Segolene Royal wins French presidential poll

The polls are closed in the only French presidential election that really matters: that of Liberal Polemic's readership!

I asked Liberal Democrats, libertarians and anybody else who visited this site "Who would you support in second round of the French presidential elections?"

The results are a clear victory for the Lady in Red.

Votes
Nicolas Sarkozy 40% (16)
Segolene Royal 53% (21)
Rather emigrate 8% (3)
(40 votes total)

So there you have it, folks. Confirmation, if it were ever needed, that even in the blogosphere, the Lib Dems are a left leaning bunch, who would prefer to elect an unreconstructed socialist who offers a continuation of France's economic, social and welfare failure, with the only innovation being a few dollops of extra public expenditure to be financed by further wringing an already-squeezed tax base.

Forunately, the French still have a chance to vote differently. Segolene Royal's opponent may not be a warm or comofortable figure; indeed, he is more like our own first female premier than France's. However, Nicolas Sarkozy is correct to see a need for "rupture" in French politics. The old methods of high taxation, a bloated welfare state and excessive labour laws have squeezed the life out of the French economy. Unemployment is at 8.3% nationally, but over 20% among 18-25 year olds and possibly twice that in the deprived banlieues. The economy has performed sluggishly over the past decade and will continue to do so. There are entrenched social problems.

France needs to free up its people and its economy, to loosen the State's grip on all of French life and usher in a period of sustained growth that will help ease the social problems that have beset the country. Only Nicolas Sarkozy offers real solutions to France's problems. The French may be ready for the medicine he offers.

I guess when one is not suffering the ill effects personally, one can afford to be more concerned with how unpleasent the medicine tastes

Who would you support in second round of the French presidential elections
	Nicolas Sarkozy
	Segolene Royal
	I would rather emigrate
Free polls from Pollhost.com

UPDATE: Paul Griffiths has rightly taken issue with my (albeit rather tongue-in-cheek) suggestion that a small and self-selecting poll provides "Confirmation" or anything. Readers are warned that such claims should be taken with a cellar of salt and a wry smile.

POLL: Who would you choose in the second round of the French presidential elections?

Okay. This is a first, and it may all go horribly wrong, but...

It's poll time!!

And the question is this: Given that the choice is between an unreconstructed socialist with a winning smile and a right-wing moderniser who wants to liberalise the economy but stick it to immigrants, who would you choose in the second round of the French presidential elections?

Or, if you disagree with the analysis above, how about just telling us who you would support anyway.

Who would you support in second round of the French presidential elections
	Nicolas Sarkozy
	Segolene Royal
	I would rather emigrate
Free polls from Pollhost.com

For the record, I am aware that this may also prove an embarrassing indictment upon the amount of traffic this poll recieves, but I'm prepared to take that risk in the interests of... er... I don't know. Entertaining my regular reader, I guess.

The strange echo of Prime Ministerial corruption

He's the Prime Minister of one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. His nation’s $2 trillion economy relies on its reputation as an open market, free of corruption and sleaze. He is overweeningly proud of his country and its place in the world. Yet he has just been interviewed for 17 hours by investigators - not as a suspect, mind; as a witness. It is a lasting shame to his countrymen.

And we should know, because we have just been through the same thing.

Dominique de Villepin has been interviewed by judges investigating the Clearstream Affair. This sordid tale involves a secret Luxembourg bank account stuffed full of deposits, some of which were apparently made by UMP Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. de Villepin admits that in 2004, as Foreign Minister, he asked a secret service agent to investigate the list of accounts. It now looks suspiciously like the mysterious slush-fund was deliberately set up to smear Mr. Sarkozy, whose ambition to succeed Jacques Chirac as President is no secret.

Mr. de Villepin's political career is in tatters. Widely recognised as President Chirac's anointed heir, it now seems impossible that he can challenge Mr. Sarkozy for the presidential nomination of the (Gaullist) Union for a Popular Majority.

One of the ongoing battles of my life is convincing people that not all politicians are irredeemably corrupt. The behaviour of two of the world's leading statesmen undermines that effort.

President Blair? He wants it as much as we do!

It is a criticism often levelled at over-mighty Prime Ministers that they secretly wish they could be President. It is a claim often made of Tony Blair, and I recall Margaret Thatcher being similarly accused. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The reason for this misconception lies in the apparently vast powers of American presidents. French presidencies can also appear to omnipotent, as governments are appointed from The Élysée Palace without their members needing to be members of the National Assembly. One assumes that the constitutional presidencies of Germany, Italy and Israel are not the model of which critics are thinking when they accuse British prime ministers of dreaming of a presidency.

In fact, while American presidents appear mighty from across the Atlantic, they have far less power within their realms than a British prime minister. The power and position of a British prime minister lies in the fact that he has (barring the occasional bout of back-bench uppitiness) a majority in the legislature. Thus, executive and legislature are intrinsically wed in a manner that would be alien in the United States.

As last month’s congressional elections should bring home to us, presidents risk seeing their power checked by rival legislatures. Indeed, despite George Bush’s good fortune in having a “friendly” congress for most of his administration, even the republican-controlled House and Senate occasionally blocked his plans, notably over social service reform and immigration.

By comparison, a British Prime Minister is free to do almost anything he wishes. His parliamentary majority and the weakness of the second chamber enable him to pass almost any legislation. Budgets are not picked over and amended, but nodded through by compliant MPs. Vast areas of Government do not even require parliament, as they are still subject to the Royal Prerogative. And the Prime Minister is never personally subject to a serious vote: rather than having to face the electorate, one-on-millions, the Prime Minister has the comfort of a pocket borough to ensure that he, at least, will always be returned. He can stuff the upper house with his placement, pick his Cabinet and appoint judges, ambassadors and senior officials without their ever being questioned by an appointments committee. Offences to liberty such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill would never be possible were Britain to have a written constitution, which a British presidency would necessitate.

No, you may rest assured that Tony Blair is quite happy being a humble Prime Minister. Let others have the titular supremacy, along with the administrative headaches of constitutional government and the checks and balances on their power. Let them face re-election in their own right. For British Prime Ministers, it’s far preferable to be a mere servant of the Crown.