A post-debate review of the first leader’s debate
by assistant editor Anne-Marcelline de Saint-Corentin
27 April 2019 ~ 1521h
Last night we saw the leaders of the four Santonian political parties spar on issues in the STV-
l’Indépendant debate. STV analyst Jean-Barthelemy des Pallières (JBP), STV commentator Matthieu-Ferréol Vaugirault (MFV), and
l’Indépendant analyst Brice-Gauthier Kermadec (BGK) assessed last Friday's debate. This summarised transcript was translated by our Mercanti translators Kyle MacTaggart-de Flesselles and Hunter Kidlington de Collobrières.
Q: Who won last night’s debate? How did the leaders perform?
MFV: Nobody. It was one humongous slagfest.
BGK: That’s typical Matthieu for you, our viewers. But I agree with the sentiment that nothing ever was really definitively discussed.
JBP: Same here. [National Party leader] Anne-Douceline Courseaux (ADC) could’ve been more forceful and resolute in her questioning and in her statements – and that’s probably her inexperience showing. This is her first leader’s debate; remember, she was just elected a deputy to the National Assembly last year and leader of the National party this year.
MFV: She was like a lame duck sitting there as the leaders of the Coalition lobbed not-so-nice words at her. They really wanted to drive home the point that the alternative to the Coalition is an inexperienced woman.
JBP: I guess she was in talk-show mode. She was a former talk show host. In talk shows, you give your guests time to respond. You don’t ask difficult and sensitive questions. You have to be respectful. Her opponents were anything but.
MFV: Yeah, but she needs to improve her debating skills if she wants her party to win. You don’t win by playing nice.
BGK: But Saintonge is known for pleasant, nice politics, isn’t it?
MFV: Yeah right, Brice, there hasn’t been civility in Santonian politics since 2014. It’s as if we’re going back to the end of the 19
th century in terms of tone in politics. You have two alpha males as Liberal and Radical leaders, hammering at an inexperienced National leader and a bumbling Green leader.
BGK: Oooh, harsh assessment there from Matthieu. However, I do think that [Liberal Party leader] Jean-Louis Hauteclocque de Champtoceaux (JLHC) and [Radical Party leader] Georges Conté de Caunes (GCC) went too far with the abuse. This is anecdotal, but a lot of women I talked to after the debate were either offended or concerned about how JLHC and GCC treated ADC on stage. I’m curious as to how the polls move after the debate.
JBP: The Coalition’s strategy could backfire on them. Considering that Saintonge hasn’t elected a female Prime Minister, this is an opportunity for Saintonge to elect one. GCC’s “You woman” remark really doesn’t help.
MFV: On the other hand, JLHC and GCC did nothing but insult their way out of the debate. ADC was trying – ineffectually of course – to make points and ask questions on the Coalition’s record. JLHC and GCC bluffed their way out and ducked questions. The Coalition leaders were so full of
non sequiturs, they would fail Logic 101.
BGK: I agree with Matthieu about the assessment. It seems that the two men, for all their bluffing, can’t answer a question straight.
JBP: Again, same here. Nothing was really answered. JLHC and GCC weren’t even able to ask ADC meaningful questions because their ‘questions’ were either framed as tirades or as whataboutism.
BGK: What about [Green Party leader] Laurent Junot?
MFV: Ineffectual as usual. Like how the Green Party’s been treated by the Coalition for the past four years. They’re like a soccer ball that’s just kicked around in an
En Avant de Saintes game – battered and dirty but never reaches a goal.
BGK: Love your football reference. To be fair, the Greens able to push some of their agenda… well, a few.
MFV: Those few successes were only at first so that they’d come on board the Coalition in 2015. After 2016, they were simply ignored. They were even ignored in the labour reform discussions, hence this snap election.
Q: What were the issues discussed? Where did the parties position themselves and how could it potentially affect the election?
MFV: Issues? What issues? They didn’t discuss any.
BGK: The only folks who were trying to raise meaningful issues for discussion is ADC, and to a lesser extent, Junot. Which is understandable, and to some extent, expected, considering they’re the opposition. But again, the discussion leaves much to be desired.
JBP: ADC brought up some particularly important issues in my opinion, but the Coalition leaders were able to parry her line of questioning. She could’ve been more forceful in demanding answers. For example, the Caruhel I and Caruhel II labour reforms. She was asking why was there a need to reform the labour market and whether the suggested reforms were really the key.
MFV: My take home answer from the Coalition was “because we want to.” No offence meant, but that’s how it came across.
BGK: The reasons why Saintonge needed labour reform were not well-explained. I suppose it was to make Saintonge more competitive in case we start to open our markets, which was the Coalition’s goal by 2025. That was both in the Liberal and Radical manifestos in 2015, and in the previous government’s coalition agreement.
JBP: Junot had been hammering that question as well during the debate.
MFV: In 2015, Junot did sign to that coalition agreement that contained the clause that the government will undertake labour reform by 2017. Didn’t he remember that?
BGK: To be fair, the coalition agreement did not delve into the specifics of what labour reform will be undertaken. There’s evidence to suggest that the Greens thought that they will be able to kill any wide-ranging labour reform while part of the coalition government, and at the same time push for their agenda, such as killing the Trans-Santonian Pipeline [PTS] expansion.
JBP: The Coalition really bent over backwards for the Greens with the PTS expansion. Both the Liberals and Radicals are in favour of the PTS expansion, but had to cancel it in order for the Greens to get into their government.
MFV: Maybe that lulled the Greens into thinking that they can petulantly demand whatever they want.
BGK: That cancellation of the PTS expansion really has the potential to cause problems for the Coalition in their traditional bailiwicks in the south and east. I have an upcoming article regarding that in
L’Indépendant, but I think the Coalition shot themselves in the foot in that one.
JBP: Brice’s column will be a great read. I like your take on things.
BGK: Why, thank you, Barth. Anyway, the official stance of the Coalition, now that the Greens are out of government, is that the PTS expansion was cancelled because there were “serious flaws” as to how the previous National government approved the expansion and “defects” in the expansion plans.
MFV: Yeah, right. They’re just saying that because 1. they no longer need the Greens because the government already fell and 2. they’re trying to salvage their position in southern and eastern Saintonge.
BGK: The signs pointing to possible problems started to appear for the Coalition when National candidates in Nyon started using the cancellation to attack the Liberal and Radical incumbents there.
JBP: Aside from the Trans-Santonian Pipeline, other issues that ADC tried to raise was
laïcité. It seems that ADC was trying to drive a wedge between the Coalition parties. The Radicals are in favour of
laïcité, the Liberals are opposed. The other big wedge issue for the Coalition was the Primeau Law on same-sex partnerships.
BGK: ADC cannot use the Primeau Law to drive the Liberals and Radicals apart as her own party is split on the issue. She herself is on the record in favour of same-sex partnerships, though other National Party factions, such as the Courrégelongue faction or the Gaucelin faction, are against. Hence you see no mention of same-sex partnerships in the National Party platform.
MFV: The National Party should know that driving a wedge between the Liberals and Radicals is pretty much futile. Economic issues – where the Liberals and Radicals agree on – is more important than social agenda – where the two parties have differences. I mean, look at why the JLHC government fell – it was on economic issues.
JBP: But JLHC and GCC did spar publicly on
laïcité.
MFV: That’s just probably their egos. When worse comes to worst, the Liberals and the Radicals know which side of the bread is buttered on. They will prefer each other over the National Party anytime. Hence the great lengths they went to secure the Greens for the coalition government in 2015.
BGK: Also, on to other issues, ADC also tried to discuss the cuts to welfare, education, health, and science and technology funding.
MFV: Well, what else do we expect from a Coalition government? The Liberal and Radical parties’ manifesto wants to, and I quote, “reduce the size of the bloated government”. So, not unexpected.
JBP: It’s going to cost votes in the election, that I predict. Even the City of Saintes, which is governed by a Coalition government, said that the cuts greatly affected their ability to provide services. Mayor Stéphane Mauconduit had some choice words for GCC last March, plus more for Radical Interior Minister [Philippe-Rainier] de Créquy.
BGK: But no such choice words for JLHC, who is a fellow Liberal. Which is why I suspect it has something to do with the fact that many races in the city of Saintes are typically Liberal versus Radical. To be fair, it’s GCC who has been louder in pushing for more cuts, to the point that Finance Minister [Xavier-Bertrand] Vergnet, a Liberal, had to dismiss some of GCC’s suggestions.
MFV: Vergnet dismissing those suggestions is useless, considering that Social Welfare Minister [Denis-Emmanuel] d'Homme-Dieu, who is a Radical, undertook those welfare cuts anyway. Which made Vergnet happy because the Social Welfare Ministry submitted much smaller budget requests.
BGK: At least the Liberals can shift the blame for welfare cuts on the Radicals… at least partially.
JBP: Saintes, then, will be the place to watch out for if there will be any political impact.
Q: What do you think will happen in the second and final election debate?
MFV: More slagfest!
BGK: Matthieu is such a pessimist. I hope they’d finally get around to talking about the issues.
JBP: And so we hope.