Chirac says "we're better than Brits". The Times confirms.

by Jerome a Paris Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 05:22:30 AM EST

Chirac went through the ritual of the presidential interview after the July 14 celebrations, and spent a lot of time talking about the UK. As I cannot stand Chiras, I thought I'd rely on the famed objectivity of the Britsh press...

HOW THE NEIGHBOURING ECONOMIES MEASURE UP

Update [2005-7-15 10:34:31 by Jerome a Paris]: to be clear - these numbers are provided by The Times of London...

FRANCE

Population: 60.95m
GDP: £1.02 trillion
Gross national income (per capita): £14,107
Average GDP growth, 1993-2003: 2.3%
GDP growth in 2003: 0%
Foreign direct investment: £27.2bn
Inflation: 2.1%
Total exports: £2.18bn
Unemployment: 9.7%
Population in poverty: 7%
State spending on schools per person in 2001: £3,863
State spending on healthcare per person: £1,653

BRITAIN

Population: 60.44m
GDP: £1.02 trillion
Gross national income (per capita): £16,146
Average GDP growth, 1993-2003: 2%
GDP growth in 2003: 2%
Foreign direct investment: £11.8bn
Inflation: 2.9%
Total exports: £1.72bn
Unemployment: 4.8%
Population in poverty: 17%
State spending on schools per person in 2001: £3,032
State spending on healthcare per person: £1,270

Sources: World Bank; CIA World Factbook; OECD (education, poverty, unemployment and health spending)

I'd actually take some numbers with a grain of salt, especially those numbers that apply to only one year (like FDI, inflation). What these numbers do show is that both countries are, unsurprisingly, in similar economic shape, with the unemployment number (which has become an overwhelming argument to make the case against France) favoring the UK, but not numbers like growth and FDI; which goes somewhat against the perceived common wisdom.

More comments on Chirac's interview below the fold.

The Times' article provides a pretty good summary of the speech and its context:

Although polls show that M Chirac, 72, is trusted by only 25 per cent of the public, he refused to rule out running for a third term in 2007.

The President’s chief goal in his 45-minute state-of-the- nation chat was to persuade a dubious French public that he has the ability to respond to an economic crisis that is fuelled by a decade of 10 per cent unemployment. But France remembers that in his first Bastille Day appearance in 1995 he promised a “great campaign to curb unemployment”.

The Socialist Opposition said that he appeared “laborious, self-contradictory and on the defensive” during his broadcast. The Greens said that the President had shown himself “completely out of touch with the discontent of the French people”.

M Chirac’s biggest needling is coming from within his own camp, in the person of Nicolas Sarkozy, the cabinet minister and leader of the President’s UMP party who is campaigning to take the Élysée Palace in 2007.

M Sarkozy, 50, is using Britain as a weapon. He said: “Who would have thought that in 30 years, Great Britain would become a leading light in the world ? They have modernised the country, fundamentally revised their values, abandoned taboos and achieved a great ambition.”

M Sarkozy infuriated M Chirac by dismissing his “policies of 50 years ago” and saying that there was no point in his Bastille Day show since he had nothing new to say. Such insubordination underlined M Chirac’s declining authority as he sought to explain his latest recipe for cutting unemployment yesterday.

The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian have very similar stories, with the Guardian focusing, rightly in my view, on the most significant tidbit of information: the fact that he has refused to rule out a third term. I don't see how he can win, but I nevertheless do not see him not running, which should make for an interesting fight with Sarkozy in the coming months...

Le Monde has a good round up of what the French regional press says, and it's pretty scathing for Chirac:

Au final, c'est donc une ambiance "de fin de règne" selon Christian Digne dans La Marseillaise. Pour Pierre Taribo dans l'Est républicain, Jacques Chirac a bien montré "son endurance" et "sa combativité" mais "c'est insuffisant pour montrer qu'il n'y a pas un fantôme à l'Elysée". Pour Jean Levallois de La Presse de la Manche, le chef de l'Etat "parvient naturellement, maintenant, au bout du chemin".

In the end, it's a "end of reign" atmosphere, according to Christian digne in La Marseillaise. For Pierre Taribo, in l'Est Républicain, Chirac shows his "endurance" and "fighting spirit", but "it's not enough to prove that it's not a ghost in the Elysée Palace". For Jean Levallois, for La Presse de la Manche, the head of state "comes, naturally, to the end of his path".

Yep, two years of lame duck presidency to go, with the prime minister and the top minister openly rival and permanently sniping, the opposition in disarray between the utopian hard left and a weakened centrist wing.

Who will face off Jean Marie Le Pen in the second sound in 2007?

Chirac says "we're better than Brits". The Times confirms. | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

After Pain au Chocolat (none / 0)

what else matters?

Spending on health, schools and percent in poverty. Socialism has it's benefits.

Based on my experience, 17% is too low for percent in poverty in the UK. The standard must be pretty low.

by HiD on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 06:08:37 AM EST

Re: After Pain au Chocolat (none / 0)

If they use the European (and OECD, I think) standard, it's defined as having less than 50% of the median income.

But hey, their parents (or more likely, their mother) work(s), so they are productive and efficient and help the economy.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 06:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

50% of median (none / 0)

That explains it. The UK median is pitiful.

When I got transferred to the UK in 1990, my wife gave up a job making about $75K a year with great bennies. What she got on the other side of the ocean was about L30K which spent like $30K regardless of the exchange rate. She was really pissed until I pointed out that based on an article in the Evening Standard that the 90th percentile on wages was just L25K....

She had secretaries making about L13K that had to choose between food and heat in the winter. I have to say I was shocked at the incredible spread between the top 5% and the rest of the population. I had a great job making stupid money and got to see the inside of some of the big money events. unreal differences.

by HiD on Sat Jul 16th, 2005 at 10:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 50% of median (none / 0)

When I look at what I would earn if I did my current job (which, while not paid extravagant sums like in capital markets, does rate a decent investment banker salary) in London instead of Paris (which would be pretty easy for me), I rapidly come to 2 conclusions:

it's impossible to have a better standard of living, including housing and schooling, in London than in Paris, for an equivalent salary (and remember that this activity is supposed to be London's core business);
I can only wonder how people without a banking job cope in London. (I think they don't - the only people I see working in London, in restaurants, hotels and other service activities, are young foreigners).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jul 17th, 2005 at 07:58:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What of the French left (none / 0)

Is there any quality amongst the French left? Even if the left are too fractured for the next election; who are the leaders for the future?

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 06:18:01 AM EST

Re: What of the French left (none / 1)

The problem on the left is not so much the lack of decent people as that of the really nasty fracture between the "oui" and the "non" camps on Europe.

The "non" is basically the harder left; it incorporates traditional standard bearers such as the communists, the assorted trotskysts groups, and the "républicains" (sovereignists of the left led by Jean-Pierre Chevénement), but it also received the support of a good part of the socialist and green parties tempted by social utopia and a rejection of the market economy and free trade. Laurent Fabius, formerly associated with the right wing of the socialist party, has opportunistically embraced that camp and hopes to mobilise the left around him, starting from the left wing. The problem is that he will have to fight off other ambitious lefty socialists within the PS (socialist party), as well as the usual leaders of the hard left parties which are unlikely to give up their role without serious influence on the political platform.

The oui side, which can be described as the modernist wing of the PS (yes, my bias shows, I know) has clearly lost the electoral battle within the left during the referendum but still controls the apparatus of the party up to now. It has some decent electable candidates in Dominique Strauss-Kahn (former minister of the economy under Jospin in 1997-2001) or a couple others (the ever popular Jack Lang, Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe - although the Olympics fiasco has dimmed his prospects, or slightly more lefty Martine Aubry. François Hollande, the uncharismatic party leader, and Lionel Jospin himself, could also be contenders.

There will be a congress in the autumn where the PS will decide which line to hold (Fabius vs Hollande, to simplify) and then there will be a year of jockeying for the various factions to push forward some candidate for the 2007 Presidential run.

I see several scenarios:

Hollande prevails. A centrist candidate ends up being the official candidate of the PS (say Strauss-Kahn). The hard left has two options - go with all their candidates (Besancenot for the Trotskysts, Buffet for the communists, and a lefty socialist, whether Fabius or another), or unify behind a common candidate like Fabius. With two strong candidates, the winner is very likely to go to the second round, where the centrist would have a chance to win and the lefty one zero chance to win.
The lefties prevail. The PS falls in disarray, with all the "oui" camp (like me) unable to follow that line. Fabius gets to be the official PS candidate, but is likely to face off the hard left candidates nayway, and a possible dissident centrist candidate (say Jack Lang or Bernard Kouchner, building on his personal charisma). The winner of this is likely to be François Bayrou, the candidate of the center-right and pro-European UDF. No candidate of the left will get to the second round in that option.

A lot depends on how the right behaves. Le Pen is going to be a candidate, and he is unlikely to get less than 16-18%, barring something really unexpected (health reasons). Bayrou is going to be a candidate, and he can expect to get 7-10% form the right, and a little bit more form the left depending on the above. Sarkozy will run in any case; the big question is whether Chirac runs or not. If Chirac runs, neither Chirac nor Sarkozy will get more than Le Pen, if he doesn't, Sarkozy will likely get 20-25% of the votes, maybe more.

Seen from today, the race is really open, but again, it will take a lot of effort, discipline and self-restraint, not the most shared qualities, on both sides to avoid having Le Pen in the second round.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 08:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for that Jerome (none / 0)

That was very informative.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 10:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What of the French left (none / 0)

Jérôme's analysis seems to me excellent.

Just to try to answer your question about leaders of the future. Imho, no one seems to be coming through. Whatever one thinks of their individual capacities, the leaders of the "mainstream" left have mostly been around for a long time and are more than sightly shop-soiled (though you can make a come-back at age ninety in French politics, which is why Chirac still thinks he can hoodwink the electorate once again...)

More worrisome yet, the environmentally-conscious left seems to me, leaderwise, to be pretty much worn out.

Unfortunately, it looks like Sarkozy for next pres, followed very probably by Sarkozy again. :-(

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 09:59:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chirac ... (none / 1)

What is symptomatic for me is this:
France
Unemployment: 9.7%
Population in poverty: 7%

-----------
Britain
Unemployment: 4.8%
Population in poverty: 17%

*
So according to this, their story that by more employment only ( as such) people are getting wealthier, is just not standing...and we knew it before but it's a great food for masses. Here in Australia they are feeding us this shit how we are becoming significaly wealthier and there was something like "every Australian is worth around $ 200000 and something...think housing bubble... All tho I was surprised to see (seven years ago when I came) how middle class actually had dissent standard of living and was pretty large one could tell...and I liked it a lot...Now this is still standing but is built on " legs of glass" of house equity debt of practically every single family......
It would be interesting to see same information on USA or Canada and Australia...
I can remember a long long time ago when I visited western Europe few times in few years that while I haven't seen obvious poverty neither in Scandinavia or whole continental western Europe it was really visible in Britain.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 08:06:02 AM EST

France versus Britain (none / 0)

The oecd site www.oecd.org has tables for each country, click on "browse by country." What's tough is using the numbers to get a fair comparison, and what Chirac is doing is cherry-picking the numbers to try to get political points.

For example, suppose a country spends more money on health care per capita, but has an inefficient or unfair distribution of that spending. Is that better or worse? Or, suppose a country has a low number of average working hours, but a lower per capita GDP. Is that better or worse?

It seems to me that this ongoing "France versus Britain" thing is typical internecine bickering between politicians: Chirac uses evil capitalist England for his political purposes, while Blair uses evil communist France for his political purposes. Meanwhile we've got global warming, third world starvation, an energy crisis, thousands of poorly controlled nuclear weapons, a shooting war...

Typical politics.

by asdf on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 08:41:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Numbers provided by The Times (none / 0)

not by Chirac - which is the only reason I used them.

You are right that it is very easy to find convenient statistics for almost anything.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 08:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

or there are (none / 0)

"lies, damned lies and statistics" to quote Winston Churchill.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 10:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chirac says... (none / 1)

I don't think we should follow Chirac in framing this in nationalist terms, particularly when the only firm conclusions I can come to given these stats are:

Both the UK and France are incredibly affluent countries.
Their economic performance is roughly the same.

The one stark difference is in unemployment and poverty numbers. As someone else points out, France has relatively high unemployment but low poverty, and the UK has the reverse. France has made an economic choice to make tackling poverty more important than providing jobs, with resulting higher unemployment. That's neither better nor worse, I don't think. It's a difference in social priorities given two difficult choices. I tend to favor the French approach, probably because I live in the US and am disillusioned with the low unemployment/high poverty model it shares with the UK. But I can see advantages to both socio-economic models.

by Cascadia Progressive on Fri Jul 15th, 2005 at 02:59:40 PM EST

Re: Chirac says... (4.00 / 2)

Well, you're completely right.
it's a choice of society model. As far as I can tell, the only problem with the french situation (I can't speak about the english one because I never lived there -and, oh, I'd would like, despite the bad food... just kidding) is that the unemployed people who are "well" treated by the different welfare programs are simply not happy. At all.

That's what the NO vote showed. From the left wing and also from the extreme right wing.

So is this working on the long run ? I don't know. But you ought to make your people happy if you pretend to be (or to become) a good society.

Another explanation could be that the French get too much of those things and don't know how lucky they are (again, they kind of deserve it because they choose this model).

Or that they know it and hang desperately to those benefits... which will make things worse in the long run because we need reforms.

by Jerome USA on Sat Jul 16th, 2005 at 01:23:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's the quality of life, stupid (none / 0)

brits all want to live somewhere with better food and weather, and they would rather give up anything rather than their tv.

which is why they have the best quality tv in the world, but i digress.

french people feel superior to the brits, and luckier. how many french people go to retire in the british countryside?

england is a lousy place to be poor.

england is vertical society, unsustainable without huge numbers of immigrants doing grunt work and oodles of cheap energy.

france is much better prepared to meet the uncertain future, imo. ironically partly because of the decried CAP policy.

i suspect french people have not lost the gut instinct that without cheap, locally produced food abundance is tied too strongly to economics, and quality of life remains for only a rich few, with the rest of us in more or less glamorous levels of service economies.

more dignity in being a fractious farmer perhaps...certainly the french farmers have a unique ability to get away with social blackmail. i think this could only happen because at root most french people support them, and more still the ideal of french food, french fat of the french land, being the best long-term policy for their people, even at the price of their highways shutting down every so often.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Jul 16th, 2005 at 07:59:32 AM EST

Chirac says "we're better than Brits". The Times confirms. | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Chirac says "we're better than Brits". The Times confirms.

Top Diaries

2024 end of year review and the prospects for 2025

More Status Quo please - for now

Bethlehem Lies In Palestine

Full Circle from Baghdad to Damascus

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

The Irish general election draws near

Recent Diaries

Assembly: ICC The Hague Under Duress

2024 end of year review and the prospects for 2025

Ukrainian and Al Qaeda Terror Joined in Syria

Bethlehem Lies In Palestine

Full Circle from Baghdad to Damascus

Turks and Sauds to Install Sunni Terror in Damascus, Syria -...

More Back-Stabbing in the New Middle East

#WeAreNATO v Rest of the World

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

US Syrian Quagmire - A Second Life

More Status Quo please - for now

The Arab States Are Faced with Virulent Zionism in Israel

December 2024

Next Step An Integrated, Sovereign Europe

Making the Europe and BreXit Trump Proof ...

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

Not A Permanent Ceasefire Lebanon-Israel

Clash of Empires - Crossroads @ Middle East

City Agriculture - November 26, 2024

Harry Truman: 'The Buck Stops Here'