On the first point the results are mixed

At the time where Blair begins his long and strange ceremony of farewell, the France between progressively in the field. But this crossover will not prevent the left to question the meaning of this experience either to exploit it in its internal debates, or to draw any lessons. It is yet on this second point that we must focus. Brought the Blairism What is différenciet - it of Thatcherism

On the first point, the contribution is undeniable. He allowed a center-left Government won three successive victories, after a long conservative sequence whose the social damage was considerable. The merit of Blair was to reassure the social victims of the Thatcher revolution, without trying to go back. It is this refusal to go back which is the point most of his attempt to modernization of the left. And this is precisely what still lack the French left. Force to see permanently as a source of repair "damage of liberalism", the left is attempted through the use of the status quo ante. By identifying all what was done before she wrong choices, it nourishes social pessimism and the idealization of the past. The nodal point, to the left, is this one: recognize that project may not be a project for the restoration of the thirty Glorieuses.

Does anyone think that the left will repeal the Fillon law What indeed is - this left thinking so Is it not wiser to say that it must continue what began and continue to resolve what was not The left is about change. But the meaning that it confers to it is ambiguous. From this point of view, Ségolène Royal has begun to break well limited codes from the classical left by saying that the French did not recognize in an agreed address which would be his time to say all the right has done was necessarily wrong.

The second lesson of Blairism is an exceptional appreciation of the policy in the social life. While in France, country State voluntarism, it laments continuously from the collapse of the policy, its impotence in the face the market in England, Blair demonstrated the contrary. He highlighted the fact that consistent political choices could make the difference. Simply, this difference was not against the movement of the world, but in a symbiotic relationship with him. And there are found a second cultural difference with the French left. It think the policy on a heroic mode of resistance to the globalization of the world. It devalues what she calls liberalism accompanying policies. But this ideological reasoning has no operational value. There is not to choose between passively accept all and reject all actively. The most important is to have a vision of the world. But this vision should not be utopian. It must leave the world as it is.

This brings us to the second point: but what the Blairism differ from Thatcherism Would it not be a disguised right policy To answer this question, it must stick to the facts. In ten years, Blair has been back from 7.2 to 5.5 unemployment. This decline in unemployment was accompanied by a mass of non-Community immigrants (1 million) and Community contribution (1 half million). The Polish plumber is in London, not in Paris. The employment rate is now further of 72, 62.5 in France. With respect to per capita income, it is the second G7 then that it was the seventh decade. Balance report of Blairism to two issues which have always played a major role on the left: the fight against inequalities and the evolution of public expenditure.

On the first point, the results are mixed. Inequalities have not declined under Blair. They are at the highest level since 1961. At the same time, it can be seen that they have been stabilized and have not experienced the progression of the Thatcher years. But the stabilization of the inequality does not mean the absence of redistributive policy. On the contrary, without very targeted choices to single parent families, retirees and the poor, inequality of market would have undoubtedly been more. The reality of the redistributive policy is also confirmed by the significant reduction of the number of poor. The poverty of children was reduced grace, including, to politicians to return to the employment of vulnerable persons. But this fragile result shows that the Labour led a policy which cannot be characterized as purely liberal. There is indeed a paradox between the English Labour and the French PS. Blair took a more social policy that his liberal discourse assumed, while the French left leads, once in power, a more liberal policy that is suggested by his speech.

On public spending, Blair policy was not homogeneous. As a first step, he likely sought to play on incentives, in particular to decrease unemployment, on public investment. This explains why, in 2000, the British public spending experienced its lowest level since 1961. Is that since 2000 that the public expenditure began to grow in significant, all the more significant proportions it comes in a context of strong growth and lower unemployment. Thus, it rose from 37.4 of GDP in 1999 to 42.2 in 2008. This place still Britain to a level below that which was his early 1990s. But it also shows the reality, the importance and the autonomy of the political choices in public spending. The political nature of these choices is also reflected less in their quantitative increase in their qualitative development. If you compare the growth of public expenditure under Thatcher and Blair, one is struck by the differences in priority. Blair has focused on health spending, education and transport infrastructure. The latter, which had been neglected by Margaret Thatcher, but also during the first mandate of Blair, have been, since 2001 an increase more than five times higher than the growth of national income. The State continues to play a vital role in economic and social regulation.

Blair is both pro-Etat and pro-marché. The day where the French left will be deemed that the market is not the public good, it will have crossed a decisive step. It will then more need to be from the Blairism.