The French Connection: Why Labour must learn from French politics

By Raphael Hammond

At time of writing, polling suggests a strong possibility of a Reform majority, totalling over 300 MPs. For the majority of the UK public who are not fans of Nigel Farage, this is utterly disastrous. We are in urgent need of solutions, and the clock is ticking. The usual timid glances over the Atlantic won’t cut it, as Trump wreaks havoc and Zohran Mamdani and his band of merry councillors face down the Democratic establishment.  To my mind, the politics of our southern neighbour has far more to tell us about the current political climate and the path ahead. Our ‘progressive’ government ought to look across the channel, and learn the lessons of centre-left governments past: the Hollande and Macron presidencies.  

Picture this: Elected on a relatively punchy progressive platform, a centre-left leader is elected to government. However, soon after entering office, intense personal dislike from the public sets in, and the government veers ever to the right. Party popularity collapses as voters seek alternatives. Hollande, or Starmer? The two are remarkably alike. They share penchants for the global stage, but Hollande’s “Commander in Chief” persona fades when facing domestic policymaking, similar to how Morgan McSweeney is sometimes perceived to run No. 10. Their lack of personal charisma cements a personal unpopularity, and both shed soft-left ministers during their tenure (Christiane Taubira and Anneliese Dodds). In government, their status-quo conformist economics (in the forms of Macron and Reeves) jars with the strong economic injustice felt by voters.  

Today, the legacy of ex-President (2012-17) Francois ‘Flamby’ Hollande (a nickname derived from a bland, wobbly [spineless] Nestlé dessert) provokes no nostalgia in the public imagination. His initial progressive rhetoric, including his post-2008 promise of tackling his “true” adversary “the world of finance” that governs unelected, was betrayed. Over the course of his government he adopted Macron, a Rothschild banker, to the Economics ministry. The slow, unpopular slide of deindustrialisation, including in steel production, continued, further market sectors were liberalised, and the crackdown on tax havens was nowhere to be seen. Certainly, there was progress on climate (COP21 resulted in the Paris Accord, which defines the 1.5C target) and other issues, including transparency in public life, devolution, gay marriage, and many economic indicators including the deficit. But marred in personal scandal and unpopularity, it seems little of the good news carried through, and he was outflanked by his ministers and prime ministers.  

The end of Hollande’s presidency saw a total collapse of support for his party, in favour of contenders to his left and right in the form of Macron and Jean-Luc Mélenchon. All the while, the rise of the far-right rolled on, with Marine Le Pen making it to the second round of the presidential election against Macron both times. The downward confidence in the centre-ground has not been improved by Macron, whose drift from the centre to the right has dismayed the left-wing electorates who tactically voted for him. Parroting far-right talking points, cutting environmental protections, and “getting tough” on pensions, welfare reform, protests, and immigration has provided little respite for centrists, as the far-right remains a mere stone’s throw from the presidency. The consequences of continuing down a Hollande path spell certain doom. What should Starmer learn from his French counterpart? 

Pivoting to the right is not a silver bullet. Merely ‘hunting on their turf’ is not good enough: the evidence shows that people vote for full-fat populists above imitators. Hollande’s controversial rightward pivot on citizenship removal looks moderate when faced with that of Macron, who passed immigration legislation the far-right Front National called “an ideological victory”. Yet despite centrists offering plenty of red meat, there is no far-right retreat in the polls. Immigration as a concern needs handling with care, diligence, and a profound sense of justice. While pleasing the whole electorate is impossible, inspiring ambivalence across the political spectrum may be feasible. Restoring basic functionality to the immigration system (cut backlogs to cut asylum hotels, and “balance” safe route provision with stricter language and values tests) could be a good place to start, saving both anger and money. 

Tackle economic injustice head on. While Hollande somewhat righted the public finances, public opinion saw “France” (the state) was better off, but the French as whole couldn’t feel it. Growth is one thing, but people’s pockets and sense of justice are another. If the electorate feels increasingly poor and unfairly ripped off, public service investment will help less than genuine reductions in the cost of living. This issue remains Labour voters’ top priority, and is the second-highest reason among non-labour voters for avoiding them. France’s Yellow Vest protests highlight energy as a key sector for this. Election promises to reduce bills could be achieved by tackling rentierism, for instance by unlocking the cost of electricity from natural gas prices – the cost of which was £367 per household in 2023 alone. 

Communicate honestly and cohesively. With Hollande, this built up over time – he failed miserably in celebrating his successes but allowed scandals and controversies to roll on far too long. Where he changed course, he never dispelled the air of indecision, and when his decisions combined, it was never clear to the French what their president’s view of the country was. Starmer, as it is fashionable to say of late, is struggling to provide narrative and vision to his government only one year in. He is now engaging in a series of weakening U-Turns, in addition to the litany made since he became leader. Word association polling sees him as a liar, and even earlier in his premiership voters were unclear what he stood for – and so are some of his own aides. The fundamental issue here is that Starmer's skill has always been answering courtroom-style “what” questions. His first year in office has not been quiet – the machinery of government has been spinning at breakneck speed. His weakness is persuading us why. He must either learn to answer questions of purpose and ideals convincingly, or step aside – after all, in the words of Harold Wilson “The Labour Party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing”. Additionally, the vehicles for ‘why’ are just as important. Starmer’s current operation has a poor grasp on social media: a rethink and some delegation is required there. 

Take left-wing votes for granted at your peril. Dissatisfaction with the Hollande government drove left-wing voters towards more radical alternatives (i.e. Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise), a position which Zack Polanski hopes to manoeuvre the Green party towards. The proposed Sultana-Corbyn party may also throw a spanner in the works, especially given a recent poll of Labour defectors find they say the government is “untrustworthy” and “not true to its [left-wing] values”, having “lied to get elected” – particularly those switching to the Greens and Liberal Democrats. Under the first past the post system, similar risks exist to the French presidential runoff: losing these voters spells serious trouble. Labour’s hopes for a beneficial “progressive squeeze” could be dashed, as disillusionment and a shattered left-of-centre vote could propel Reform to victory, leaving UK progressive politics fractured and weak. 

Image: Wikipedia Commons