The line “The centre cannot hold” from Irish poet W.B. Yeats feels as if it were written for Emmanuel Macron's France. In the space of just 21 months, the country has had five prime ministers. The latest, Sébastien Lecornu, resigned after only 26 days — the shortest tenure in the history of the Fifth Republic. Le Monde reports the story here.
That is not just a sign of political turbulence. It is evidence that Macron's “radical centre” — the project that promised to hold France together — is disintegrating before our eyes.
The illusion of the “centre”
Macron came to power selling the idea that France could be rescued from its old left-right divide by managerial competence, technocratic reason and a veneer of modernity. The market would be appeased, the unions pacified, and Europe reassured.
That idea depended on two things.
First, that there existed a stable, reasonable “centre ground” around which compromise could form.
Second, that politics could be treated as a matter of efficiency rather than conflict — a question of method, not ideology.
Both ideas are now dead.
Why the centre cannot hold
First, Macron hollowed out both sides of French politics, leaving nothing in their place. The traditional left and right parties were destroyed by his rise. But instead of replacing them with a genuine consensus movement, he built a personal vehicle for power that disintegrated once his charisma faded. With no real party base, Macronism is now an empty shell.
Second, his policies have alienated almost everyone. To the right, his reforms have looked timid and bureaucratic; to the left, they have been a full-frontal assault on social protection and democracy. He tried to be all things to all people, and now no one trusts him.
Third, the technocratic centre has no moral anchor. It claims to be pragmatic, but in practice it defends the status quo — the power of finance, corporate privilege, and EU budget orthodoxy. Macron's governments have prioritised market “confidence” over social cohesion, and now find they have neither.
Fourth, fragmentation has replaced stability. Each new prime minister has served for less time than the one before. None has been able to command a parliamentary majority. Each collapse deepens the public's cynicism and strengthens the extremes Macron claimed to restrain.
The result is paralysis: a political system in which no one can govern, no one can compromise, and no one can win.
The political economy of collapse
This is not simply about personalities. It is structural. The neoliberal centre — in France, the UK, and across Europe — is based on the belief that markets and managerialism can replace ideology. But politics is about power, and power cannot be neutral.
In France, as in Britain, the centre's claim to moderation has been a cover for serving capital and constraining democracy. Fiscal “responsibility” has meant cutting public investment. “Reform” has meant dismantling social protection. “Competitiveness” has meant keeping wages down.
When living standards fall, when people feel unseen, when public services decay, when rents and food prices soar, it is not the extremes that break society — it is the centre that abandons it.
Yeats was right: the centre cannot hold when it stands for nothing.
What comes next
France now faces an impossible choice. Macron could dissolve parliament and risk handing power to the far right. Or he could cling to office and preside over a drift into ungovernability. Either way, his project is over.
The danger is that others will learn the wrong lesson, including that democracy itself has failed, when what has really failed is a hollow technocratic politics that pretended to rise above the struggle between wealth and work, privilege and justice.
If politics is to be renewed, it cannot be rebuilt on the illusion of the centre. It must be rebuilt on principles of equality, solidarity, and accountability that give people something to believe in.
The task for France, and for every democracy like it, is not to restore the centre, but to reimagine the common good. Only then can the state act with purpose again.
In conclusion
Macron has proved what many suspected: that “the centre” was never a safe place to stand. It was an unstable compromise between the demands of capital and the needs of society, between the rhetoric of progress and the reality of austerity. It could not hold because it refused to choose.
The lesson is clear. When those who govern deny the reality of conflict — when they confuse neutrality with virtue and technocracy with wisdom — the extremes will fill the space they leave behind.
France has become the warning. The centre cannot hold — and nor should we expect it to until politics once again dares to take sides.
James Murphy contributed to this post.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
An excellent analysis. Maybe, just maybe, we are witnessing the early days of the collapse of neoliberalism. Long overdue but inevitable. The critical question is what comes next? There maybe a tendency amongst some to turn to the supposed “strongman” and this cannot be underestimated. But, equally, as Argentina is finding out to its cost strongmen sometimes are nothing more than men of straw. Meloni in Italy has not found it easy either. Many of the world’s “strongmen” have only gained power during these late days of neoliberalism but now the whole edifice is starting to crumble will they find the voters so receptive for what they have to offer? Now is the time to offer real and practical alternatives such as your politics of care. Reimagine Keynes and Galbraith for the 21st century. Shout about the positive social and economic benefits of the green economy (Dale Vince is a great salesman in this regard) and the jobs and energy security it will bring for all. It’s ironic that Macron’s troubles are in a country renowned for “liberty, equality and fraternity”!
By the way, what a great example you have set by co-authoring your post with your son. The coming struggle for a new politics can only happen by being truly multi-generational.
Thanks, and James worked for ages on this. It takes time to learn, but he is, and I liked this outcome so we shared it.
I would like to believe that we are witnessing the death of neo-liberalism but I believed that that was what was happening in 2008 and it is still thrashing about. Maybe like Charles 2nd it is “An unconscionable time a- dying”. We shall see. I fear though that it won’t go quietly and allow the peaceful ushering in of a more just society. To borrow more lines from the same Yeats poem ” Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” and ” What rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” It is the fear of violence and disorder that keeps people clinging to the centre in the hope that collapse can be put off a bit longer and something will turn up to keep the rough beasts and the monsters at bay, but that hasn’t happened in America. The “rough beast” is well and truly born there. Let us hope that France finds a way to keep its own monsters out of power.
An apt piece, just published, from Gail Tverberg, an actuary in the US. I think always worth a read, Richard.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2025/10/06/what-has-gone-wrong-with-the-economy-can-it-be-fixed/
I will read in detail.
I read the Tverberg piece Mark, and with respect I think she would benefit more from reading Richard’s work rather than the other way around.
The stuff on government debt is quite disappointing, no different from what’s peddled in the tabloid media by finance journalists.
Thanks
It’s the energy stuff that is interesting – I agree about the economics.
Spot on.
In this case, the Neo-lib defined ‘centre’ is just a giant sinkhole – there is nothing there.
We don’t often see comments by actuaries and having worked with them, I can see this certainly has a flavour of actuarial analysis. I think there is every chance that she will be right.
Thanks for your continued work, Richard. You are managing to stir up some critical thinking here.
You are probably going to condemn me to hell for this. But isn’t this a EU systemic problem with regards to neoliberal ideals?
Maybe we created the EU without the necessary system that equates to a democratic society?
Maybe people feel that it no longer serves them as a democracy, when governments and autocratic society makes them feel alienated?
It was an instrument of industrial strategy when it began. It did not adapt appropriately.
Richard I’m pretty sure that the ideals were with good intentions. However the outcome was poor.
Decentralised government is never a good idea!
What we have is neoliberal ideals and that is the status quo.
Centralised governance fails and we can clearly see that in the US.
Probably a question for another day but? … How does politics succeed? Especially as we are deemed to tow the line?
Alarmed by the size of the vote for the far right in an EU election (despite the fact that it was on a very low turnout), Macron called a general election and entered into an electoral pact with the left to vote down the right – but when it was the centre that was voted down, and the left Front Populaire won most seats, he refused to follow either constitutional precedent or common sense and tried to impose again a centrist government, despite the centre being then the smallest grouping in the National Assembly – the electorate’s clear verdict on Macron – and despite the left’s candidate for prime minister offering to negotiate a joint programme with the centre. Then when that centrist government was voted down, Macron did the same thing again – twice !
Isn’t that one definition of stupidity ? – doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result ?
This is the extremism of the political centre – much as we see in Starmer’s suppression of views, even discussion, inside the Labour Party, and protest from the general public. The political centre does not genuinely believe in democracy – it is simply the ideology of the status-quo. Its ‘belief’ is: ‘things are not too bad – radical change is risky – best do no more than tinker a bit’. Trouble is, things are now bad for many people, and there are no non-radical solutions to this.
Zach Polannski in politics has become a breath of fresh air. Let’s hope this is not another criminal!
Well someone’s got to say it – we all know what happens if you stand in the middle of the road for too long!
After the last few governments, I have a bit of sympathy that “[countries …] could be rescued […] by managerial competence, technocratic reason, [rationality and best practice]”.
(I’ve taken some small liberties there).
It’s not clear we need to refer to left, middle or right?
To me, it is axiomatic that the best way of achieving happier and more fulfilling lives and society is by having an effective State, excellent and universal healthcare, education, and care for others (at all stages of peoples’ lives); good governance, rational decision making, transparency, accountability and the rule of law all seem prerequisites — though I realise these are not fashionable these days!
And how do we make decisions without principles to guide them?
The worrying take on that from a UK perspective is that here the left has lacked a voice, so if there is a lurch from the centre, then current polling suggests it may be to the populist overtones of Reform.
It’s been good to see an increase in support for Greens, especially since their policies include ‘radical’ rethinking on what costs we can and should incur, not just in taxation of wealth but in prohibition of drugs (which as well as failing to listen to expert advice on minimising harm over puritanical moralising is a hugely expensive path to have taken), social housing (even though that may make it harder to meet their other goals on preserving green space), and providing a voice to justify the economic case for renewables.
If that continues, then the UK’s lurch from the centre stands a chance of being towards policies that support the majority.
As usual, Cory Doctorow has another great take-down of neoliberalism and its hatred of the actual markets it purports to be all-powerful.
https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/07/take-it-easy/#but-take-it