Kessler's version of history is skewed. Both the sly insinuation that social support networks were set up under the pressure of Russian tanks (are we to understand that similar decisions in Britain in the postwar years were also taken under the shadow of the Soviet threat?), and the notion of a debate within the Gaullist camp between economic liberals and the broad social tradition, are deliberately misleading.

The National Council of the Resistance was formed in 1943 to fight the Nazis and the collaborationists of the Pétain government. It contained a broad cross-section of resistance movements and of French political and social life, as the Wikipedia page shows. What was missing was the authoritarian corporatist right (conspicuously lined up with Pétain), and the authoritarian economic liberal right (not so conspicuous, but present in every government department in Vichy).

The CNR contained the Communist left, but also the socialists (SFIO) and radicals; and those who aligned with De Gaulle and became known as Gaullistes included a swathe of people on the right including the French equivalent of Christian Democrats (represented by Georges Bidault). Gaullism had its authoritarian right and its "social conscience" left (often called Gaullistes de gauche). Later, in the '60s, when De Gaulle was president, the Christian Dem and "social conscience" wing was still prominent (for example, Jacques Delors). The economic liberals who are well-known in politics today were then in street-fighting ultra-right movements like Occident (eg Madelin, Novelli, Goasguen, Dévedjian). In the '70s, they managed to reinvent themselves as centrists. (This is not Kessler's case, he was a Marxist as a student in the '70s).

Sarkozy's election meant the victory of economic liberals who had often been on the far right masquerading as the centre. Their intention to put an end to the broad social compact that originated in the CNR could not be more clearly stated than in this broadside from Kessler – probably not greatly appreciated by the pols, because all too clear. In fact the attack on the social consensus has been two-pronged: break the institutions piece by piece, while simultaneously muddying public perceptions of the foundational period (now that most of the population has no living memory of it). The method probably pays off better than Kessler's frontal assault.

Of course, it's easy to talk about "outdated" institutions, particularly when one is undermining them by starving them of budgets and staff, and by publicly holding them up to ridicule. And there's the standard line that features the "reformists" in the role of dragon-slayers while the enemy is made up of conservatives holding on to privilege. When you've been old-money aristo Seillière's number two, that's particularly rich.

But the clear meaning of "reform" is revealed here. It is not adaptation to circumstances, fiscal redefinition, better management, improvement. It is plain and simple destruction of what has been called the "French model".

Well, this was written in the flush of victory. He was crowing then, but the crisis has shown neoliberal economics were all wrong, hasn't it? Sarkozy has low approval ratings and his party is about to take a pasting in regional elections, surely?

Yes… But whatever happens, the beat goes on. It is obvious, it is clear, it is modern, it is necessary, TINA: "reforms" need to be made. This theme seems teflonized. Under a smokescreen of confusing communication and appeals to fear, the work goes bit by bit ahead. Government is reduced, its functions shuffled off on regional and local authorities that are then deprived of tax base by liberal "reform". The number of civil servants continues to be reduced (including teachers and school supervisory staff, and when violence breaks out in more "difficult" schools the government promises to send in the police, not that there are any more of those being hired either). This is management of the State in such a way that public services will run out of money and staff, will not work properly, will be unpopular, will wither and die.

A small example. There is a government research agency dealing with incomes and employment, the CERC. It was first set up in the '60s by De Gaulle after a report presented by Jacques Delors. Over the years, it has bothered governments (including Socialist) by the independent spirit of its well-documented reports. The right tried to do away with it once in the '90s, but the Jospin government reinstated it and appointed Jacques Delors to preside it. Since Sarko took over, retiring or leaving staff have not been replaced. This includes Delors and all the Board… There are now just two archivists left. (See, in French, Denis Clerc).

Cut off the sap, and let the branch wither and die. "Reform", There.Is.No.Alternative.