Macron on top but Le Pen still standing after three-hour TV slog

Last night’s “Great Debate” between Emmanuel Macron and his rival for the French presidency Marine Le Pen turned out much as expected – which was probably the only surprise of the evening.

Nothing shocking occurred. Neither candidate had the other on the ropes. Nor was there a knockout blow. Macron came away the clear winner on points, but the challenger remained standing when the officials from France 2 and TF1 rang the final bell.

Le Pen did her best to stick to the economic recovery programme that has galvanised her campaign this time round and spent as little time as possible on the tricky issue of Russia and her relationship with Vladimir Putin.

But Macron refused to let her off the hook. Drawing on his opponent’s long history with Putin, including her borrowings from Moscow-based banks and her support for the annexation of Crimea in 2014, he presented himself as – if ever so slightly shop-soiled from the experience – the one who had done everything possible to dial down the likelihood of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. “You are speaking to your banker when you speak of Russia,” said Macron.

To this, Le Pen could make no serious reply.

Those watching – estimated at 15.5 million – will have learned nothing that was new from the debate but will have come away with the feeling, better the devil we know than the leader of the Far Right, with her shaky economics and close ties to the Kremlin.

For Le Pen, it was essential that she conform to her new image, that of mother of the nation, concerned about the cost of living for ordinary French people and the inequities that have grown worse over the course of the last five, tortuous years. And, by and large, she kept to the script. Only when the topic turned to immigration and Islamism did the authentic Le Pen emerge.

“I’m not fighting against a religion, I’m not fighting against Islam, which has its place. That isn’t the problem. I am fighting against the Islamist ideology which attacks the foundations of our Republic. I am for the banning of the veil in the public space. I believe the veil is a uniform imposed by the Islamists.”

The National Rally leader went on to make clear that as President she would not only ban the wearing of head scarves and the hijab outside of the home and mosque, but would deport some 4,500 known radicals and close as many as 170 mosques which, in her view, encourage religious fundamentalism and terrorism.

This brought from Macron one of the highlights of the evening: “Banning headscarves in the street,” he said, “would lead to civil war.” He was for the law of 1905 confirming the separation of Church and State. “With me, there will be no ban on the headscarf, the yarmulke, or any other religious symbol in the public space. If we follow your logic, all religious signs in public space must be banned, not just the headscarf.”

If Le Pen was nonplussed by this, she didn’t show it. Instead, she went on to confirm that, if elected, she would call a referendum as early as the autumn in support of her proposal that all foreigners, not just Islamists, who have broken the law should be deported and that a system of French Preference be established that favours native citizens in jobs, housing and benefits.

“I believe that security is a key issue for the French people. There is insecurity everywhere – people syphoning off petrol from cars and stealing sheep. There is unbridled, uncontrolled immigration. We need to uphold the law. We need to decide who comes and who goes. The police need to be re-armed, morally and physically.”

Macron shook his head. “What is most worrying in your peroration is the path it takes. From the question of the veil, you move on to terrorism and then to foreigners. You create a system of presumed equivalence that confuses all the problems without resolving any of them.”

What viewers made of this exchange will only be made clear on Sunday, when the second round of their election is held. But it seems likely that millions of voters who might otherwise favour a tough approach to the issues raised by Islamism, terrorism and mass immigration will think twice before switching to the position of Marine Le Pen.

On the economy and related matters arising out of the Covid pandemic, Macron looked to be on firm ground. Mistakes had been made, but the nation’s health had been restored, the underlying economy was sound and unemployment was at its lowest level for at least ten years. Yes, the public debt had increased by 600 billion euros, but that was because the Government had acted to provide vaccines, preserve jobs and keep schools open.

“Who helped small businesses, shops and restaurants. We did. “What would you have done?”

Le Pen’s response was vague. Though she was not rattled and in markedly better command of the facts than in 2017, her only answer to economic dislocation seemed to be to throw more money at the problem.

She would end income tax for the under-30s and provide generous monthly bursaries for apprentices. All young people would in future be able to use public transport free of charge during off-peak times. VAT on 100 key foodstuffs would be removed entirely. Teachers would be given an immediate salary increase of three per cent; 25,000; more prison officers would be recruited; pensions would be increased; retirement would occur between the ages of 56 and 62, depending on the number of years served.

VAT on energy bills would come down from 20 per cent to 5 per cent, meaning an increase in purchasing power across the nation of €12 billion. Families with second children would receive extra benefits. Those with disabilities would receive greater financial help. Pensions would go up.

“I choose to emphasise spending,” she added, perhaps unnecessarily.

Macron listened, hands clasped in front of him, as though indulging a well-meaning child. He then recounted his record – or at least those parts of it that suited his argument: €19 billion invested in hospitals; €180 extra a month onto the minimum wage; the basic state pension up from €980 a month to €1,100; progress towards a minimum wage of €2,000 per month; 50,000 additional nurses and assistants over the next five years; a graduated increase in the retirement age; grants for home improvements for the elderly and for the insulation of homes.

Le Pen refused to be impressed. “It is nothing,” she said. “It is nothing.” The President, she said, was only interested in the big cities, not the countryside. Productivity had plummeted; millions of young people were without jobs. The only growth had been in the gig economy – Deliveroo and Uber. The focus had to be on industry and the expansion of digital coverage into rural areas.

“I will be the president of the democratic renaissance, collective protections, freedom, sovereignty and security.”

The two were at obvious odds over Europe and the European Union. Macron conceded that more needed to be done to enhance national sovereignty in an EU context. But he remained firm in his support for a more integrated Europe. “We need the economy of scale provided by Europe. We also need EU-wide regulation [to cover the governance of Big Tech] Who is going to protect us? Europe is.”

Le Pen’s response? “When I think of Europe, I think of General De Gaulle.” The EU had no right to meddle in how France regulated itself. In the area of IT, it needed to create the equivalent of Airbus and Ariane.” Where Macron said that sovereignty was shared between Europe and France, her view was that there was no such thing as European sovereignty “because there is no such thing as a European people”.

In contradiction of her firm policy in 2015 (amended in time for her 2017 bid for power), she said she would keep France as a member of the EU, and even of the single currency. But she wished to see it radically reformed, both in terms of the free movement of workers – one of the four pillars of the Treaty of Rome – and on the scale of her country’s contribution to the EU budget. Where he saw a European Union, she saw a Europe of nations.

Climate change, and with it energy provision, provided some of the sharpest disagreements of the night. While denying the charge that she is a climate change denier, Le Pen is an enthusiastic supporter of fossil fuels and would, with public support by way of a referendum, dismantle all existing wind farms in France, both onshore and offshore.

The one area on which they found common ground was nuclear power. Both are for it. But while Macron wants the French to switch to hybrid and electric cars as quickly as possible, Macron sees no problem with petrol and diesel, especially in the rural areas from which she draws the bulk of her support.

“You’re a climate hypocrite,” she told the President. “All your measures make people feel guilty. They don’t have the resources to pay for them.” There was nothing worse than wind and solar, which were unreliable and often didn’t work. What was needed instead was a “much slower ecological transition.”

One final dispute will have had particular resonance for millions of French people who feel they have been left out of the national conversation over the five years of Macron’s first term. Le Pen says that France needs a national renaissance and that one way of achieving this is by putting power back in the hands of the people. Accordingly, she is proposing that the National Assembly should in future be required to debate and vote on any proposition supported by at least 500,000 people.

“You show contempt for the people,” she told Macron. “You have divided the country. You don’t listen, and when people approach you, you turn them away with harsh words.”

Macron was aghast. “You want to sidestep Parliament. You would turn the election into a kind of referendum on how France is to be governed.”

Le Pen did not demur. “I want to give the French priority in their own country.”

By the end of the nearly three hours of debate – never heated but always forthright – the two contestants for France’s top job were back where they started. Nothing had been uncovered, but nor had anything of significance been hidden. It is now left to the voting public to make up their minds.