opinions about France, it's just that sometimes people here seem very arrogant in their way of judging us all the time. I think there's a way to speak (or write) in order to express your ideas without aggressing others. I like how Frank writes, even if I don't agree with everything, but still, I find him very interesting to read. And Charles, also ! I don't remember the names of everybody here, but some are more balanced than others, it's true...

Valentin, yes, you perfectly understood what I meant. May I just remind you, that there are other unions, like the CFDT for example (certainly not leftist)? Why do you only speak of the CGT ?

Anyway, I remember a poll last year (it was in April in Le Parisien). They asked some civil servants what they wanted exactly, and what they thought would be best for the Fonction publique. And it was very interesting because it showed what the civil servants really thought, which was actually completely different from what the unions used to say.

And what did the government do with that wonderful and certainly unique poll ? Well, nothing. This poll was basically saying that the civil servants were ready to change and to do some sacrifices, and nobody reacted.

At that moment, I understood that the best way to change and to modernize the Fonction publique, was to speak directly to those concerned : the civil servants themselves. And not in an aggressive way like Sarko always does, but that's another story.

[Sandrine]

"As we're far more numerous and skilled in English, it always ends with them quitting the debate and us happy with scoring points."

Valentin, that is so true ! (as far as I'm concerned).

[Valentin]

"May I just remind you, that there are other unions, like the CFDT for example (certainly not leftist)? Why do you only speak of the CGT ?"

Because CFDT, I don't know if rallied to some political pole or not, always prove to be reasonable and open. It's CGT and FO with their extreme left allegiance and tactics that pose problems.
Sherry ventilated a good idea though: instead of waiting for the government to act, why not be more activist, in the good way, take initiative, form associations, work to change certain mentalities and show la Fonction publique is not another kind of nomenklatura opposed to improvement.
Because if one deals with the administration, this is the impression one is left with.

[Sherry]

Sandrine,

That's great to hear that the public sector is willing to make some changes and to compromise on some difficult issues. I agree that that's a viewpoint we don't often hear on any msg boards (english or french language), the french media, from les syndicats, etc. As I am not a public sector employee here in France, I am curious to hear what compromises the poll stated (or you think) the public sector would be willing to make? Thanks.

Sandrine,

Just to tell you that I don't believe that all civil servants are bad or that French civil service is or has become useless. Not in the least.

However, I also believe that the French civil service has become so incredibly mammoth sized but all the while, it continues to function under very much outdated rules. It's got be modernized even if it means trimming it (as in making it 'lean and mean').

That said, like anywhere, there are good and bad eggs. In industry, (where I work,) there are highly-paid executives who are definitely useless; one wonders how they got there or how they can stay, i.e., not sacked.

The survival tenet or general rule in my company (one of the world's giants in its field)is: an exec spends 8