quarta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2017

Câmara de Lisboa responsabiliza Assunção Cristas por fecho de muitas lojas históricas / Programa Lojas com História de Lisboa finalmente aprovado (com avisos ao Parlamento)


Câmara de Lisboa responsabiliza Assunção Cristas por fecho de muitas lojas históricas
POR O CORVO • 1 FEVEREIRO, 2017 •

Todos à espera da Assembleia da República (AR). A Câmara Municipal de Lisboa (CML) e a Assembleia Municipal de Lisboa (AML) querem que o parlamento acelere a discussão e apreciação dos instrumentos legais que poderão ajudar a travar a actual vaga de encerramentos de estabelecimentos comerciais da capital com importância histórica ou cultural local. As alterações ao Novo Regime do Arrendamento Urbano (NRAU), assim como ao Regime Jurídico das Obras em Prédios Arrendados (RJOPA), estão há quase um ano nas mãos da AR onde aguardam agendamento para discussão e votação.

Sem elas, continuar-se-á a assistir ao fecho de lojas notáveis a um ritmo acelerado. Algo que Duarte Cordeiro, vice-presidente da CML, diz ser responsabilidade de Assunção Cristas (CDS-PP), por, enquanto ministra do anterior governo, ter introduzido alterações à Lei das Rendas que facilitam os despejos – responsáveis pela cessação da existência de muitas lojas emblemáticas. Ao mesmo tempo, o “número dois” da câmara municipal apela também aos donos dos prédios para que aprendam a valorizar a lojas históricas que estejam instaladas nos seus edifícios. “Não são um activo negativo, são antes um activo positivo, que os proprietários devem tentar valorizar”, diz.

As acusações a Cristas surgiram durante o debate que precedeu a aprovação do regulamento das Lojas com História e do respectivo fundo, realizado na tarde desta terça-feira (31 de janeiro), na AML. Sem nunca a nomear, o autarca socialista foi contundente nas críticas à agora candidata à presidência da edilidade. “A lei do arrendamento em vigor tem autores e nós queremos, efectivamente, corrigi-la. Se hoje estamos a assistir a um conjunto de despejos de lojas com história, isso não se deve ao município de Lisboa, mas as autores da lei do arrendamento. Temos todos que nos lembrar quem foram esses autores da lei do arrendamento e que partidos é que a subscreveram”, afirmou Duarte Cordeiro, referindo-se à alteração legislativa, aprovada em 2012, na AR, com os votos favoráveis da maioria então formada por PSD e CDS-PP. Assunção Cristas era a titular da pasta da Habitação.

As fortes críticas à ex-ministra surgiram no momento em que o vice-presidente da autarquia destacava a importância do programa Lojas com História – que tem sido alvo de muitas críticas por demorar demasiado tempo a entrar em vigor, havendo ainda quem o considere incapaz de reverter a dinâmica de encerramento de estabelecimentos emblemáticos, acelerada nos últimos tempos. “Temos consciência de que isto é uma corrida contra o tempo”, disse, já depois de ter exortado o Governo e a Assembleia da República a despacharem-se na colocação a apreciação e votação das tais alterações legislativas (NRAU e RJOPA).

“Com os instrumentos aqui apresentados na assembleia municipal, damos um sinal claro a todos no que diz respeito ao desejo de proteger as lojas com história. Mas estamos também a pressionar a AR para que seja célere no seu processo”, afirmou o autarca, que prometeu diversas acções promocionais destes estabelecimentos, para breve. Para o mês de Abril, e já depois do arranque de outras iniciativas promocionais, está prevista “uma grande exposição que valorize as lojas com história”, prometeu o vereador. Tanto o projecto de Regulamento do Fundo Municipal como o referente ao Regulamento Municipal de Atribuição da Distinção “Lojas com História” foram ontem aprovados, com votos contra do CDS-PP e abstenção do PSD.

Duarte Cordeiro considera que a aprovação destes dois instrumentos associados é importante, nem que seja pelo sinal político transmitido ao resto do país de que deseja preservar os estabelecimentos históricos -“Lisboa dá um sinal muito importante, que será seguido por outros municípios”, afirma, confiante. Mas o autarca frisa também a importância vital da reversão do enquadramento legal criado pelo anterior Governo.

“O programa Lojas com História é importante para Lisboa, independentemente das alterações legislativas que vierem a ser aprovadas. Mas, não tenhamos ilusões, sem elas, o nível de protecção que temos é bastante insuficiente face ao conjunto de fenómenos ao conjunto de situações a acontecer na cidade, relacionadas com a lei do arrendamento e o quadro legal relativo a obras profundas em prédios arrendados”, destacou.

Sobre esta questão, aliás, gerou-se um consenso à esquerda. Tanto o PCP, pela voz do deputado municipal Carlos Santos Silva, como o Bloco de Esquerda, através da eleita Cristina Andrade, apontaram as modificações à lei do arrendamento realizadas por iniciativa de Assunção Cristas como as grandes responsáveis pelo encerramento maciço de lojas consideradas históricas. Apenas diferiram ligeiramente na categorização dos fenómenos que, no seu entender, ajudam a fechar o cerco aos donos das lojas. Se os comunistas denunciaram “o movimento especulativo” sentido na cidade, os bloquistas denunciaram o “processo de gentrificação” em curso. Os deputados dos restantes partidos não se pronunciaram sobre a matéria.


Texto: Samuel Alemão


Programa Lojas com História de Lisboa finalmente aprovado (com avisos ao Parlamento)
Depois de longa discussão, vai por fim avançar a distinção às lojas mais emblemáticas de Lisboa. A câmara e os deputados municipais insistem na alteração à Lei das Rendas.

JOÃO PEDRO PINCHA 31 de Janeiro de 2017, 20:20

Quase dois anos depois de ter sido lançado, o programa Lojas com História foi finalmente aprovado esta terça-feira na Assembleia Municipal de Lisboa. O regulamento, que define as regras para que os espaços comerciais da cidade se possam candidatar a esta distinção, foi elogiado pelos partidos de esquerda e só teve o voto contra do CDS.

A líder deste partido, aliás, foi alvo de várias críticas, embora o nome de Assunção Cristas não tenha sido referido na reunião. “Se está a haver despejos [de lojas] não se deve ao município, mas sim aos autores da Lei do Arrendamento”, disse o vice-presidente da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, responsável pelo programa agora aprovado na generalidade. Como já fez noutras ocasiões, Duarte Cordeiro criticou a actuação de Cristas enquanto ministra por ter criado, em 2012, o Novo Regime de Arrendamento Urbano (NRAU), que levou à “desprotecção” do comércio tradicional. “Essa lei do arrendamento tem autores e nós queremos, efectivamente, corrigi-la”, afirmou.

Também o PCP e o Bloco de Esquerda apontaram baterias à legislação do anterior Governo. “A lei das rendas tem aqui, claramente visto, um efeito terrível para a cidade”, declarou o comunista Carlos Silva Santos. “Consideramos essencial que ela seja revista”, afirmou depois a bloquista Cristina Andrade.

Nos últimos anos foram dezenas as lojas e restaurantes emblemáticos de Lisboa que fecharam. Em alguns casos, os proprietários dos edifícios – frequentemente fundos imobiliários estrangeiros - despejaram os espaços comerciais para fazer obras profundas. Noutros, as rendas aumentaram exponencialmente. Noutros ainda, os contratos de arrendamento não foram renovados.

“Temos consciência de que isto é uma corrida contra o tempo”, disse Duarte Cordeiro, destacando que as regras agora aprovadas permitem uma “classificação exigente” das lojas, algo que não chega para as salvar de um eventual fecho. “Não tenhamos ilusões. Sem alterações legislativas, o nível de protecção é bastante insuficiente”, alertou.

O Parlamento, por iniciativa de um conjunto de deputados do PS, está a discutir um projecto-lei sobre este tema há quase um ano. O documento está na Comissão de Ambiente, Ordenamento do Território, Descentralização, Poder Local e Habitação desde Abril, mas a câmara espera que a legislação avance rapidamente. Com a aprovação deste regulamento é dado “um sinal claro ao legislador” de que estas lojas “merecem ser protegidas”.

A autarquia definiu em Julho de 2016 o primeiro grupo de 63 Lojas com História, que agora – após discussão na especialidade do regulamento aprovado esta terça – vão receber um galardão especial, além de passarem a constar de um site criado para o efeito. A partir deste momento, outras lojas vão poder candidatar-se à distinção. A câmara quer escolher, brevemente, mais 20 espaços.

Paralelamente foi também aprovada a criação de um fundo municipal de 250 mil euros destinado a apoiar as lojas classificadas na preservação de património, na modernização da actividade e na criação de programas culturais, por exemplo. “Abre-se hoje definitivamente uma nova janela de esperança nesta urbe tão amada”, declarou a deputada independente Ana Gaspar. “Acho que estamos todos de parabéns.”

Neil Gorsuch nominated by Donald Trump to fill supreme court vacancy


Neil Gorsuch nominated by Donald Trump to fill supreme court vacancy
Known for his firm conservative views, Gorsuch could tip the court’s balance on hot-button issues such as abortion, voting rights and religious equality

Tom McCarthy, Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs
Wednesday 1 February 2017 01.04 GMT

President Donald Trump has nominated circuit court judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacant seat on the US supreme court, setting up a showdown with congressional Democrats and activists over a pick that could shape the ideological bent of the court for a generation.

Gorsuch, 49, the youngest supreme court nominee in 25 years, was among a group of federal judges reported in recent weeks to be on Trump’s shortlist. A strict adherent of judicial restraint known for sharply-written opinions and bedrock conservative views, Gorsuch, a Colorado native, is popular among his peers and is seen as having strong backing among Republicans generally.

The nomination landed at a moment of sharply-increasing alarm amongst progressives that the Trump administration plans to pursue extremist policies on core questions likely to come before the court, from religious equality to abortion rights, voting rights, access to healthcare, LGBT rights, anti-discrimination protections and more.

Announcing his pick in the White House’s East Room, Trump described reading Gorsuch’s writings “closely”, as Gorsuch stood next to Trump listening with a fixed expression of earnest concern, holding his wife, Louise, in one arm.

“I can only hope that both Democrats and Republicans can come together for once for the good of the country,” Trump said.

Some prominent Senate Democrats immediately denounced Gorsuch as “unacceptable” and “extreme”. But it was unclear if there would be sufficient support to mount a filibuster and force an historic showdown over the nomination and Senate procedure.

“Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch’s fitness to be a supreme court justice,” said Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.

If Democrats refuse to support Gorsuch, Republicans could decide to change the Senate rules to confirm him. But many Republicans are wary of this move, and are hopeful vulnerable Democrats will come around.

Republicans were effusive in their praise of Gorsuch, calling him “highly qualified”, “universally respected” and, above all, “mainstream”. “There’s nothing not to like about Neil Gorsuch,” said Jeff Flake of Arizona. Even more enthusiastic praise came from Ben Sasse of Nebraska who told the Guardian that Gorsuch “is the kind of person that the founders envisioned sitting on the supreme court”.

Many Democrats are particularly bitter about the confirmation process after Republicans’ refusal last year to consider the nomination of circuit court judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s selection to replace Scalia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell argued at the time that it would be inappropriate for a departing president – 11 months remained in Obama’s term – to make such a significant and long-term appointment.

“This is a stolen seat being filled by an illegitimate and extreme nominee, and I will do everything in my power to stand up against this assault on the Court,” said Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon who has said he is committed to blocking the nominee.

Advertisement

The Democratic National Committee said Gorsuch’s nomination “raises some very serious questions” about whether he would be an independent and impartial justice, and noted that Trump’s litmus test for a nominee was a person who is “pro-life” and would overturn Roe v Wade.

Trump’s nominee has the potential to tip the court one way or the other on important questions. If confirmed, Gorsuch would return the court to nine justices, filling a seat left vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

Working for the last year with an even number of justices, the court issued split 4-4 decisions on high-stakes questions such as the protection of undocumented immigrants and the health of public unions, leaving lower court rulings in place.

The next justice to be confirmed may break such ties, giving new strength to the court’s conservative bloc, which could be further buttressed by future Trump nominations in the case of the retirement or death of a justice. One of the four liberal-leaning justices on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, turns 84 in March. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a centrist on the court who has sometimes split tie votes for the progressive wing, is 80 years old.

Trumps nomination of Neil Gorsuch would fill a seat left vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Gorsuch’s track record as a judge on the US court of appeals for the 10th circuit does not shed obvious light on how he might rule as a supreme court justice on hot-button topics such as abortion and LGBT rights. He is the author of a book about euthanasia in which he writes, “to act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends.”

Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases.

Gorsuch did get praise from some Democrats. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Obama administration wrote in an editorial for the New York Times entitled “Why Liberals should back Neil Gorsuch” that Trump’s nominee was an “extraordinary judge and man”.

During Trump’s announcement, Gorsuch addressed the crowd briefly, declaring himself “honored and humbled” and promising to be a “faithful servant to the constitution and laws of this great country” and paying tribute to the principles of partiality, independence, collegiality and courage.


“A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge,” Gorsuch said, “stretching” for rulings he desires instead of reading the law on the page.

Before he left the lectern, Trump sought confirmation that his primetime announcement had gone over as planned.

“So was that a surprise?” he said. “Was it?”

Gorsuch is a former clerk for Justice Kennedy, and some conservative analysts theorize that he could assert a rightward influence on the centrist Ronald Reagan nominee.

Chuck Schumer had said he would filibuster Trump’s pick if he was outside the “mainstream”. On Tuesday night, he said he had “serious doubts” that Gorsuch would prove himself to be within the “legal” mainstream. Others used similar language, with House minority leader Nancy Pelosi saying on CNN that Gorsuch is a “very hostile appointment” and “outside the mainstream”.

But a Democratic blockade seemed unlikely after Dick Durbin, the number 2 ranking Democrat in the Senate, issued a statement calling for a floor vote on Gorsuch.
“I will meet with Judge Gorsuch and support a hearing and a vote for him—both of which were denied to an eminently qualified nominee presented by President Obama,” Durbin said in a statement.

Under current Senate rules, which require 60 votes for a supreme court confirmation, Gorsuch would need to win the support of multiple Democrats, who count 48 Senate caucus members to the Republicans’ 52.

If the Democrats follow through with a filibuster, however, those rules could change. The previous Democratic leadership of the Senate changed the rules to require fewer votes for the confirmation of most executive nominees, and the current Republican leadership could make an additional change to the rules. McConnell earlier had vowed to confirm Trump’s nominee.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer downplayed the looming threat of an all-consuming political brawl over Trump’s nominee, telling reporters on Tuesday that he believed the Senate would reach the 60-vote threshold required to confirm supreme court appointees.

Republicans dismissed any lingering hard feelings from the Senate’s refusal to hold hearings on Garland. “I think that’s a bogus argument” said Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “I thought it was a bit unfair when you look through the history of the country when a vacancy occurs in the last year of a sitting president and the primary process is almost over ... if that’s the reason they use, it’s a bogus reason.

Interest groups across the political spectrum will spend millions on a public campaign to legitimize or tear down a supreme court nominee. Already, conservative groups are running ads to pressure Senate Democrats in red states into siding with Republicans over the nominee.

A fly-fishing enthusiast and skier who lives outside Boulder, Colorado, Gorsuch lived in Washington DC as a boy, after his mother Anne Gorsuch Burford was appointed by Reagan to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. After graduating from Columbia University, Gorsuch, who is said to have “an inexhaustible store of Winston Churchill quotes”, went on to Harvard Law school and attended Oxford University on a Marshall scholarship. He worked as a corporate lawyer in Washington for a decade before his appointment to the circuit court by George W Bush in 2006, a post to which the Senate confirmed him by voice vote.


The supreme court is currently in recess and is scheduled to reconvene for conference on 17 February.

Republican party torn by claims of White House chaos


Republican party torn by claims of White House chaos
Doubts grow among party elite over competence of Trump’s inner circle

YESTERDAY by: David J Lynch and Courtney Weaver in Washington

Republicans are struggling to advance their policy agenda in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s confused rollout of a ban on refugees and all travellers from seven Muslim nations entering the US.

The escalating reaction to Mr Trump’s executive order on immigration is also raising concerns about the workings of his White House staff less than two weeks into the presidency. In private conversations, some establishment Republicans are voicing growing doubts about the administration’s competence.

“Chaos is not sustainable,” said John Weaver, a veteran Republican strategist. “You’re not ultimately going to be able to advance a coherent agenda through Congress if every day is DefCon 1, all-hands-on-deck. They better get that fixed.”

Adding to the tumultuous atmosphere, Mr Trump fired Sally Yates, the acting attorney-general, on Monday night saying she had “betrayed” the Department of Justice by refusing to defend the order in court.

Republicans’ predicament was evident on Tuesday during the House leadership’s weekly press conference where lawmakers sought unsuccessfully to change the subject from the travel ban. Paul Ryan, House Speaker, told reporters that Republicans were moving forward on repealing Obamacare, ending the “war on coal jobs” and overhauling the regulatory process. “We want to pave the way for more growth and higher wages, “ he said.


When reporters asked about Mr Trump’s travel ban, Mr Ryan said the president’s order had erroneously included legal permanent residents of the US — or “green card” holders — and those with special visas, such as former interpreters for the US military.

But Mr Ryan said he had been reassured by a private conversation on Monday with John Kelly, secretary for homeland security. “On a going-forward basis, he’ll make sure that things are done correctly,” the speaker said, adding that the order’s confused rollout was “regrettable”.

Mr Kelly said on Tuesday, in his first public remarks on the matter, that it was “not a Muslim ban”.

Mr Ryan said tighter vetting procedures are needed for refugees and other travellers from the seven nations covered by the ban: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

The uproar over the travel order introduced late on Friday afternoon has grown by the day. Spontaneous airport protests erupted over the weekend in major cities, including New York, San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas. On Monday, former president Barack Obama joined the critics, saying: “American values are at stake.”

The measure also drew fire from more than 1,000 US diplomats who signed an unusual cable of dissent and the chief executives of multinationals, such as Coca-Cola, Ford and Goldman Sachs.

[The travel ban] could become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism
John McCain and Lindsey Graham

In a worrisome development for the White House, chairmen of both the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees, John McCain and Robert Corker, criticised the ban. In a joint statement, Mr McCain and Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator, said Mr Trump’s initiative could “become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism”.

In total, more than two dozen Republican senators and congressmen have spoken out against the travel restrictions.

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona called the executive order “unacceptable”; Nebraska’s Senator Ben Sasse labelled it “too broad”; and Dean Heller of Nevada said he was “deeply troubled by the appearance of a religious ban”.

Aside from the politics, Republican elected officials expressed ire over the way the executive order was introduced — particularly the lack of co-ordination between the White House and government agencies.

Mr Corker told reporters he had not seen Mr Trump’s order until after the president signed it, while Chuck Grassley, the Republican head of the Senate judiciary committee, said he was not involved.

Senate aides also reported brimming frustration inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, where officials were still struggling with interpreting and implementing the order.

People are frustrated,” said one senior Republican aide. “[The executive order] was Friday — and now it’s Tuesday. And we still can’t get straight answers,” he said, noting that morale was low in the agency departments.
Senior Republican aide

Behind closed doors, Republican senators and representatives are more caustic, flinging accusations that the new White House team was overrun by “Kremlinology” and “back-stabbing”.

Particularly concerning have been reports that Mr Kelly, whose agency is responsible for border controls, was not consulted about the sweeping changes to visa and refugee programs, and has faced resistance to his hiring choices.

While the fallout in elite circles has been intense, Mr Trump’s voters approve of his actions, according to Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader. “People in the heartland, people who voted for Trump, are saying: Yes!” he said in a telephone interview.

Mr Lott rebuffed the critics who say the White House is hobbled by divisions between traditional Republicans such as Reince Priebus, chief of staff, and nationalists led by Steve Bannon, former Breitbart publisher.


“They probably need more staff,” Lott said. “I’ve been trying to work with them on infrastructure and it’s hard to know who you need to talk to. They need some more experienced, substantive people.”

Conselheira de Donald Trump sugere despedimento de jornalistas / Steve Bannon is calling the shots in the White House. That's terrifying


Conselheira de Donald Trump sugere despedimento de jornalistas
Kellyanne Conway questionou a ausência de despedimentos em órgãos de comunicação social depois das notícias com "tendência jornalística."

31 DE JANEIRO DE 2017
10:20
Luís Alves Vicente

A conselheira de Donald Trump, e antiga diretora de campanha do presidente dos Estados Unidos, Kellyanne Conway, sugeriu que alguns dos jornalistas e comentadores que acompanharam as presidenciais norte-americanas deveriam ser demitidos. "Se isto fosse um negócio a sério e os órgãos de comunicação social principais estivessem no setor privado em expansão, que realmente gerasse dividendos, 20 por cento das pessoas tinham sido despedidas", exemplificou.

"As pessoas [jornalistas] deviam estar envergonhadas. Nem uma pessoa de uma estação foi despedida, nenhum comentador político que falou mal de Donald Trump foi demitido", denunciou Kellyanne Conway, perante o jornalista e entrevistador da Fox News, Chris Wallace. "Estão a comentar todos os domingos, estão nos canais todos os dias. Onde está o primeiro editor ou o primeiro blogger que vai ser despedido, que envergonharam os títulos para onde escrevem? Nós sabemos os seus nomes. Sou demasiado educada para os dizer. A eleição foi há três meses e ninguém foi despedido."

Antes ainda, a antiga CEO lamentou-se da cobertura jornalística em todos os momentos da corrida à Casa Branca: "Houve uma campanha anti-Trump enquanto candidato, presidente eleito e presidente. Os media falharam em entender a América. A tendência jornalística é fácil de ser detetada. Sinceramente ajuda-nos, porque a rejeição desta eleição é uma rejeição das elites e do status quo. Quem é que está a arrumar a casa? Qual vai ser a primeira estação a livrar-se destas pessoas que disseram coisas que não são verdade?"

A conselheira de Donald Trump denunciou ainda que "com a imprensa livre vem a responsabilidade e a responsabilidade é dar a história bem" e que "os media não fazem coberturas completas." Antes do discurso desenfreado, Wallace procurou defender os companheiros de profissão: "É ofensivo termos pessoas na Casa Branca há uma semana a dar-nos lições sobre o que devemos ou não devemos fazer e que devemos estar calados."

Esta tomada de posição por parte da administração norte-americana já é um padrão. Esta quinta-feira, o presidente norte-americano generalizou os media, dizendo que os jornalistas inventavam e reportavam notícias falsas. Também Steve Bannon, o responsável pela estratégia da Casa Branca, comentou que os media "deveriam estar envergonhados e humilhados e deveriam calar-se e ouvir de vez em quando."


Steve Bannon is calling the shots in the White House. That's terrifying
Lawrence Douglas
He is unvetted, unconfirmed but immensely powerful – all thanks to the undisciplined and distracted Donald Trump

Tuesday 31 January 2017 16.28 GMT

That didn’t take long. From no-drama Obama to all-trauma Trump: the shift has been seismic, leaving millions in this country and abroad frightened and struggling to make sense of America’s new political landscape.

Some of the upheaval appears to be the consequence of incompetence, the predictable result of an under-qualified real estate mogul struggling to master the most powerful and demanding job on the planet.

But not so with the travel ban. In this case, upheaval was the intent – not to the degree we have seen; that clearly caught the administration off guard. But it was upheaval nonetheless.

As we now know, the drafting and rollout of the travel ban was largely the work of Steve Bannon, the president’s chief political strategist. It was Bannon who reportedly overruled the proposal to exempt green card holders from the ban. And it was Bannon who pushed the order through without consulting experts at the Department of Homeland Security or at the state department.

The Nacht und Nebel quality of the ban’s announcement makes clear that the president’s chief strategist wanted to send tremors through the world. Here was bold proof that the portentous accents of Trump’s inaugural address, also Bannon’s work, was not mere rhetoric.

Now the world would know what “America First” means – not first in democracy or human rights; not first in recognizing an obligation to victims of humanitarian crisis (some of which we have helped create). No, this was America first in pugilism, parochialism and misplaced protectionism.

Some insist that all this is simply Bannon throwing meat to the president’s base, plucking a page from Karl Rove’s playbook. Rove, the chief strategist for George W Bush (for whom many are now feeling a once inconceivable nostalgia), famously sought to consolidate his boss’s power not by tacking toward the middle but by feeding the base.

Only it would be wrong to see Bannon as Rove 2.0. At his heart, Rove was a consummate political operator, for whom ideology was a tool, not an article of belief. Rove was a careerist and an opportunist, whose principal goal was the preservation and expansion of Republican political power.

Bannon is an altogether different creature. Listen to his early speeches. Bannon is a crusader, fighting to redeem a corrupt country betrayed by its feckless and greedy leaders. He once described himself as a “Leninist”, intent on destroying “all of today’s establishment”.

For Bannon, America is engaged in a pitched struggle against threats from within and without. It is a battle that will last years, and requires iron resolve and steely determination. If the free press, a bastion of democratic self-governance, does not grasp these elusive truths, then it should “keep its mouth shut”, he says.

Bannon is not the president’s servant. The president is his tool. For years, Bannon cast about for the proper vehicle to carry the fight forward. Sarah Palin, Rick Perry –they were considered possible material. Now in Donald Trump he has found adequate if imperfect stuff. Both are workaholics. Both share a protectionist mindset. Both are combative.

But Bannon, in contrast to the president, is not easily distracted. He is intelligent, articulate, focused in his ideology and dedicated to the struggle. And he has now been catapulted by an undisciplined president to the inner precincts of the National Security Council and its principals’ committee, assuming a position senior to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.

Unvetted, unconfirmed but immensely powerful, Bannon may just be the most dangerous man in America.


ECB has an inflation problem … called Germany


ECB has an inflation problem … called Germany
With prices rising in the eurozone, critics of Mario Draghi’s easy-money policy are out in force.

By JOHANNA TREECK 2/1/17, 4:30 AM CET

FRANKFURT — The eurozone has reached its inflation target for the first time in four years, but European Central Bank chief Mario Draghi has no time to rest on his laurels: He must now brace for renewed attacks on his easy-money policy in Germany.

Overall inflation for the 19 countries that use the euro in January came in at a preliminary 1.8 percent — within a whisper of the ECB’s official target of “below, but close to, 2 percent,” but core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, was unchanged from December at 0.9 percent, making any immediate change in policy unlikely.

However, with German elections looming this September, and top-selling tabloid Bild featuring a “horror curve” showing that despite the spike in inflation — which was even higher in Germany, at 1.9 percent in January — savers are still earning nothing thanks to the policy of negative rates to spur spending elsewhere in the eurozone, Draghi’s problems are more political than economic.

“Someone has to put a stop to Draghi,” said Jörg Meuthen from the far-right, Euroskeptic Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has high hopes of entering the Bundestag (lower house of parliament) for the first time in September. The party is keen to play on the collective German memory of hyperinflation in the first decades of the 20th century.

Other inflation hawks, including mainstream figure like Bavarian Finance Minister Markus Söder, are frustrated with Draghi’s insistence that he cannot tailor monetary policy for the eurozone to the needs of the Germany economy, which is growing much more robustly than neighboring countries who still need the ECB’s support.

With Euroskeptic populists challenging the established order in elections this year in Germany, France and the Netherlands, the ECB will come under increasing pressure to explain why it is doing what it’s doing, said Anatoli Annenkov, economist at Société Générale. While he assumes a slow recovery in core inflation, “we had years and years of downside surprises and now that it is going up, we might also see upside surprises,” he said.

Crumbling façade

Beyond Brexit and fears of protectionist policies from the new U.S. administration, the ECB is bracing for internal pressure from the largest economy in the eurozone.

In his most recent press conference, Draghi attempted to project unity among the ECB’s governing council in support of the €2.3 trillion bond-buying program (“quantitative easing,” or QE in central bank parlance) designed to stimulate the eurozone economy.

But that façade crumbled just days later when German executive board member Sabine Lautenschläger suggested it might be time to bring the policy to an end. “All preconditions for a stable rise in inflation exist. I am thus optimistic that we can soon turn to the question of an exit,” she said in a speech last week.

Her former boss, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, has also signaled that the ECB should let economic data — rather than its previous commitment to keeping quantitative easing running until the end of 2017 — dictate its policy in the coming months.

If economic forecasts from the ECB’s own staff point to higher growth and inflation, hawkish pressure from the Germans on the governing council will almost certainly increase.

Waiting for Godot

Such a spat on the ECB’s governing council could harm German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s prospects of winning a fourth term in September’s elections, by putting her in the awkward position of either trying to retain her credentials as a “good European” by refraining from pressuring the ECB — or doing an about-face to compete for angry savers’ votes.

Merkel, speaking in Stockholm on Tuesday, said it was beyond her powers to get the ECB to change course: “We won’t exercise any influence over the European Central Bank, so I can’t and I don’t want to change the situation as it is now.”

Although he understands German political dynamics and the importance of keeping Berlin onside, Draghi has been steadfast in insisting that his mandate is to look after the eurozone as a whole, including debt-ridden southern European economies like Italy and Portugal for whom the sudden withdrawal of quantitative easing could prove premature and dangerous.

“Waiting for higher interest rates may soon appear like waiting for Godot,” the influential conservative paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung lamented Tuesday. “The ECB has become hostage of indebted countries.”

Carsten Brzeski, an economist at ING, said the ECB has nothing to gain from an increasingly rancorous debate about its monetary policy. It should be relatively easy to get a broad majority within the ECB to announce this summer a gradual “tapering” of the stimulus policies starting in January next year, which would be a “face-saving compromise.”

“However, by starting a permanent public mud fight, where actually no fight is needed, the ECB’s reputation is likely to suffer,” said Brzeski.

Authors:


Johanna Treeck  

terça-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2017

The man who could make Marine Le Pen president of France


The long read
The man who could make Marine Le Pen president of France
Florian Philippot is the strategist behind the rebranding of the extreme right Front National as a populist, anti-elite movement. But don’t mistake him for a moderate
by Angelique Chrisafis

Tuesday 31 January 2017 06.00 GMT

On the night of the US election, Florian Philippot, the closest adviser to the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen, was watching the results from his apartment on the Left Bank in Paris. Before dawn, when Donald Trump’s victory was not yet official but the liberal establishment was beginning to panic, he tweeted: “Their world is crumbling. Ours is being built.”

Around 8am, Philippot phoned Le Pen to discuss the good news. She was in a jubilant mood at the headquarters of her party – the nationalist, anti-immigration Front National – preparing to deliver a speech congratulating Trump. His victory, on promises of trade protectionism and the closing of borders, looked like a major boost to her presidential campaign. Meanwhile, a car arrived to take Philippot, the party’s vice-president, to the village of Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises, 250km from Paris, to lay a wreath at the tomb of France’s great postwar leader, General Charles de Gaulle.

Trump’s victory happened to coincide with the anniversary of the death of de Gaulle, who led the French resistance against Nazi Germany. Philippot idolises de Gaulle: his office, which adjoins Le Pen’s, is plastered with de Gaulle memorabilia – one of many things that sets him apart as an oddity in a party that has long regarded de Gaulle as a traitor for allowing the former French colony of Algeria its independence.

Philippot’s elite credentials should have been another strike against him within a party that proclaims its loathing of the establishment. A graduate of the exclusive Ecole Nationale d’Administration, which produces presidents and prime ministers, Philippot didn’t start out in the Front National in the traditional way – driving around the countryside sticking election posters to fences. Philippot is also gay, in a party whose co-founder Jean-Marie Le Pen once called homosexuality “a biological and social anomaly”. And yet, at 35, he has become the voice of the party, its media star, and the first to claim Trump’s victory as a sign of a new world order.

After the wreath-laying at de Gaulle’s tomb, Philippot hosted a dinner for 100 party workers and supporters in a nearby restaurant. At the end of the meal, with crumpled paper napkins strewn across the table, he told his guests that Trump’s win proved that the people were “throwing off their chains”. France would be next, he said, promising that Marine Le Pen would win the French presidential election in May.

“Everything that yesterday was said to be impossible or improbable, has today become highly possible and highly probable,” he said. The polls showed that even if Le Pen reached the final run-off, she could never win, but that didn’t matter. Chants of “Marine président!” rang out around the room. Le Pen would “make France great again”, Philippot promised, and everyone stood up to sing the Marseillaise.

If Le Pen is now the closest she has ever been to the French presidency, it is in large part down to her working partnership with Philippot, whose judgment she trusts so completely that she rarely takes a decision without consulting him. “They have an intellectual bond; they are in complete agreement on basic principles,” said Bertrand Dutheil de La Rochère, an adviser to Le Pen who is also close to Philippot.

It is Philippot who is credited with executing Le Pen’s plan to sanitise the Front National’s image, tone down its rhetoric and widen its electoral support – banishing open expressions of anti-semitism, racism and xenophobia, even if those old obsessions still bubble away under the surface. Philippot’s single-minded mission to control the party line and root out dissenters has led his rivals inside the party to liken him to Robespierre, the ruthless French revolutionary leader.

So zealous was Philippot’s drive to transform the party’s image that he encouraged Le Pen to expel her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, from the party he co-founded in 1972. If the outspoken, racist, Holocaust-denying 83-year-old Papa Le Pen was a blight on the Front National’s electoral prospects, Philippot styled himself as its salvation. But as the Front National attempts to take the presidency, the adulation, fear and controversy that Philippot provokes have opened new rifts inside the party.

Since the Front National’s modest beginnings in the 1970s – when Jean-Marie Le Pen was chosen as the face of a fledgling nationalist party whose support ranged from neo-fascist street-fighters to ex-members of the wartime collaborationist Vichy regime – the organisation has been engaged in repeated efforts to repackage itself and broaden its appeal to voters. Philippot and Marine Le Pen’s bid to win power by turning economically to the left and courting a disgruntled lower middle class is just the latest of many rebranding exercises. But within the Le Pen family, cracks are showing. Le Pen’s niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, the party’s 27-year-old MP in the hard-right southern heartlands of the Vaucluse, is a devout Catholic and a fervent social conservative who believes that the party must not soften its message.

The challenge for Marine Le Pen is the delicate balance of broadening the Front National’s appeal without losing its core ideals. The number one reason voters choose the Front National is still its anti-immigration, “anti-Islamisation” message – keeping France for the French. At Le Pen’s rallies, one chant from supporters drowns out all others: “On est chez nous!” – This is our country!

Philippot met Marine Le Pen in May 2009 on Paris’s far-right dinner-party circuit, where guests discussed national sovereignty and identity politics over home-cooked food and fine wine. At the time, the Front National was mired in one of its sporadic crises. It had haemorrhaged voters to the rightwing Nicolas Sarkozy in the presidential and parliamentary elections of 2007, was so in debt that it was forced to sell its party headquarters, and was forecast to get only 6% of the vote in the European elections the following month. Marine Le Pen hoped to take over the Front National and transform it from her father’s fringe protest vehicle into a group that could one day win power. But in a weakened party still defined by its image of racism and xenophobia, she needed technocrats and policy wonks to develop her ideas.

Philippot was 28, studious and shy, the son of teachers from a quiet suburb of the northern city of Lille. A junior civil servant in the interior ministry, he belonged to the establishment detested by the far-right. He had never voted Front National, but he says that from childhood, he had nursed a passion for French national sovereignty. His parents had encouraged an early fascination with politics by taking him to watch electoral counts and to the childhood home of General de Gaulle. Philippot also had a visceral loathing of the European Union. Aged 11, he burst into tears when France voted for the Maastricht Treaty that paved the way for the creation of a single European currency. “I was really young, but emotionally I’d understood that our coins, francs, were going to disappear and I found that really sad. It was a little irrational and emotional, it wasn’t very political, but I was interested in it. It was the first campaign I really followed,” he told me.

Leaving the eurozone and the European Union was an obsession. At the Ecole Nationale d’Administration, Philippot refused to do the customary internship at any of the European Union institutions, saying: “I consider them to be illegitimate and anti-democratic”, and instead spent four months at the French embassy in Copenhagen. Colleagues said he flinched whenever he saw a European flag flying on a public building in France.

Earlier, as a student at Paris’s top business school, HEC, he had backed the 2002 presidential campaign of Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the former Socialist minister who ran on an anti-EU ticket. Philippot has always denied he himself was ever leftwing. “I’ve never considered myself either of the left or of the right. I always considered that division dead with the end of the cold war,” he told me. He caught sight of Marine Le Pen on a TV politics show in 2007, inveighing against the European Union in the pugnacious style she honed as a lawyer, warning the government to “stop taking the people for fools”. Philippot agreed with everything she said. He had to meet her.

Philippot sought out Paul-Marie Coûteaux, a conservative MEP who had championed the cause of French sovereignty and independence from Europe, and introduced himself at a book-signing. Before long, he was helping Coûteaux with his website. Coûteaux knew that Marine Le Pen was looking for young talent, and invited them both to dinner.

Le Pen described their meeting as an intellectual love at first sight. Soon they were finishing each other’s sentences

Le Pen feared someone with Philippot’s civil service background would make for a very dull dinner companion. But over veal and olive casserole at Coûteaux’s antique-stuffed left bank apartment, she found him charming. Coûteaux, who eventually fell out with both Le Pen and Philippot, described their meeting as pure alchemy. Philippot had pored over Le Pen’s autobiography, gripped by her accounts of how, when she was eight, her home was hit with 20kg of explosives intended to kill her father, and how teachers at school called the Le Pen girls “daughters of a fascist”. He told her: “I admire what you do, I’d like to be useful to you.”

“Things immediately gelled between us, both on a human level and politically,” Philippot told me. “She is very direct, there’s no pretence.” Le Pen described their meeting as a kind of intellectual love at first sight. Soon they were finishing each other’s sentences.

“I think there was instantly a real ideological closeness between them,” said Jean-Yves Le Gallou, a veteran far-right thinker and civil servant who had quit the Front National in the 1990s and later worked with Philippot at the interior ministry. Le Gallou was the only colleague Philippot told of his meeting with Le Pen – and the only one who knew about his intense and secretive role as her advisor for two years while he was still a civil servant. Apart from the fact that it was against the law for him to keep his ministry job and work for a political party, he had to consider the FN’s toxic reputation.
In 2009, the twice-divorced Marine Le Pen was living outside Paris, with her three children and several bengal cats, in a converted stable block on her father’s estate. The Front National had always been run as a family affair – Jean Marie Le Pen’s three daughters grew up steeped in the party, married men who were linked to the party, and worked for the party. Marine, the youngest, most resembled her father in looks and character. Her current romantic partner, Louis Aliot, is a senior party figure.

Into this tight-knit clan, Florian Philippot arrived as a slightly awkward outsider – ambitious and opinionated. He was a regular fixture at Marine Le Pen’s home, invited for evening or weekend brainstorming sessions over tea and cake, or drinks. He had a particular ability to write fast, in-depth briefing notes and analysis, preparing what Le Pen would say in TV appearances and debates. In person, Philippot has the manner of an intellectual attack-dog – on guard, instinctively wary. Even when he’s going through the motions of politeness, he rarely lets his guard down. The only time he looks relaxed is when he’s sitting next to Le Pen.

Marine Le Pen and Philippot set about drawing up a new party line for when she would eventually take over from her father. Jean-Marie Le Pen had caused a political earthquake in 2002, when he made it through to the second round of the French presidential election. She remembered watching in dread as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in protest, and later voted for Jacques Chirac, in order to keep her father out of office. She could see his mistakes. She understood the need to distance herself from the antisemitism that had long been a feature of the Front National and knew how important it was to bring the party in from the margins. Her father hadn’t wanted real power. She did.

For Marine Le Pen, the model lay in northern France. Aged 30, she had been elected as a regional councillor in Henin Beaumont, a depressed, former coal-mining town. She recognised that France’s northern industrial belt, which had traditionally voted left, could turn to the Front National if the party stood not just against immigration, which remained its chief selling point, but for the victims of deindustrialisation and the financial crisis. Growing up in the north, albeit in a nice house near a golf course, Philippot also knew of the vast number of potential votes to be won among the working and lower middle-class – people with a job, maybe a house, people who were afraid of losing what they had worked hard to achieve and of slipping down the social scale.

Le Pen and Philippot drew up a programme focused on protectionism, a strong state, price control, retirement at 60 and increases to salaries and pensions. It was a manifesto that the Socialist president François Hollande would later liken to a “Communist tract of the 1970s”.

They made no concessions on immigration, but Le Pen changed the emphasis, focusing instead on what the party termed the “Islamisation” of French society. They kept the Front National’s central doctrine of giving preference to French citizens in jobs, housing and welfare. But Le Pen and Philippot rejected the label “extreme right” and sought to repackage the party as neither right nor left.

In a party that under Jean-Marie Le Pen had been all about gut intuition, Philippot introduced a new reliance on data and statistics. He was well versed in voting trends: his older brother Damien worked for Ifop, one of France’s biggest pollsters. (When Damien finally left his polling job last year, it emerged that he had been present behind the scenes of the Front National for years.)

Philippot’s ministry colleague Jean-Yves Le Gallou recalls, that in 2010, at the start of Philippot’s working relationship with Le Pen, she compared Muslims praying in the streets to the Nazi occupation. For this, Le Pen was tried for and cleared of inciting religious hatred. “I was very struck when he said to me at the time: ‘My brother and I have told Marine: ‘Don’t start that again, or we’ll quit,’” Le Gallou recalled. “He did seem to exercise a certain control over Marine’s language from that period.”

In January 2011, when Le Pen finally took over the leadership from her father, Philippot’s role was not yet public. That spring, at a press breakfast on a barge on the Seine, Le Pen finally pushed him into the limelight – although under a false name – introducing him to journalists as the bright young spark who had helped write the party’s economic programme.

Jean-Marie Le Pen’s home in western Paris. His daughter, Marine, lived for a while in a converted stable block in the grounds. Photograph: Matthieu Alexandre/AFP/Getty Images
For someone who now has such a high public profile, it was a lacklustre first showing. “He arrived sweating, he was really stressed,” recalled Abel Mestre, then the Front National correspondent for Le Monde. “He had a computer and slides and gave out CD-Rs. It was very academic, nebulous, no one understood. The economic journalists asked questions. He didn’t reply, she replied for him. It was a fiasco … At that stage everyone was wondering who her campaign director for her 2012 presidential bid would be. Journalists were saying, ‘Imagine if it’s that bloke from the breakfast, wouldn’t it be hilarious?’ And later she announced it was. We were stunned by the choice.”

When Philippot became director of Le Pen’s 2012 presidential campaign, he had only been a card-carrying member of the party for a couple of months. But after her strong showing in the first round, in which she won more than 6m votes and came third, Marine Le Pen was in no doubt about who had made the difference. She made Philippot the most powerful among her several party vice-presidents, in charge of strategy and communications. He was 31.

Philippot’s transformation was staggering. He went from a behind-the scenes intellectual to a highly public figure, dressed in a sharp navy suit and thin black tie. Since 2012, he has regularly appeared on politics shows and rolling news programmes, delivering his tightly controlled party message. From the start, he rarely passed up a chance to be on TV or radio, where he is fluent, defiant, never tripping up, withering and ferocious in his put-downs. Soon he was receiving 15 to 20 requests a day. “I had complained that our party wasn’t getting invited on television enough, so I could hardly then turn them down,” he told me. He is always in motion, constantly checking his phone.

He was also a constant presence at Le Pen’s side, exchanging knowing looks and jokes with her, leaning in to whisper in her ear. He was likened to an old-fashioned courtier, but those who feared his ambition nicknamed him Philippot the First. “If a journalist didn’t write what he wanted, he would blacklist them and stop taking their calls,” said Abel Mestre from Le Monde.

In the 2014 European elections, the Front National topped the poll with 24% of the vote. Since then, it has claimed to be the “biggest party in France”. It had expanded its voter base with working-class voters, public-sector workers and young people – all gains attributed to Philippot.

He’s not someone who shows emotion, or affection. He’s quite austere, cold and distant, he only wants to speak to Marine
A senior party official

His successes within the party and the media, however, did not translate to the campaign trail. In 2012 Philippot failed to be elected as an MP in the north-eastern former mining town of Forbach, on the German border. He later lost a mayoral election in the same town, but did eventually take a seat in the European parliament in 2014, and a seat on the regional council for Grand Est the following year.

“In politics, to succeed you have to make yourself feared, and you have to make yourself loved,” Jean-Yves Le Gallou said. “I think he makes himself feared in the party, but I’m not sure he knows how to make himself loved.”

“He works with his door shut in a setting where everyone works with their door open,” said one senior party official. “He’s not someone who shows emotion, or affection. He’s quite austere, cold, and distant, he only wants to speak to Marine. But when you get beyond that, when he is prepared to go beyond that, he can be good company.”

Just before Christmas 2014, Philippot was outed by the celebrity magazine Closer, photographed on a city break to Vienna appearing to hold hands with a television journalist in his 30s. Philippot sued the magazine and won one of the biggest invasion-of-privacy payouts in recent years. The timing was awkward. In 2013, hundreds of thousands of people had staged street protests against the Socialist government’s legalisation of same-sex marriage. Marine Le Pen, on Philippot’s advice, had not gone out to demonstrate. Instead she let her more religious and conservative niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen make it her own personal cause.

Marine Le Pen has placed several gay men in senior roles. The gay vote for the Front National has leapt in recent years, since the party began to argue that immigration from Muslim countries was causing a rise in homophobia. But hardliners complain of a damaging “gay lobby” at the heart of the party. Philippot denied it was difficult to be gay in the Front National. He said the party was not homophobic. “Not at all, and I mean that,” he said. “We’re a party that doesn’t care about people’s preferences, their sexual practices or whatever … You’re a French citizen foremost. And the Front National is a very young party: the members, the voters, the candidates are young. This is a modern party.”

But the day after we met, Philippot went to a medieval pageant in his north eastern constituency and dressed up as a knight. True to his old form, Jean-Marie Le Pen tweeted a picture of Philippot in the costume with a homophobic slur on his so-called “gay” outfit.

Philippot did not respond at the time. But two weeks later, standing alone on the edge of a provincial party event, he told me with cold poise: “An insult dishonours the person who made it, particularly if it’s a homophobic joke worthy of a 12-year-old. He should be asking himself some questions.” Jean-Marie Le Pen didn’t stop. In December, he told Le Figaro: “Gays are like salt in soup, if there’s none at all, it’s a bit bland. If there’s too much, it’s undrinkable.”

Philippot and Marine Le Pen called their drive to make the party more palatable to voters “de-demonisation” – implying that it was the political and media elite who demonised the party, not the party itself that was at fault. This rebranding exercise was seriously compromised last year when Jean-Marie Le Pen, who still held an honorary role in the party, repeated his view that gas chambers used to kill Jews in the Holocaust were “merely a detail in the history” of the second world war. A bitter family feud ensued, and encouraged by Philippot, Marine Le Pen expelled her father from the Front National.

It was a painful decision, and now father and daughter no longer speak. But Philippot stands by it. Things “could have happened differently”, he said, if Jean-Marie Le Pen had “truly accepted the handover of power to his daughter.”

“I didn’t come into this party saying I’m going to go to war against Jean-Marie Le Pen … I never had any animosity towards him,” Philippot told me. “But he was increasingly out to provoke, and his behaviour became untenable.” Le Pen for his part said in a radio interview that he wished his daughter no longer bore his name, adding bitterly that she should “marry her live-in lover – or maybe she should marry Philippot”.

On a sunny Saturday last May, on the veranda of a roadside restaurant near the Swiss border, Philippot was holding his latest electoral weapon, Gordon the Whippet, on a red leather lead. Philippot was guest of honour at a weekend “patriotic luncheon” in Doubs, a semi-rural constituency in eastern France that was once a thriving centre of the French car industry. Amid fears of further job losses, the Front National’s share of the vote has steadily grown here in every recent election. Gordon the Whippet was playing an important part in Philippot’s latest drive to broaden party support, by appealing to France’s vast number of pet-owners and animal welfare campaigners, including his next target demographic – women and the elderly. Marine Le Pen had also been posting pictures of herself at home with her cats, cuddling kittens or hugging horses. (Philippot had become a regular visitor to Brigitte Bardot, the 1960s film star turned animal rights campaigner, and Front National supporter. After their first meeting at her Cote d’Azur villa, Bardot had posed for pictures embracing him.)

Inside the restaurant, the atmosphere was festive. Party workers poured wine and served guinea fowl to local supporters, including ex-soldiers, retired teachers, landlords, young mothers and small business owners. Michel, 60, an engineer from a village outside Besançon, on the Swiss border, complained that he had recently seen a woman in a Lidl car-park wearing a niqab, despite a law banning women from wearing full-face coverings in public. “My wife and I are getting older and we won’t be able to defend ourselves. Not only will they invade us, they will want to impose sharia law,” he said.

Philippot’s personal police guard stood watch near the door. Since the terrorist attacks on Paris in November 2015, in which 130 people died, he has been given round-the-clock protection. With the exception of Marine Le Pen, he is the only person in the Front National to be accorded this privilege.

After chocolate parfait, Philippot, in an open-necked white shirt, stood and spoke into a cordless microphone. While Marine Le Pen gives thunderous speeches at vast rallies, he is more of a motivational after-dinner speaker, galvanising the leafletters and canvassers. “Our country is in very grave danger,” Philippot said. He described an apocalyptic vision of France (“our elderly people going through bins outside supermarkets”), with patriots riding to the rescue. Whenever his country had gone through a period of doubt “or nearly disappeared”, he said, France was always able “to drive out the imposters in power and replace them with people who really loved our country.” The audience cheered.

Gordon the Whippet stood to attention at the most impassioned points, quivering with emotion. The dog was on loan from Philippot’s close friend and party ally, Sophie Montel, a veteran Front National MEP who lived in a nearby village. “Florian has imposed structure on a party that was always chaotic, disorganised, doing things at the last minute,” Montel told me.

Hovering around Philippot at the lunch were some of the sharp-suited, well-educated, on-message young staffers that he has recruited and placed across the party structure. An article about them in L’Obs magazine in May 2016 – titled “Help! Philippot has cloned himself” - had particularly pleased him, although the notion that he is creating his own devoted identikit army inside the party has irked his critics. Rather than throwing dinner parties, Philippot sometimes relaxes at theme-parks like Parc Astérix, or rallies his young troops with outings to laser tag. “He gives us a lot of work – he’s really demanding, but if you prove yourself, he trusts you very quickly,” said Thomas Laval, 23. One of Philippot’s proteges, Laval is a student and regional councillor in the north-east and co-president of a Front National party section that recently opened, amid much controversy, at the elite Sciences Po institute in Paris. In November, a student union sit-in blocked Philippot from appearing at a debate there. “Despite the language of technocrats like Florian Philippot, the Front National is still the Front National, a party that’s racist, anti-semitic and extreme-right,” Sacha Ghozlan, of the Union of Jewish students of France, told Le Monde at the protest.

In a party run along clan lines, Philippot quickly saw the importance of building his own trusted inner circle, bringing in his pollster brother, then his father – a former primary school headteacher, who is now a regional councillor in the north.

Although the “Philippot line” dominates the party and his strategy is the foundation of Marine Le Pen’s presidential bid, ideological differences between Philippot and Le Pen’s ambitious niece Marion Maréchal-Le Pen still fester. She is anti-abortion and against same-sex marriage. Philippot believes those issues could scare off new voters and should be left alone.

He dismisses the friction between them as “little differences in leaning”, but there is still low-level sniping. Last year, Philippot dismissed Maréchal-Le Pen’s concerns about same-sex marriage as less important to party members than “cultivating bonsai trees”. Later, in a video filmed at his flat, he talked to the camera with a bonsai tree placed in full view on a table beside him.

In the eastern city of Metz, near the German border, at the end of May, rain poured into the cloistered courtyard of a 17th-century abbey. Local politicians were gathered in a council chamber in the basement, thrashing out the €2.5bn budget for the Grand Est region. Stretching from the vineyards of Champagne down through Alsace-Lorraine, the area, comprising 5.5 million people, is bigger than some European countries.

The French regional elections in 2015 were a turning point for the Front National. The party topped the first round with 28% of the vote. Mainstream parties warned the “antisemitic and racist” party would bring France to its knees. The left withdrew in key areas, joining with the right to stop the Front National winning control of any region.

Since his election as a regional councillor, Philippot now leads the biggest opposition party on the Grand Est council. But as the regional assembly – run by the centre-right Républicains party – discussed the crucial budget for high schools, transport and local investment, his seat in the chamber was empty. He was 300km away in a Paris TV studio, on one of France’s most popular morning politics shows.

The session began without him. It was a gift for his regional opponents, who call him a carpetbagging Paris opportunist with no real local ties.

“While we’re waiting for our extreme-right colleague, let me just say I’m so happy that this region isn’t run by the extreme right,” smiled the Socialist party deputy Pernelle Richardot. The Front National councillors, furious to be called “extreme-right,” erupted in rage and began angrily banging on their desks and shouting in protest.

Four hours later, fresh off the high-speed train from Paris, Philippot took his seat, as if nothing had been amiss. Within minutes, a councillor for the Républicains called the Front National “extreme right” once again. Philippot narrowed his eyes and leaned into his microphone: “I demand that the session be suspended so the elected member can take time to reflect on the seriousness of what he has just said.” Philippot stood up and stormed out, with his 45 councillors following in single file. “Ooh, he’s angry,” shouted a grinning councillor from the Socialist benches, rubbing his hands gleefully.

After nightfall, when the assembly session seemed like it would never end, a Front National councillor made a provocative suggestion – that the names of all people listed on the intelligence services’ confidential “S-files” of individuals believed to have been radicalised should be flagged to high schools who could check if any were on their staff.

“In a certain period of our history, we put yellow stars on people. You’re not far from that with your S files!” shouted a member of the Républicains. Metz, on the frontline of first and second world wars, is extremely sensitive to any reference to the Nazi occupation. Hearing his party likened to the Nazis, Philippot got up, and stormed out of the chamber, once again followed dutifully by his councillors.

“I do it systematically,” he explained in the corridor. “Each time they call us extreme right, I walk out. It’s insulting to us, and even more so to our voters.”

Yet these repeated protests did seem time-consuming. And failing to turn up in the morning had made him an easy target for his critics. “It’s the first time I haven’t been here,” he said and shrugged. “They need me, they’re lost without me.”

The night Britain voted on whether to leave the European Union, before the polls had even closed, Philippot hosted a Front National Brexit celebration dinner at a Parisian bistro. Marine Le Pen was there, smiling and laughing, eating fish and chips and waving French and British flags.

Philippot later said that there were two key moments in his life when he cried – when his mother died in 2009 and his tears of joy when Britain voted to leave the EU.

“To see something happening in a major European country, which is exactly what we’re proposing for France, we’re thrilled,” he told me the morning after the vote. Brexit was a vindication of his own strategy. To radical right parties across Europe, globalisation was failing and the nation state was back.

This month, Philippot addressed a meeting of party workers in l’Oise, in the northern Picardy heartlands where the Front National’s popularity is rising. “A majority of French people think like us,” he said. But more than half of French people still view the party as a danger to democracy and only one-third believe that it is capable of governing. Le Pen’s campaign, which begins in earnest in February, will depend heavily on Philippot’s claim that he can neutralise hostility and win over reticent parts of the electorate.


But for some, softening the Front National’s message will not help the party to win. “He has set out to pasteurise the discourse, but it wasn’t a pasteurised discourse that led to a the Brexit and Trump victories,” said the far-right thinker Jean-Yves Le Gallou. “It was the complete opposite.” •