It's all over the papers in France this morning, and it'll be all over the papers around the world tomorrow, so let me get my oar in quick. Sarkozy's new bint is the flute-voiced, feline ex-model Carla Bruni. The pair were spotted by paparazzi at Disneyland on Saturday. What is interesting is the pictures are not of the furtive, long-range variety, but clearly taken with the couple's knowledge -- and one can only assume, approval. Christophe Barbier, the well-informed editor of l'Express magazine , says that the president has been looking for a way to make the relationship public. Subscribers to Champs-Elysees will be familiar with the 38 year-old Carla Bruni, who we have written about in the past. After some years as a top model, she took to singing and her first album Quelqu'un m'a dit was a massive hit. He second album, which came out in 2007, consisted of bits of English poetry set to music. It was execrable and bombed. So what kind of a gal is la Bruni? She is from an extremely wealthy Italian family, her sister is the actress Valerie Tadeschi-Bruni. She is definitely a "pipol" to use the ghastly neologism. She had a relationship recently with the son-in-law of tele-philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, which says something of the circles she moves in. The default position of Latin Quarter chic chicks is normally stuck on the left. It is interesting that Sarkozy -- for one of them at least -- is no longer beyond the pale.

Not for the first time in France, I find my moral compass spinning out of control as a result of a bitter row over immigration. It all starts with a recent proposal from the ruling centre-right to introduce voluntary DNA tests for would-be immigrants who want to prove their kinship with family-members living in France. It is presented as a practical measure that will accelerate the application process for people in countries where official documents are regarded as untrustworthy by French immigration officials. Beneficial, in other words, to genuine applicants for family-reunification because it will speed things up and exclude fraudsters. But for opponents, the idea verges on racism. They say the DNA tests -- in theory voluntary -- will in practice become the norm, because those reluctant to take them will be assumed to be bent on deceipt; that it plays to the stereotype of foreigners trying to outwit the system; and that it creates a dangerous notion of the family and nation based solely on genetic affiliation. The government pleads that 12 EU nations practice similar tests, and they concede that the state should pay for all tests so there is no discrimination against the poor. But the left remains up in arms. Why do I feel uneasy about all of this? I suppose it is because the reaction of the measure's opponents has been so unutterably shrill. They may well have a good case -- but in my view they do it only harm by suggesting that the only people who could possibly support the measure are closet racists. The language of the debate has become virulent. Backers of DNA tests are made to think they have committed an extraodinary moral offence, that it is all the first step on a slippery slope leading back to Vichy and the gas chambers. Why is it that in the 12 other countries which have the measure, the same vituperation was not flung about? Why is the British government not accused of abject racism, nor the Lithuanians nor the Finns? Is it because the French feel they must obey higher moral standards? Or is it because they are afraid of their own dirty past? It is most disconcerting. Personally I am lost. I rather suspect the DNA tests will make little practical difference. But I cannot claim to feel moral outrage. Maybe there are a lot of immigrant families who would welcome it. Does that make me morally deficient?

Well I was right of course. Admittedly I overstated his margin of victory, but still -- it was the left's biggest defeat since 1965. And thoroughly deserved. The campaign of denigration against Nicolas Sarkozy was utterly despicable, and it was a relief to see that most French people found the left's scare-mongering to be "un peu de trop". So is France now set fair on the road of reform? Will it follow Britain, Spain and everyone else into flexible labour markets, tax cuts, union curbs and so on? Or will there be a "third round" of the election on the street? (third round because the election already had two) My take on it is that you underestimate Sarkozy's will-power at your peril. This is the first time a president has been elected on a crystal clear mandate for liberal economic reforn, and he is every intention of seeing it through. Assuming he gets his majority in the National Assembly at next month's elections, he will act fast and push through a first wave of laws in July. What can anyone do about it? We shall have to wait and see. But personally I reckon those people (mainly in Britain) saying that he is doomed to fail, unions on the streets, bloody French pig-headedness ete etc etc ......... are wrong.

Having so far been proved 100 percent right in my predictions for the French election, it is time to do it again and say Sunday's vote will be a resounding win for Nicolas Sarkozy. Fair enough, that is what the polls are all predicting as well, so maybe it's not very original. But I will go further: it will be a victory by a wider margin than the pollsters say (just like in round one). Why this feeling? First, the sense that there is a hidden Sarkozy vote just as there was a hidden Le Pen vote -- people reluctant to say they vote for him because they think it's more acceptable to be on the left. Second, the feeling one gets from travelling around the country that the Paris prism is intrinsically biased in favour of the socialist Segolene Royal. Thus, editorials in Le Monde and Liberation are quoted as if they have the slightest impact on the way the provinces vote. Believe me: they don't. And third -- and here I enter into a purely personal viewpoint -- the wretched nature of Madame Royal herself. I know that the pundits all said that Wednesday's debate was a draw, and that she even scored a lot of major hits on Sarkozy. That is not how I saw it. I saw it as a moment when the French could get a look at the characters of their presidential possibles and shape their choice accordingly. Under that light, it was a disaster for Royal. She came across -- for me -- as calculated, smug, aggressive. And her assault on Sarkozy over his alleged neglect of the handicapped was contrived and shameless. She will have won plaudits from her own side, but I reckon most people will have found her -- as I do -- quite appalling. Since then she has made things worse: indulging in a thoroughly irresponsible scare campaign and openly warning of trouble -- i.e. violence -- if Sarkozy is elected. This is a pathetic last straw, and will I hope be seen as such. The core left vote will of course stick by her, and that is no small percentage. But I suspect a tipping effect in these last couple of days. Result: 56 percent Sarkoxzy -- 44 Royal. Remember, normal pundit rules apply: if it comes true, you heard it here first. If it doesn't, well ..you'll forget about it won't you.

The Internet, they keep telling us, is going to play a key role in the upcoming election. I suppose it is true in a kind of a way, but I am not sure quite what. The fact that there are 30,000 or however many bloggers out there writing about the Sarko-Sego struggle (like me for instance) seems to me utterly meaningless beacuse I can't imagine they attract more than a handful of readers. Likewise with the official sites : they have to be there because if they weren't, it would be like they aren't sufficiently "in touch". That said, I think the Sarko people are leading the game. The official website is pretty slick, and they are reacting very fast to day-to-day developments. When Sego appears on the telly, they film a spokesman watching Sego and then interview the spokesman straightaway, so that within a few minutes there is a reaction up. Also you must check out the disco-dancing Sarkozy .The interesting thing here is who posted this site: you've guessed it -- Sarko himself. A clever but of subliminal psychology. The Sarko people know he should have this election sewn up, but for one problem -- his character. There is going to be a huge effort to "humanise" him, make him more user-friendly. Disco-dancing ain't the half of it.

France 24#'s logo

So the French 24-hour international news channel got off the mark on Wednesday. No technical hitches, and France 24 is now churning out the same frightful mix of punditry, instant imagery and tedious debate as its rivals at CNN, BBC and al-Jazeerah. (Maybe it comes from working in the trade, but I find myself increasingly repelled by the world of "rolling news" - which I have decided obscures more than it elucidates). France 24 is unusual in broadcasting simultaneously in French and English -- with in theory precisely the same output on the two channels. This is an unusual idea, and I think it is probably doomed to failure. At the momemnt they are havng to do an awful lot of voice-over translation on the English channel, which is very awkward to watch. I fear that the biggest problem on the English side is lack of experience and authority. The news reports are voiced by young journalists who never leave the stuidio in Paris, and it shows. The Baker report on Iraq was the first big story. The BBC and CNN had their heavy-hitters going live from the White House. France 24 had someone reading out wirecopy to agency pictures. Why would anyone watch that? I note that there is already a big union dispute. Journalists' unions are threatening to sue if France 24 uses reports filed by foreign correspondents to TF1 or France 2 -- the two "mother stations" --on the grounds that it would be a breach of copyright. Unless this is sorted out, France 24 will have in effect no foreign correspondents at all. A third point: last night I saw a long report on landmines, cluster bombs and the laudable work of Handicap International. A perfectly good theme - but it was obvious that all the film was provided by the NGO. It was in effect an in-house Handicap International puff. Never once was there a sign of a France 24 correspondent on the scene, and I think all the material was given to France 24 gratis. If that is the case, it is a very poor sign of how they are being forced to operate. At the BBC, it would be a major breach of the rules. It also made for very flat television. So sorry, after two days, the English side gets the thumbs down from me. The French side is better, if only because it feels more natural, and there is a wealth of opinionated pundits to draw on in paris. On the English side I fear they will start running out quite soon. I note that Segolene Royal's team are very sniffy bout France 24, seeing it as a Chirac toy. If she is elected, I wonder if she will do something drastic.

Au Revoir Halloween

At the risk of offending many people in the US and elsewhere, I want to express my deep gladness that France has bid adieu to the grotesque foreign invader which was Halloween. It came, it appeared to conquer, and then it went away again. It was probably no more than five or six years ago that the obsession first took hold. In what was clearly a massive marketing operation, the shops were full of that ghastly orange-coloured garbage, and suddenly corpse-bandages were amusing. In our local hamlet in the Cher, troops of children came round for the "trick or treat" -- and I am afraid they said it in English. I sent them away with a flea in their ear. A more amoral ritual I cannot conceive. Blackmail, tout court. Anyway this year suddenly, it seems to have died a death. Just a few items in the supermarkets, and none of the hoopla. Who to thank? I have seen a few po-faced commentators blame France's latent anti-Americanism. I think that is rubbish. The French may well be latently anti-American, but that has nothing to do with it. The truth is that Halloween -- at least all the japing around -- is utterly alien here. The French already have a deep and dignified tradition for November 1. It is the day when in their millions they visit the graves of their loved ones, and deposit bunches of chrysanthemums. Next to that the garish orange pumpkins and the ha-ha imagery of death were exposed eventually as exactly what they were: a cynical money-spinner for a handful of manipulators. It failed, et je m'en rejouis.

Just back from an afternoon at France 24, France's answer to CNN. Less than two months to go till launch date and it is still a bit of a building site. Studios still being installed, lots of banging in the corridors, fresh paint and cardboard boxes. Plus scores of young and very enthusiastic bilingual journalists. The general air of youthfulness is very striking. I fear the lack of experience may tell in the early days. But on the other hand there is nothing more refreshing -- in France -- to see so many young faces in the workplace. Not a common sight. Most semi-state enterprises (as this is) are full of aging 68-ards anxious not to relax their nefarious grip. Anyway the France 24 show hits the road end of November, with simultaneous and in theory identical transmissions in French and English. The English language newsreaders are all standing by - but there is a problem. No English-language "chroniqueurs". "Chroniqueurs" are what we might call commentators, and on French telly they are people who come on and spout for ten minutes about some aspect of current affairs. As you can imagine, such people are two and penny in Paris -- but only in French. There is no-one who can do it in English. So what are they going to do? Because in theory whenver a French "chroniqueur" is on, an English one should be too. They need to hire four of the buggers. Anyone out there interested? They asked me but I said no way. Still, I sincerely wish the enterprise well. The people I met seemed decent, well-motivated, and utterly determined to prove their journalistic independence -- which of course is going to be subject to much scrutiny given that the state is providing half the funds. Watch this space. We will be bringing you the inside picture on France's biggest foreign policy initiative since ... ummm ... the last big one.

A passing reflection on the difference between British and French journalism. In France one of the stories of the week has been the return of the asbestos-laden decommissioned aircraft-carrier the Clemenceau from India to Brest. You may recall that it is proving impossible to break the ship up because of the pollution question. My point is this. French journalists persist in calling it the "ex-Clemenceau". This is because the ministry of defence has ruled that the ship is no longer part of the fleet and so is technically an ex-ship. But that's what the government says: it doesn't mean journalists have to follow suit. To any normal human being the 300,000 tonnes of rusting metal and asbestos lying off Brest is the Clemenceau tout-court. Calling it the ex-Clemenceau just sounds ridiculous. But that's French journalism for you -- top down, not bottom up. While I am at it, let me take the opportunity for another blow at my journalistic pet hate, Liberation newspaper. Its use of photographs I have heared praised, but for me -- like just about everything else in the paper -- they are shockingly predictable. One of their stand-bys is the "press conference". Press conferences are notorious for producing the most tedious pictures in the business, but every day you can be fairly sure Liberation will include at least one shot of a group of earnest soixante-huitards listening to someone droning on from behind a formica table. Today (Friday May 19) they have the extraordinary daring to put the press confernce picture on the front page. And they wonder why their figures are in free fall.

To state-owned France-Televisions for a seminar on representation of minorities in the media - with particular reference to the 2005 riots and the lessons to be learned. I went as someone with experience of the British media - especially the BBC -- and had my spiel all prepared about how the BBC had embarked on a massive recruitment campaign ten years ago of blacks and Asians; how this was broadly accepted by journalists and the country as a whole; and how the visibility of minority faces on the broadcast media played an important tole in fostering integration etc etc. In France a lot was made in the wake of the riots of the need for more black and Arab journalists, and I was expecting my point to be the main issue for discussion at the seminar. After all every year more and more journalists are entering the work place -- and 99 percent of them are midle-class whites. I know because I teach them. But no. The seminar did not seem to want to go down this road. Instead there was a lot of talk about not portraying stereotypes, the need for positive stories from the banlieues etc. All worthy stuff, but I got the impression that so-called positive discrimination remains taboo. They really did not want to talk about it. It is too sensitive an issue. Which is a great pity.

It is that time of year again. The late-winter ritual when for two weeks French farmers receive the applause of the nation and go back home feeling that perhaps it's all worth while after all. The annual Salon de l'Agriculture is a morale-boosting exercise for all concerned. Farmers show off their prize steers and enjoy a few days in the big smoke with their wives; Parisians get the thrill of pretending they are still country-folk at heart; and politicians are assured a succession of top-class photo-ops. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin took top award this year for "ingratiating self-abasement in a noble cause" when he posed with a kid goat around his neck like the good shepherd from the bible story. Hundreds of thousands visit the Salon every February, and it is actually a bit of a nightmare on a crowded Saturday. But hats off to France. The French cherish their countryside, and realise its importance for both the economy and national identity. Who is to say they are wrong to try to protect and preserve it? Anyway there was one glaring absentee this year from the show -- poultry. The bird flu scare did its damnedest, and the halls were free of honking geese and rare breeds of cock. A shame. But there was everything else this year, including the mandatory bulls with hyper-developed privates (see pic)

Segolene Royal

Could France have a Royal back at its helm next year for the first time in a century and a half? And a female Royal at that? Needless to say, I speak not of a reconstituted monarchy, but of the latest star to light the political firmament here. The woman in question is Segolene Royal. She is tall and attractive. She is the partner of Socialist leader Francois Hollande and the mother of their four children. She is a Socialist MP and the president of the Poitou-Charente region. She served briefly as minister of the environment in 1992, and later had junior portfolios for children and family affairs in the government of Lionel Jospin. She is also the person most of the French public say they would like to see representing the Socialists at the 2007 presidential election. One poll last week even suggested that she is now the most popular politician in France -- of all political persuasions. In other words she outranked not just rivals on the left like Jack Lang and Laurent Fabius but also the big hitters on the right like Dominique de Villepin and Nicolas Sarkozy. If say Sarkozy were to be the right's candidate in May next year, and the left agreed to put up Royal -- who is to say that she would not be the winner? After all the story of recent elections in France has been flip followed by flop. The old lot are always turfed out -- which means Buggin's turn could well go to the left next time. Personally I think Royal is the best-placed to challenge the right. People like her because she breaks the mould. She is not one of the "dinosaurs" of the party like Fabius or Lang. Because of that she is viewed with mistrust by many in the socialist party, but that in a way is a great asset. The public is utterly fed up with the same old faces. But whether she would have the weight to beat a Sarkozy or a Villepin is another matter. To have been environment minister for less than a year in 1992 is not exactly an impressive CV. And she has yet to put her name to a single substantive policy initiative. Supporters say that is all to come. She is launching a website and political club this month, and a book follows in March. But the problem is that in today's divided Socialist party, saying anything of significance -- say on Europe or the future of the French "model" -- risks reigniting the internal conflagration. For May 2007 I would put my money on a Sarkozy-Royal run-off, with Sarkozy winning hands down.

Back after a break occasioned by riots and then a much-needed breather. A most depressing time. But a few weeks on everything seems eerily back to normal. The government has just announced a few more aid schemes for the banlieues, as well as initiatives to discourage discrimination in the jobs market. But will it make any difference? Personally I doubt it. The suburbs have had money flung at them for a quarter of a century, and anti-discrimination plans -- however well-intentioned -- need real teeth. Remember the furore over bussing in the US? It takes that kind of a showdown. I predict more rioting -- and on a larger scale -- if Nicolas Sarkozy wins the presidential race in 2007. And if I were a betting man, I would still say he is odds on. Sarkozy has earned the utter venom of the political left and all bien-pensant Parisians because he is quite obviously courting the same far-right vote that upset the last presidential race in 2002 (when Le Pen won through to round two). His response is to say that it is the failure of French politics to bring these people into the main stream that is the real fault. His tough line is certainly popular -- but for the young blacks and arabs he is now the very symbol of all they loathe. Over and again at the scene of the riots one got the same answer: he insulted us, he treats us like dogs etc. Interestingly for linguists, there are two French words at the centre of this debate: racaille and karcher. Racaille has entered modern legend by being translated into Engish as scum. This -- it seems to me -- is woefully excessive. Scum registers 9.9 on the scale of English invective. It really implies deep disgust and a desire to do ill. Racaille is strong -- but not that strong. Also it is worth saying that Sarkozy applied it to the criminal element in the banlieues -- not to the general population. As for karcher, it's an industrial trademark that has entered the dictionaries. It means a water-jet cleaner. Sarkozy said he would use one to clean out the bad elements. Again, not a pretty turn of phrase. But again, he made the remarks at the scene where an 11 year-old boy had just been shot dead in an exchange of gunfire by drugs gangs. The boy was washing his father's car as a Father's day gift. For many people in France -- judging by the polls -- Sarkozy's language was spot on.

I have just got back from 10 days in Dublin to find France buried in gloom and self-doubt. Actually when you think about it, France at the moment is permanently buried in gloom and self-doubt. So let us say that it has plumbed new depths in its crisis of chronic angst. The reason of course is the loss of the Olympics. Losing it is one thing, losing it to London is quite another. For many here the defeat epitomises France's position as permanent runner-up in the battle for influence with "Les Anglo-Saxons." Personally, without wishing to boast, I saw it coming. Several friends can attest to my predictions of this outcome. My reasoning was -- and is -- that the "music" was all wrong. Any city worth its salt can mount a professional PR campaign, with the top film dirctor, shots of kiddies etc etc. What will set two bids apart is mood. And the French mood was all wrong. From the strikes during the visit by the Olympic committee in February to the "no" in the EU referendum and Chirac's cack-handed remarks about English cooking, the "feel" was of a country that is suspicious of outsiders and outdated. Now the mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoe has added to the humiliation by publicly accusing London of "cheating." Apparently he thinks Tony Blair should not have invited IOC delegates to be lobbied in his room in Singapore -- even though Jacques Chirac was glad-handing with plenty of determination in the hotel lobby below. It is a rare faux-pas by Delanoe -- vehemently attacked by his left-wing supporters in Liberation newspaper today -- and only goes to show how rattled the whole country is by the Olympic debacle.

Lunch at the British ambassador's residence comes around every few months. John Holmes (who likes to joke that he shares a naame with a well-known 70s porn star) is good enough to invite the British hack-pack around to discuss the latest news. On the last occasion -- in March I think -- there was much glad talk of the success of the Entente Cordiale centenary which took place in 2004. A year of commemorations to mark the 100 years since the great act of Franco-British understanding had passed off without flaw, and we were set fair for a new era of warmth and cross-channel cooperation. But as John Holmes says over lunch this week, trying to maintain good relations between Paris and London is a Sisyphean task. Just when you are at the top of hill, the rock rolls down again. Things could hardly be worse. Chirac and Blair dislike each other personally, and the animosity is only intensified by the French belief that Britain is poised to launch its "liberal" agenda on a failing EU. Downing St meanwhile sees Chirac as yesterday's man, though it has still got to work with him for the next two years. Where would we be without these diplomatic roller-coaster rides? At least it provides plenty of good journalistic copy.

One week to go and it looks like the unthinkable may well happen. The "no" vote for the May 29 referendum on the EU constitution now stands at 52 percent in the opinion polls. Six surveys over the last week have produced more or less the same result. If I were a government "yes" man, I would be very worried indeed. How on earth has it comes to this? Seen from any other perspective, France has wangled for itself an extremely favourable document. The EU constitution was drawn up by a former French president and is thoroughly Gallic in its conception and language. By diplomatic dexterity, the French government got the text past all the 24 others -- only to discover that the one thing it hadn't taken account of was its own fickle public. Two months ago the polls were overwhelmingly for the "yes," but in the space of a short campaign a majority seems to have been convinced that the constitution is a sell-out to that bogey of the national imagination, "neo-liberalism." I think the answer is in essence quite simple. The French are anxious and afraid. The good years ended in the 70s and since then (they think) it has been all downhill: economic uncertainty, unemployment and mass immigration from north Africa. The same period has seen the growth in power of the Brussels technocracy as European intergation forged ahead. The public thinks the two processes are related: and if they can only shift Europe off its current trajectory, then the good old days of ease and security will return. They are undoubtedly wrong. But the French have a weird knack of thinking the world should follow France and not the other way around. One woman told me the peoples of Europe would be grateful for a French No vote, because it would be a positive pro-European No, not a nasty British Eurosceptic one. Really? I think the reaction of the rest of Europe will be to say what a load of arrogant ingrates.

I am afraid I am having one of my "can you believe it?" moments. A year ago the government passed a law decreeing that one of France's 11 annual bank holidays is to be scrapped. It was a way of raising extra money for the elderly, who suffered terribly in the 2003 heatwave, and at the time it all seemed a pretty fine idea. It is not as if there is any shortage of holidays in May. If they all (four of them) fall on Tuesdays or Thursday and thereby make the "pont" with the weekend, it can mean the country grinds to a complete halt for half the month. Whit Monday (or Pentecost Monday) was chosen as the holiday for the chop, and we all prepared to do our bit. But somehow as the day approached the warm glow of "solidarity" has chilled into mean-minded Gallic truculence. Strikes have been called by all the unions, one of which has gone so far as to describe the abolition of the holiday as "forced labour." More than half the population say they plan to take the day off regardless. Newspapers like le Monde blame the government -- of course -- for "failing to communicate," but I am left wondering what any government can do with a public like this. Solidarity, my ....