NationStates Jolt Archive

There will be 12 candidates for the election, the first round of which will take place a month from now.

The candidates are, in alphabetical order:

* François Bayrou (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/20070228-bayrou.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Bayrou)) (Union pour la Démocratie Française: centre-right)
* Olivier Besancenot (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Besancenot)) (Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire: far left)
* José Bové (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Bov%C3%A9)) (independent; far left)
* Marie-George Buffet (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-George_Buffet)) (Parti Communiste Français: far left)
* Arlette Laguiller (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlette_Laguiller)) (Lutte Ouvrière: far left)
* Jean-Marie Le Pen (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/le-pen.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen)) (Front National: far right)
* Frédéric Nihous (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Nihous)) (Chasse, Pêche, Nature & Tradition: pro-hunters, single issue platform)
* Ségolène Royal (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/segolene.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9gol%C3%A8ne_Royal)) (Parti Socialiste: centre-left)
* Nicolas Sarkozy (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/sarkozy.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy)) (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire: right-wing)
* Gérard Schivardi (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Schivardi)) (independent, representing small rural areas, supported by the Parti des Travailleurs: far left)
* Philippe de Villiers (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_de_Villiers)) (Mouvement Pour la France: far right)
* Dominique Voynet (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/special-reports/France-elections/other-candidates-profiles.html) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Voynet)) (Les Verts: green left)

Whom would you vote for if you were French?

For those of you who didn't know, there will be two rounds. In the first round, voters can pick any one of these twelve candidates. The two who come out on top after the first round will move on to the second round.

Starting today, each of these twelve candidates will be given exactly the same amount of speaking time in all French media.

Poll coming soon. Since there can only be ten poll options, I've had to remove the two candidates who are currently lowest in the polls: Nihous and Schivardi (less than 0.5% each). If you would have voted for either of these two, simply say so in your post.

Let's see who would be President of France if it were left up to NS General! ;)

I wished you could just leave Le Pen out... :(

Royal, even although she managed to drop heavy in my book due to some ignorant answers. Bové seems to be nice too...

I thought Bayrou was more a center-center than center-right, but then again, you are the french.

I'd say PCF on the first round; on the second round, the less right-winged.

I wished you could just leave Le Pen out... :(

Much as I would have liked to, it would have warped the poll somewhat. Le Pen has (alas) far more supporters than, say, Schivardi.

Royal, even although she managed to drop heavy in my book due to some ignorant answers.

Such as? I'm curious to see what has actually been heard abroad.


I thought Bayrou was more a center-center than center-right, but then again, you are the french.

Depends how you look at it. His party (UDF) has traditionally been centre-right. He presents himself as a "pure" centrist, but historically his ties have been with the right. The UDF has often been allied with the right, never with the left.

However, Bayrou is now insisting that he wants to change all that, and be a "strict" centrist, who can cooperate with people on both sides of the spectrum.

I put "centre-right" as a description of his party. Whether it applies to him, too, is a more complex question.


I'd say PCF on the first round; on the second round, the less right-winged.

If the second round is Sarkozy-Royal, that would be Royal. If Sarkozy-Bayrou, that would be Bayrou. If Royal-Bayrou, that would (theoretically) be Royal.

Such as? I'm curious to see what has actually been heard abroad.

Things as the Corsica and Canada issue, the Hezbollah leader incident, her slip regarding China's judicial system, and her statement regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran.

She needs better advisors, that's all.

Don't get me wrong, should I be french, I would still vote for her, she was my option at the poll. I actually admire her.

(Too much lefty for a CIA agent working for the Imperium, as you defined me once, don't you think?)

Depends how you look at it. His party (UDF) has traditionally been centre-right. He presents himself as a "pure" centrist, but historically his ties have been with the right. The UDF has often been allied with the right, never with the left.

However, Bayrou is now insisting that he wants to change all that, and be a "strict" centrist, who can cooperate with people on both sides of the spectrum.

I put "centre-right" as a description of his party. Whether it applies to him, too, is a more complex question.


Thanks for enlightening me over that issue. I'd vote for him if he actually pulls that "pure strict centrist" thing. I define myself more like a pure centrist, yet I don't think a politician with ties to the right wing can achieve a true centrist policy.

Things as the Corsica and Canada issue, the Hezbollah leader incident, her slip regarding China's judicial system, and her statement regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Iran.


Interesting to see that's all made its way into foreign media. Interesting also to see that people have heard of Bayrou.

The incident in Palestine, by the way, was not what it was initially reported to be. It was confirmed shortly thereafter that the person translating had not translated the man's words accurately. The reason why Royal did not react is that she did not hear what he actually said.

I don't particularly care for Royal, but that needed straightening out. In that particular instance, she did not "slip up". The rest is all true, though.


(Too much lefty for a CIA agent working for the Imperium, as you defined me once, don't you think?)


I don't know who said that about you, but it definitely wasn't me.

Interesting to see that's all made its way into foreign media. Interesting also to see that people have heard of Bayrou.

The incident in Palestine, by the way, was not what it was initially reported to be. It was confirmed shortly thereafter that the person translating had not translated the man's words accurately. The reason why Royal did not react is that she did not hear what he actually said.

I don't particularly care for Royal, but that needed straightening out. In that particular instance, she did not "slip up". The rest is all true, though.

I don't know who said that about you, but it definitely wasn't me.

I heard a bit about the translation issue, although nothing was confirmed. It always nice to find local people interested in politics that can clarify those issues for us. That's the main reason I enter this forum. Thanks again.

Oh, and it wasn't you, sorry about that. It was Nodinia, sorry about that confusion.

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?

So? There are always threads for US and British elections. If people want to post in this thread, they will. If not, they won't. Simple. Besides, isn't the point of most threads to have an "interesting discussion"?

Personally, I'm always interested to know what's going on in other countries.

This forum has shown that foreigners talk quite a bit about France. If they want to do that, it helps to know what's going on here.

Not to mention that the French President can impact on quite a few people. France is on the UNSC, one of the major powers in the EU, and has a military presence in countries around the world.

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?

World Politics? Geopolitics?

There are a lot of threads about the US, and in a world context, France is equally important, as even Vanuatu is, in any case.

For sure it doesn't affect fraternity parties in the US, anyway.

After reading up on these, i'm of the opinion that the French left really needs to consolidate themselves somehow if they want to make any sort of meaningful impact in the future - four far-left candidates?

After reading up on these, i'm of the opinion that the French left really needs to consolidate themselves somehow if they want to make any sort of meaningful impact in the future - four far-left candidates?

They talked about it, but didn't reach any agreement.

Last time, Laguiller got 5.72%, Besancenot 4.25%, Hue (PCF) 3.37%, and Gluckstein (Parti des Travailleurs) 0.47% - a total of 13.81% for the far left. (source (http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/dossier/presidentielles/2002/documents/bilan2.htm))

According to the latest poll for this year's election, Besancenot would now get 2,5%, Buffet 2%, Bové 1,5%, Laguiller 1%, and Schivardi almost nothing - a total of 7% for the far left. (source (http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/elections2007/242000.FR.php))

They talked about it, but didn't reach any agreement.

Last time, Laguiller got 5.72%, Besancenot 4.25%, Hue (PCF) 3.37%, and Gluckstein (Parti des Travailleurs) 0.47% - a total of 13.81% for the far left. (source (http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/dossier/presidentielles/2002/documents/bilan2.htm))

According to the latest poll for this year's election, Besancenot would now get 2,5%, Buffet 2%, Bové 1,5%, Laguiller 1%, and Schivardi almost nothing - a total of 7% for the far left. (source (http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/politiques/elections2007/242000.FR.php))

Oh, my mistake - there were actually 5 far left candidates? Heh, and we have no radical left to speak of here...

But then, there are no prizes for losers in this race. The candidates probably feel that there is no need for them to unify at this stage because they cannot win anyway.

Fuck an election. Have a Battle Royale! :)

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?

Me?

Anyway, I'd vote for Ségo, mainly because she's less useless than any of the other candidates. Which is basically what I told the student newspaper when they were interviewing students. The girl seemed quite surprised when she found out I was a foreigner and knew anything about the election.

But then, there are no prizes for losers in this race.

Yes and no... Any candidate who reaches 5% has his or her campaign expenses reimbursed. So by splitting they're losing money.

On the hand, since (starting today) all candidates have strictly equal access to the media, the more there are, the more genuinely left-wing voices there will be in the media.

The girl seemed quite surprised when she found out I was a foreigner and knew anything about the election.

Good for you. :)

Except for his educating on "living in a community" (just more big brother brainwashing, imo), bayrou looks good to me.

Incidentally, it may amuse you to know that Le Pen, Sarkozy and Royal each have official headquarters in Second Life. Royal even did a short video to encourage people to visit hers.

I went there, and took a few pictures. (Yes, I have an avatar in Second Life. No, I don't go there often. Yes, I have a real life. Besides, I don't play video games of any kind. Leave me alone. :p) Sorry for the white blob: I've blanked myself out so as to preserve my anonymity. (:p)

I haven't been to Le Pen's HQ. These are images of Royal's and Sarkozy's. Note that someone had vandalised Royal's at the time when I was there: those red circles in the air are crossing out the symbol of the Parti Socialiste.

Royal HQ image 1 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/3200/pswb0.jpg)
"Désirs d'avenir" is her official campaign slogan; it means "Desires for the future" and/or "desiring the future". The "vote or die" message is... interesting. I don't know whether it was put there by party members, or by vandals.

Royal HQ image 2 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/3505/ps2rb0.jpg)

Royal HQ image 3 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/6565/ps3nh8.jpg)
An image of the vandalism.

Royal HQ image 4 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/8639/ps4uk6.jpg)
Committee meeting room. Where they gather for official meetings on that neet row of chairs, to discuss... whatever it is they discuss in there.

Sarkozy HQ image 1 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/82/umplf4.jpg)
A portrait of Sarkozy, with official campaign slogan. "Ensemble, tout devient possible" means "When we're together / united, everything becomes possible".

Sarkozy HQ image 2 (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/2886/ump2wm6.jpg)
A few faithful supporters gaze at a blank screen, while a large portrait of Sarkozy watches over them. I've blanked out the names. Sarko is using "high tech" in here... even if his island is mostly deserted.

Ségolène Royal

He's centre-left which suits me fine. Of course here he'd probably be considered far-left, given how stupid American politicians can be, but that's just how it is.

No center-center candidate? :(

Ségolène Royal

He's centre-left which suits me fine. Of course here he'd probably be considered far-left, given how stupid American politicians can be, but that's just how it is.

She. Ségolène Royal is a woman.

No center-center candidate? :(

Bayrou is the closest. As I explained in an earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12448561&postcount=5), he's presenting himself as centre-centre, but his party has always leaned to the right.

Besides, what do you mean by "centre"? The US "centre", for example, is hardline right-wing by the standards of most Western countries. ;)

Bayrou is the closest. As I explained in an earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12448561&postcount=5), he's presenting himself as centre-centre, but his party has always leaned to the right.

Besides, what do you mean by "centre"? The US "centre", for example, is hardline right-wing by the standards of most Western countries. ;)

lol, true.

I mean someone who would score 0.00 on economics and social issues on the PoliticalCompass quiz (or as close to that as possible).

She. Ségolène Royal is a woman.

Oh really?

In that case, an extra-good reason to vote for her.

lol, true.

I mean someone who would score 0.00 on economics and social issues on the PoliticalCompass quiz (or as close to that as possible).

Gosh, I don't know. Nobody here has really been asking themselves that.

If you want to check out Bayrou, there's a couple of links in the OP, and this (http://www.bayrou.fr/) is his official website (it's in French, though).

Congo--Kinshasa, here are a few articles in English about Bayrou:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6383287.stm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/debeer_bayrou_4427.jsp ("François Bayrou, the extreme centre's champion")
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2030559,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,472503,00.html ("Revolutionary centrism in France")

The socialist woman.

Congo--Kinshasa, here are a few articles in English about Bayrou:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6383287.stm
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/debeer_bayrou_4427.jsp ("François Bayrou, the extreme centre's champion")
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2030559,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,472503,00.html ("Revolutionary centrism in France")

Thanks. :)

i WOULD IDEALLY LKE TO SEE Voynet winning.

I voted for Sarkozy in the poll because he seems to me to be the most Liberale of all the candidates, but his right wing stances on immigration and law and order annoy me.

Ségolène Royal

He's centre-left which suits me fine. Of course here he'd probably be considered far-left, given how stupid American politicians can be, but that's just how it is.
You couldn't have been bothered to check her wiki to see if her center leftness agrees with your center leftness. Remember, you Americans have a rather silly idea what left is. Had you checked out her wiki, you would have noticed that she is damn fine, which is why I voted for her.

You couldn't have been bothered to check her wiki to see if her center leftness agrees with your center leftness. Remember, you Americans have a rather silly idea what left is. Had you checked out her wiki, you would have noticed that she is damn fine, which is why I voted for her.
No, I didn't check her wiki, but I'm sure it's fine. I don't see politics the way Americans do anymore, and haven't for a long time. I see them internationally. hence my comment on how she would be considered far-left here, if you bothered to read.

EDIT: And now that I have checked her wiki, I'm sure of it. She's a good candidate for me, certainly. Too bad she isn't running here instead of France.

I'm curious to see what has actually been heard abroad.I heard Segolene is a crazy bitch.. but I dont know if that is 100% accurate.

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?The French president was leading the free world against the evil Empire.

He was speaking for all the little people against the Iraq war.
That is why -lately- the French presidential elections are getting more world attention .

The French president was leading the free world against the evil Empire .

:rolleyes: oh how could I forget?

I heard Segolene is a crazy bitch.. but I dont know if that is 100% accurate.

How so, exactly?

Fuck an election. Have a Battle Royale! :)

I second this and would like to throw my hat in the ring.
My hat has a grenade in it, don't tell anyone

I'd vote for either Bayrou or Royal (since she was born in Senegal, which is a kick-ass country :cool:).

If you're interested, here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/talk/Politiques-FRANCE-24.html) is an interview of Philippe de Villiers by France 24, in English (which means dubbed, alas). They'll be interviewing Olivier Besancenot next Wednesday.

Not to sound like a troll, but other than for inspiring an interesting discussion, what does this really matter at all?

Who does the French President impact, except the French?
Well, France is considered a world power. They also pull a lot of the strings of the EU which is obviously important.

Though this poll on NS is a silly excercise... people are just voting for their favourite-sounding ideology. (including me, I admit)

don't know, but i'm voting off royal.

people are just voting for their favourite-sounding ideology.

What makes you think that's not what real voters will do?

You know who I would vote for? Someone who would end the century-old tradition of French nationalism that apparently still hasn't been banished.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467940,00.html

Alas, I doubt such a politician is to be found in France. There's Sarkozy who's gonna push exactly the same stuff, and Royale who's gonna do it while also yelling for all rich people to go to hell.

You know who I would vote for? Someone who would end the century-old tradition of French nationalism that apparently still hasn't been banished.


The what? I'm French, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you have an extremely peculiar and unconventional definition of "nationalism". (Then again, you call yourself a "socialist" in a very unconventional way too.)


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,467940,00.html


Says your article:

But in battles over jobs, national prestige and economic strength, the French have recently proven to be the more skilled tacticians.


Don't moan just because the French government is protecting French interests and French jobs rather than German ones. That's not "nationalism"; that's what the government is supposed to do.


Royale who's gonna do it while also yelling for all rich people to go to hell.

I'm curious. Are you just making that up from scratch because it's what you want to believe, or have you got some sort of (mistaken) source for that?

The what? I'm French, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you have an extremely peculiar and unconventional definition of "nationalism".
I'm really sorry they never translated this article (I really am), but it gives an interesting view of modern France.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=1
Not sure how your German is.

(Then again, you call yourself a "socialist" in a very unconventional way too.)
Hehe, I haven't called myself a socialist in a long time. :p

Don't moan just because the French government is protecting French interests and French jobs rather than German ones. That's not "nationalism"; that's what the government is supposed to do.
No, the government is supposed to keep its hands away from businesses. If it wants to protect jobs it should leave employers alone.

Look, I was just as disgusted when German politicians started to get involved in this mess. But the French have had a history with this. The idea that French companies would go and buy overseas ones not with their own money, but with the French taxpayers' is nauseating. That's no better than Puting and Gasprom.

I'm curious. Are you just making that up from scratch because it's what you want to believe, or have you got some sort of (mistaken) source for that?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_pf.html
Has she got any intention of outlawing that barbaric practice? Or indeed paying herself (http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=58&story_id=37329)?

Anyways, I hope you have access to the economist website, maybe through your uni: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8702997

I'm really sorry they never translated this article (I really am), but it gives an interesting view of modern France.
http://www.zeit.de/2005/52/Frankreich?page=1
Not sure how your German is.

Good enough, apparently. I read the first page, and understood most of it (I think). The Zeit isn't the only one claiming that the "no" vote was all about internal politics. A claim that's only partially true, but very convenient for those who want to believe their beloved Constitution was too good to be rejected; all those I know who voted no were voting against the Constitution itself, not against aspects of internal politics.


Hehe, I haven't called myself a socialist in a long time. :p


You did in the first NS General election. ;)


No, the government is supposed to keep its hands away from businesses. If it wants to protect jobs it should leave employers alone.


That's your view. Not all of us take that regressive stance.


Look, I was just as disgusted when German politicians started to get involved in this mess. But the French have had a history with this. The idea that French companies would go and buy overseas ones not with their own money, but with the French taxpayers' is nauseating. That's no better than Puting and Gasprom.


I'm not saying everything is rosy here. But I see nothing wrong (quite the contrary) in a government (French, German or other) protecting the jobs of its citizens. Saying that the government's role is to "leave employers alone" is an ideological viewpoint, which I find rather disturbing. There's little logic to it except ideology for its own sake.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_pf.html
Has she got any intention of outlawing that barbaric practice?


Barbaric? Tssk. Such big words. People whinging about paying too much tax is nothing new. There'll always be somewhere you can pay less, and some people will always go there - not because they can't afford to pay, but because they don't want to contribute to the country. Meanwhile, foreign investors continue to flock into France (so we must be doing something right), and the French government continues to pour money into successful businesses, when it really has no reason to. If big businesses like ideological capitalism so much, they should stand on their own two feet and stop sponging off tax money.


Anyways, I hope you have access to the economist website, maybe through your uni: http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8702997

When I was a student my uni had a subscription to the Economist, and I read it fairly regularly. It's always interesting, although its simplistic ideology does get tiresome and repetitive. Based on the introductory paragraph, this seems to be more of the same. I would respect the Economist a lot more if they didn't sacrifice everything to pushing their own ideology.

2.2 tax is not exactly...too much.

Spain has an inheritance tax of 46 per cent, for example. Now that's a bit too much.

Of course, filthy rich people always have a tendency of label any tax as "too much", and go somewhere else where they can pay less.

Good enough, apparently. I read the first page, and understood most of it (I think).
Excellent. Well, it has more pages and goes into a lot of detail about what's wrong with France's understanding of itself in the modern world.

That's your view. Not all of us take that regressive stance.
Have you ever had a chance to watch "Commanding Heights: The battle for the world economy"?

I'm not saying everything is rosy here. But I see nothing wrong (quite the contrary) in a government (French, German or other) protecting the jobs of its citizens.
Protecting jobs is just one (small) part of it. It's mercantilism, as practiced in the 17th century, nothing more.

Saying that the government's role is to "leave employers alone" is an ideological viewpoint, which I find rather disturbing. There's little logic to it except ideology for its own sake.
Keeping employees employed costs money, correct? Not only do they cost money themselves, but for the business to stay around for a few years more, it needs to make enough profits to make sense to the people who invest in it.

Damaging employers by taking their money, or forcing on them populist decrees is not going to help employees in the long term. There is a limit to what you can redistribute. There is no limit to what people can create themselves. I mean, dirigisme was a policy that was outdated by the end as well, but Mitterand managed to find something even worse.

Barbaric? Tssk. Such big words. People whinging about paying too much tax is nothing new. There'll always be somewhere you can pay less, and some people will always go there - not because they can't afford to pay, but because they don't want to contribute to the country.
And that's their good right.

Meanwhile, foreign investors continue to flock into France (so we must be doing something right), and the French government continues to pour money into successful businesses, when it really has no reason to. If big businesses like ideological capitalism so much, they should stand on their own two feet and stop sponging off tax money.
The thing is that these business aren't really independent at all. They are ruled by the same ruling caste that the government is controlled by. They come from these "elite" colleges like some sort of new aristocracy.

And job creation from FDI has only last year again reached the figures of 1993, so there definitely is a lot of opportunity for growth.

I would respect the Economist a lot more if they didn't sacrifice everything to pushing their own ideology.
Maybe we should go back to reading the New Internationalist.

Look, socialism and hating-the-rich was tried. It failed, and the people it hurt most were the people who didn't have the ability to cozy up with the sprawling hyper-government, namely the poor and the voiceless.

The thing I'm more concerned about here than anything else is the future of Europe itself. France needs to play a role here, but currently it doesn't. As costs of moving between countries continue falling and businesses operate on a global scale, socialist policies are just obstacles, which become easier and easier to avoid.

Not only that, but the idea of the EU as a whole is in danger. French politicians continue to spew that crap about "neoliberalism", when the EU is becoming one giant regulation machine. The more regulations there are, the further the EU will fall behind as China and India modernise, the more hopeless the situation will become for the simple workers in European economies. And those workers are only going to call for more and more authoritarian governments to protect them from what they're missing out on. A vote for Royale today is a vote for Le Pen in thirty years. Because that's exactly what's happening in East Germany.

And that's not even mentioning the people who suffer the most from French mercantilism: poor agricultural producers in the third world.

Of course, filthy rich people always have a tendency of label any tax as "too much", and go somewhere else where they can pay less.
If you're such a fan of paying taxes, maybe you want to pay 50% income taxes, 20% value-added-taxes, various other little fees and charges and then on top a "wealth tax" because you dare have more money than someone else.

At some point it just gets too much. The government sees wealthy people simply as a cash cow, nothing else. Never is there a question asked why these people are wealthy, whether they might have something to offer the country which it could take advantage of. It's all about pressing money out of them while also scoring cheap points with envious voters. It should hardly surprise that human beings don't enjoy being treated that way.

Les Verts.

Recent news: Ken Loach supports Olivier Besancenot (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1iqe3_ken-loach-soutien-olivier-besanceno).

Neu Leonstein, I'll reply to your post later. But I find your implication that anyone who isn't a raging neoliberal must be a communist, and that there can be no "middle ground", slightly disturbing. I wouldn't have expected that from you.

Voted for Villers for his Euroscepticism.

Recent news: Ken Loach supports Olivier Besancenot (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1iqe3_ken-loach-soutien-olivier-besanceno).

Neu Leonstein, I'll reply to your post later. But I find your implication that anyone who isn't a raging neoliberal must be a communist, and that there can be no "middle ground", slightly disturbing. I wouldn't have expected that from you.


Why is that disturbing?

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

(c) A far greater man then myself.

Allanea, I don't see the relation between what you said and what you were replying to.

Still about the elections: a BBC article on how well the three main candidates are doing in our "troubled French suburbs" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6496249.stm).

Still about the elections: a BBC article on how well the three main candidates are doing in our "troubled French suburbs" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6496249.stm).
The Socialist contender, Segolene Royal, has pledged that every young French person will receive an interest-free loan of 10,000 euros (£6,766) from the state to set them up in adulthood.
That sounds like a there'll be a lot of nice cars in the banlieues in the near future. Lots of chrome wheels and stuff.

Also, I can't believe I managed to spell banlieue right the first try.

Either Sarkozy or Le Pen. Probably the latter in the first round, and the former in the second round.

The strangest snippet of news I've come across so far in the French presidential campaign:

"Le Pen will help the Pygmees, so I support him," says black French comedian (seriously) (http://www.camer.be/index2.php?art=2962)

The article is in French, but that's the gist of it. The fact that Dieudonné, a (black) French comedian of Cameroon descent, supports Le Pen is not new. Dieudonné has, on several occasions, been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks, and has been found guilty of it in court. But the reason he invokes now is... bizarre. Namely, that Le Pen is (allegedly) the only candidate taking an interest in the plight of Pygmees in central Africa.

I guess this means I'm out of the race for French President...

Segolene' Royal.

No matter how much my compatriots in the US believe otherwise, France is still relevant in matters of world politics. Their memory for history tends to be short lived or non-existent. France, Spain and Great Britain, all at varying times in history have been the world's super power or shared that distinction with each other.

Too many newspapers and media outlets pretend one slip up is fatal in a campaign, isn't it odd that they are there to exploit that mistake?

I am certain Le Pen and Sarkozy have made their share of gaffes, the question is, will the press report these gaffes to the same degree as say Madame Royal's?

Interesting poll results so far. If it were left up to NSG voters, Royal and Sarkozy would be the two who make it to the second round, while the other ten candidates trail far behind (including Bayrou, in third place).

I find it intriguing that so many of you (59.38%) automatically go for one of the "top two" candidates (with 71.88% going for one of the "top three" when we include Bayrou).

In the United States we are victims of really POOR international news coverage. I wouldn't have known half of these candidates if I didn't bother to read Le Monde, Le Figaro and other European newspapers.

I find it intriguing that so many of you (59.38%) automatically go for one of the "top two" candidates (with 71.88% going for one of the "top three" when we include Bayrou).
It seems like almost everyone else is either a radical Trotskyist or a radical Xenophobe.

If anyone's interested, here's a poll from April 15th, suggesting what the results of the first round of the election (this coming Sunday) may be:

François Bayrou: 17.5%
Olivier Besancenot: 3.5%
José Bové: 2%
Marie-George Buffet: 3%
Arlette Laguiller: 1.5%
Jean-Marie Le Pen: 13.5%
Frédéric Nihous: 1.5%
Ségolène Royal: 25%
Nicolas Sarkozy: 29.5%
Gérard Schivardi: 0.5%
Philippe de Villiers: 1.5%
Dominique Voynet: 1%

These numbers, of course, fluctuate. Bayrou sometimes goes up as high as 22%, but has never moved into second place. The order of the top four (Sarkozy, Royal, Bayrou, Le Pen) has been stable, with Besancenot also stable in fifth place (albeit far below the top four).

From sixth place downwards the order fluctuates quite a lot, but nobody goes above 3%. Schivardi remains consistently in twelth and last place with 0.5%.

Most worrying, perhaps, is the continuing decline of the French Communist Party. They got about 3% or 3.5% back in 2002, their worst result ever, and now they're fluctuating between 1.5% and 3%.

Contrasting that with the results here in NS General. Here, Royal (40%) is a long way in the lead, with twice as many votes as Sarkozy (second, 20%). Bayrou, however, is third both among polled French voters and NS General "voters" - although his score is lower in NSG (11.43%) than in "real life" (17.5%).

Besancenot and Voynet here share the fourth place, which for Besancenot is just one step up from his rank among French voters, but for Voynet is quite an improvement.

Nobody here in NS General backs Bové, Laguiller, Schivardi or Nihous. (Admittedly, the latter two were not on the poll, but I gave you links to information about them, so if anyone here wanted to support them you could do so in a post).

Latest news from the ongoing election campaign here in France... De Villiers has been his usual nauseating self. He's focused his campaign on two issues: bashing Muslims and bashing immigrants. His big thing is scaremongering of the "Oh, noes! Teh ebil Muslims! Believe me when I say France may one day become an Islamist theocracy! Only I can save you!" variety. Among other things, he's said that all immigration must be stopped, and that this will result in an end to crime and unemployment; that French-born children of illegal immigrants should be expelled from France (even if they've been raised and educated in France and speak only French); and that Muslim children should not be allowed to ask for special meals in schools. Charming fellow.

Meanwhile, Sarkozy has created controversy recently by saying that pedophilia and youth suicide were probably inherited characteristics, a question of genetics. He said: "I'm inclined to think that one is born a pedophile". Not surprisingly, this was immediately criticised by more or less everyone.

The Economist supports Sarkozy with some conditions: France's chance (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9005216)

I'm getting quite excited about this now. The opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate, so basically I have no idea who might win. I'm hoping Sarkozy though, for pretty much the same reasons as the article.

Olivier Besancenot is my pick.

I want to live in France.

The Economist supports Sarkozy with some conditions: France's chance (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9005216)

Interesting article. Not much surprise there (I always say The Economist sounds like a broken record), but interesting nonetheless.


I'm getting quite excited about this now. The opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate, so basically I have no idea who might win.

Yes, it should be an interesting election, more unpredictable than we've had in quite a while. That's partly due to Bayrou's presence, of course.

Olivier Besancenot is my pick.


Good for you! ;)

He has my vote on Sunday.

Interestingly, he seems to be pulling ahead, as first among the "little" candidates, and has remained quite steadily in fifth place. He seems to be becoming the new leading voice of the genuine left.

My uncle, who will probably vote Sarkozy, recently said that Besancenot is the only person he respects on the left, because he appears to be that rare creature: an honest politician, who's open about his views, and can defend his ideas coherently and logically, and means what he says. Of course, that's easier to do when you've got no hope of being elected...

On the downside, it looks as if it's going to be a hard blow for the Communist Party, and Laguiller has also collapsed. She had 5.7% back in 2002, but a poll yesterday put her at 1% for Sunday's election.


I want to live in France.

Why's that?

Anyway, here (http://2007.tns-sofres.com/) is the latest poll:

François Bayrou: 19.5%
Olivier Besancenot: 5%
José Bové: 1.5%
Marie-George Buffet: 2.5%
Arlette Laguiller: 1.5%
Jean-Marie Le Pen: 14%
Frédéric Nihous: 1.5%
Ségolène Royal: 24%
Nicolas Sarkozy: 28%
Gérard Schivardi: 0.5%
Philippe de Villiers: 1.5%
Dominique Voynet: 1%

By the way, what do you all think of the fact that, in France, all media are legally required to give all candidates equal speaking time? Meanig that, for example, every television channel invites and interviews every candidate, even the most "obscure", and the public/voters therefore get to see and hear (for example) Schivardi in the media as much as Sarkozy?

By the way, what do you all think of the fact that, in France, all media are legally required to give all candidates equal speaking time? Meanig that, for example, every television channel invites and interviews every candidate, even the most "obscure", and the public/voters therefore get to see and hear (for example) Schivardi in the media as much as Sarkozy?
This is only for the last 2 weeks; we had 5 years before that of our daily Sarko-show on TV; don't worry, it wasn't fair nor balanced during that time.

This is only for the last 2 weeks; we had 5 years before that of our daily Sarko-show on TV; don't worry, it wasn't fair nor balanced during that time.

Yes, that's very true.

What annoyed me is that, once the "equal time" started, the media were saying: "One candidate you may not even have heard of until now is Gérard Schivardi...". Well, the reason most people hadn't heard of him is because the media hadn't talked about him!

And that's just an example among others...

Still, equal access to the media in the final stages is a good thing, at least. Even if it's far from perfect before that.

Ségolène makes a mistake: desperation or stupidity? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,478200,00.html)

Also, Spiegel has a bunch of other election-related articles, a new one uploaded just today.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,478458,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,475661,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,472503,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,476255,00.html

Ségolène makes a mistake: desperation or stupidity? (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,478200,00.html)



While Ms. Royal's plea is revolutionary, it could backfire. The wooing of female voters as women is alien to republican France, where all citizens are supposed to be treated as equals and where gender, race, ethnicity and religion are supposed to be ignored.

The move has been seen by some as an ill-advised, even desperate, ploy on the part of Ms. Royal, 53, to win votes in the first round of the election on Sunday by stressing gender over competence.


Indeed. That wasn't very smart. But I'm not all that surprised. Royal does insist quite a bit on the fact that she's a woman, a feminist, and that she's (allegedly) the victim of sexism. But this does, as der Spiegel says, make her look almost "desperate".

Nor does the Parti Socialiste seem to have learned from the mistakes it made five years ago. Back then, Jospin had headed a government veering strongly to the centre and even to the right, and promised more of the same. He assumed the traditional left-wing voters would remain faithful, and tried to draw in people from the centre and the right. Most notably, during an interview, he once said: "My campaign policies are not socialist policies". Well then, what were you doing running as the Socialist candidate?

The result, of course, you all know. Now, five years later, the situation is similar. Royal represents the most right-wing faction within the Socialist Party. She has not secured the left-wing vote. It's likely that she will be in the second round nonetheless, but it's not entirely impossible for Bayrou to move up into second place and knock her out.

French voters living in French overseas territories, and in foreign countries in the Americas (Canada, US, Mexico, Brazil, Surinam, Uruguay...) have been voting today, a day early.

I'll be voting tomorrow morning.

Well, I've just been to vote. Technology has come to the suburbs of Paris: we have voting machines now instead of paper ballots. And since there's only one machine instead of four voting booths, quieing takes four times as long. Ah, progress...

How will the second roung go? Any new polls about it yet? Last time I heard that Royal and Sarkozy were about 50-50 in the secound round.

How will the second roung go? Any new polls about it yet? Last time I heard that Royal and Sarkozy were about 50-50 in the secound round.

Polls are forbidden today, so as not to influence voters. Officially, the results will be announced today at 8pm (French time), and that will tell us who goes on to the second round. The French media are not allowed to give any results before 8 o'clock.

However, the Belgian press (http://www.lalibre.be/index.php), who are of course not bound by French law, will be publishing result estimates online at 6pm (French/Belgium time).

If it is indeed Sarkozy against Royal, polls have mostly suggested that Sarkozy would win... but some do indeed put them at 50-50.

The question for now is whether or not Royal will indeed make it to the second round. It seems fairly unprobable that she'll be knocked out by Le Pen, but she may be knocked out by Bayrou.

They're the four big contenders. After that, the polls have been putting Besancenot in fifth place, but all the way down at between 3.5% and 5%, where he has no hope of reaching the second round.

Well, I've just been to vote. Technology has come to the suburbs of Paris: we have voting machines now instead of paper ballots. And since there's only one machine instead of four voting booths, quieing takes four times as long. Ah, progress...
It seems French elections are not without a sense of irony. I can't say I trust voting machines, however...

What is interesting is whether, with the polls looking so close between Baryou, Royal and Sarkozy in the first round and Royal and Sarkozy in the second, any candidate will be able to get a majority in the National Assembly later on.

Polls are forbidden today, so as not to influence voters. Officially, the results will be announced today at 8pm (French time), and that will tell us who goes on to the second round. The French media are not allowed to give any results before 8 o'clock.

However, the Belgian press (http://www.lalibre.be/index.php), who are of course not bound by French law, will be publishing result estimates online at 6pm (French/Belgium time).

If it is indeed Sarkozy against Royal, polls have mostly suggested that Sarkozy would win... but some do indeed put them at 50-50.

The question for now is whether or not Royal will indeed make it to the second round. It seems fairly unprobable that she'll be knocked out by Le Pen, but she may be knocked out by Bayrou.

They're the four big contenders. After that, the polls have been putting Besancenot in fifth place, but all the way down at between 3.5% and 5%, where he has no hope of reaching the second round.

Last time I checked Le Pen had passed Bayrou in support. He got 16,5% compared to Bayrou's 16%. I don't think he'll go through to the second round but it's still frightening that a fascist like him can have such a high support. Sarkozy seems to be a bit like Le Pen too with the only difference that he disguises his thoughts in nicer words.

Sarkozy seems to be a bit like Le Pen too with the only difference that he disguises his thoughts in nicer words.
Is that just because he's not a socialist?

I mean, he's said some unfortunate things, but no more so than Tony Blair across the channel just recently. As it is, Sarkozy is himself the son of immigrants and just takes a very radical French approach: it doesn't matter where you come from, as long as you're French now.

So I wouldn't call him a multiculturalist, but he's definitely not a xenophobe or racist.

To me he represents the only candidate who stands for something new (which is ironic, since he's more a feature of the old guard than the others). Royal stands for regression, Bayrou for not really deciding on anything. If anyone can break the shackles, it's Sarkozy, as much as I hate his overtly patriotic stance on things.

What is interesting is whether, with the polls looking so close between Baryou, Royal and Sarkozy in the first round and Royal and Sarkozy in the second, any candidate will be able to get a majority in the National Assembly later on.

Indeed. And Royal has not said whether she would be looking more towards the left (Communists, Greens) or to the centre-right (Bayrou) for an eventuel coalition.

Sarkozy is no fascist. But he's no angel either. He puts pressure on the media, he's an outright bully, and he can't stand members of his own party disagreeing with him or voicing suggestions. He's an autocrat of the most dangerous kind, and is very different from Chirac, despite them being from the same party.

The reason some have accused him of ressembling Le Pen is because he's been trying to draw Le Pen's voters over to himself, by campaigning on Le Pen's themes (immigration, law and order...).

And Sarkozy represents the right-wing of his party, just as Royal represents the right-wing of hers. French politics as a whole has shifted strongly to the right.

Sarkozy, I think. Not that I am French. But Sarkozy is the one most economically to the right, which is what I think France needs right now. On the other hand, I do not like his macho-stances on law & order.

About Sarkozy... A few weeks ago he was interviewed on the television channel France 3. When he arrived there were other interviewees, and no room ready for him to immediate receive make-up before going onto the set. He flew into a tantrum, claiming that he was more important than the others and should be given priority, then started yelling and threatened to have the entire senior staff of France 3 fired if he was elected.

He has also insulted and threatened other journalists.

A former member of the government, and a member of Sarkozy's party, Azouz Begag, recently resigned to publish a book warning people how dangerous, egocentric and unstable Sarkozy is. Begag claims that, after he (Begag) had made a mild joke about Sarkozy in public once, Sarkozy phoned him, screamed at him, and threatened to "smash his face in" if ever he saw him again. Asked about it later by journalists, Sarkozy claimed he had "never met" Mr. Begag. They were part of the same Cabinet for five years, meeting every week!

Another time, Sarkozy was due to visit a town, where anti-Sarkozy demonstrators were waiting. He didn't show up, and claimed he didn't know there would be demonstrators waiting, and that the reason he hadn't gone was because his plane had landed late. Some media checked, and found his plane had arrived exactly on time. Sarkozy has not hesitated to make even the most absurd lies throughout this campaign.

He worries me, a lot, and I very much hope he won't be elected.

Is that just because he's not a socialist?


No it's not. He's overly nationalistic, he's said "unfortunate" things as you said and he seems to be very authoritarian and think too highly about himself. He is for much stricter immigrant laws and if I'm not mistaken Le Pen has also accused him for copying some of his policies.

That one gets a big, fat :rolleyes: ...

http://www.europeus.org/archive/2007/04/11/nazi-germany-vs-french-freedom-fighters-%E2%80%93-the-war-is-still-o.html

Jesus Christ! I would'nt vote for any of them, they are all bloody French!

That one gets a big, fat :rolleyes: ...

http://www.europeus.org/archive/2007/04/11/nazi-germany-vs-french-freedom-fighters-%E2%80%93-the-war-is-still-o.html

That article pretty much sums up the most things I had in my mind about him.

underlining that France "has invented the Human Rights" and that France has "always fought for freedom all over the world“.
Like in French Indochina and Algeria.

http://www.europeus.org/archive/2007/04/11/nazi-germany-vs-french-freedom-fighters-%E2%80%93-the-war-is-still-o.html

Yikes... Well, that's populism for you. Tell people their country is the best, and they'll be happy.

A lot of people in France do like to think we "invented" human rights, so he's tapping into a popular idea there. As for saying we should not be ashamed of any aspect of our history, and we shouldn't be sorry for anything... That view has been expressed by hardline conservatives elsewhere (*looks at Australia*), for exactly the same reason: many citizens prefer to be told they should be proud of themselves and of their country.

Technically, for the sake of accuracy, he didn't say France has "always fought for freedom all over the world"; he said France has fought for freedom all over the world, more so than any other country. Which, I agree, people in our former colonies would no doubt find particularly nauseating...

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me at all, coming from him.

I just saw this on the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6580363.stm

74% turnout is pretty good - I seem to recall we're doing well if its >60% over here

I just saw this on the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6580363.stm

74% turnout is pretty good - I seem to recall we're doing well if its >60% over here
Aye. Unfortunately, my bets are on M. Sarkozy, unfortunately.

Go Nicolas!

Screw Sarkozy. I can't stand the guy, and honestly, he's not what France, or for that matter, Europe, really need, in my opinion.

I just saw this on the Beeb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6580363.stm

74% turnout is pretty good - I seem to recall we're doing well if its >60% over here

Actually, the final turnout is more like 85% according to Le Monde. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-900029@51-898554,0.html)

Actually, the final turnout is more like 85% according to Le Monde. (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-900029@51-898554,0.html)

Hmm, even better.

France needs a moderate, not another hard-liner. Segolene Royal is far from perfect, but she is far superior to anything M Sarkozy or M Le Pen offer.

Latest estimates:

Participation: 84.2%

Results:
1. Nicolas Sarkozy: 30.8%
2. Ségolène Royal: 25.2%
3. François Bayrou: 19.0%
4. Jean-Marie Le Pen: 10.8%
5. Olivier Besancenot: 4.3%
6. Philippe de Villiers: 2.3%
7. Marie-George Buffet: 2.0%
8. Dominique Voynet: 1.6%
9. Arlette Laguiller: 1.5%
10. José Bové: 1.3%
11. Frédéric Nihous: 1.2%
12. Gérard Svhivardi: 0.3%

Obviously this was a choice between bad options. But a trade-off had to happen, and I'm not surprised that Sarko took that.

Yes, he can be an arsehole. Yes, he's got a very authoritarian style. But if his career has shown anything at all, it's that he can get stuff done, even against massive opposition. Hell, people might even remember his "I'll solve a hostage crisis all by myself, because I'm the mayor" stunt.

France has got an encrusted and shackled system. It's a relic from last century, and even though relatively well-off middle class people might feel happy with a bit of extra job security and easier working hours, they have it so good at the expense of those who are actually poor. I mean, since when is it okay for unemployment to stay above 8%...for 25 years?

Sarkozy is the only man who has even the slightest chance of fixing this, and I think many Frenchmen (and -women) know in their hearts that they have to stop pretending the problem doesn't exist. And that's always gonna weigh heavier than the feelgood "let's hand out free money" socialism that Royal stands for.

It would've been better if Bayrou went through instead of Royal since I think he would have a far better chance of winning against Sarkozy. Of course I prefer a "socialist" in front of a centrist but I prefer a centrist over Sarkozy. As it is now Sarkozy will seize all Le Pen votes and all he needs to do is to win over approximatelly 8% of the Bayrou voters to his side.

Anybody else find last week's Economist cover amusing?

Anybody else find last week's Economist cover amusing?

http://www.economist.com/images/20070414/20070414issuecovUS400.jpg

Linking to it isn't that hard. I found it very unoriginal and plebeian.

Screw Sarkozy. I can't stand the guy, and honestly, he's not what France, or for that matter, Europe, really need, in my opinion.

Europe certainly doesn't need another economic-quagmire enabling socialist, though.

I think the poll will come out differently from the actual outcome.

Sarkozy led in this recent casting of votes, and he's sure to get support from the Le Pen crowd.

Take the surprise performance of Bayrou, and distribute his voters slightly in favor of Royal (about 60/40).

Since Sarkozy is already ahead, will receive another boost from Le Pen voters, and will receive some centrists, he's going to win.

http://www.economist.com/images/20070414/20070414issuecovUS400.jpg


The Economist: "Because what France needs is an autocrat with delusions of grandeur."

The Economist: "Because what France needs is an autocrat with delusions of grandeur."

Well, The Economist is a neo-lib rag.

analyzing the posts.. It looks like Nicolas Sarkozy will win it all.. unless he dies of a heart attack.

* calls Vegas Bookie..
hello?... Hi pedro, I want to place a bet for the French presidential elections,My bet says "Monsieur le President"*.

:D

Ho hum. Although Le Pen has lost, at least Sarkozy now seems likely to win. Shame that.:D

The Economist: "Because what France needs is an autocrat with delusions of grandeur."
And you think that people having to live their entire lives unemployed in banlieues is justifiable, just because you don't like the guy's personality?

And you think that people having to live their entire lives unemployed in banlieues is justifiable, just because you don't like the guy's personality?

It's not just a matter of personality. The man has proved he is a liar and a bully. A compulsive liar, even, who publicly denied ever having met a member of the government he was part of, despite the fact that they worked together every week for several years! He has been caught several times making lies that were absurdly simple to disprove. That's a very worrying trait.

Also to the point, Sarkozy is not the one suited to bring hope and decent living wages and working conditions to the unemployed. Nor has he ever explained how he intends to keep his promise of "0% unemployment in 5 years"... which he recently changed to "5% unemployment in 5 years"!

Don't be blinded by ideology.

An interesting aspect of the 2nd round campaign, though, has been that everyone is talking about Bayrou, despite the fact that he's not in the second round.

Bayrou has refused to back either of the candidates, but has been criticising Sarkozy at lot more harshly than he has been Royal. He said today: "I'm not sure yet what I'll do in the second round , but I've got a fairly good idea of who I'm [i]not going to vote for." He's agreed to a public debate with Royal (the first time there'll have been one involving a candidate who failed to make it to the second round). Brief article here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070425-The-Bayrou-vote.html), with video.

Nicolas Sarkozy will win it. Which is good.

Nicolas Sarkozy will win it. Which is good.

Care to elaborate on that? Have you been reading the last few posts?

If economic reform is what you want, Royal is the one you should be backing. Leaving aside the fact that Sarkozy is an autocrat, a bully and a liar, here are a few points to consider.

Sarkozy wants to lower taxes for the very rich. Royal rather accurately points out that the very rich tend to invest in spéculation immobilière - i.e., investing money into housing, which gives them (the very rich) more money, while driving up prices and making housing less affordable to everyone else (precisely at a time when this is becoming a significant problem to many people). In other words, lowering the taxes of the very rich is counter-productive for the economy, and harmful to most of society.

Royal has also adopted an idea which comes from the "radical" left (Besancenot and Laguiller), and which makes a lot of economic sense. She (and they) points out that, currently, the government gives money to all businesses, officially to help them hire more workers. This includes huge companies which make massive profits on their own, never increase their workers' wages, fire great numbers of workers to increase their profits despite the fact that they're already making huge profits, and sometimes take the money from the government then move abroad, leaving even more workers unemployed. This makes absolutely no sense, and Royal argues that it should be stopped, so that the money (taxpayers' money) can be put to more productive use, instead of giving it freely to big businesses which fire workers and keep their wages low, instead of hiring more workers.

One last point. If Sarkozy wins, he will be less able than Royal to implement reforms, for a simple reason: he's a lot more radical, and he doesn't accept compromise and negotiation. The French will simply not accept him trying to ram harmful reforms down their throats. We've shown before that, if we don't like what the government is doing, we can bring the whole country to a stop, and that we almost always win over the government. Someone who's committed herself to economic reforms but is more moderate (i.e., Royal) will be more effective in getting things done; Sarkozy will not be able to.

Don't be blinded by ideology.
Look, the effects of a free market are no more an ideology than evolution is. Maybe in some far away future there won't be a world in which people, money and companies can move all over the globe and pick the place they want to live most. Maybe there'll eventually be some super-computer which could actually run a command economy.

But right now, there is not. Hasn't anyone in France looked across the border (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,479149,00.html) recently? I mean, Schröder did, for all his failings and for all his autocratic style, the right thing when he went against everyone: his own party, the opposition, the protesters on the streets, hell, once or twice even against the constitutional court.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,854588,00.gif

That is precisely what France needs now: An Agenda 2010. And Royal is more likely to deliver an Agenda 1950.

Look, I'm not a fan of Sarkozy, the person. But I am a fan of Sarkozy, the potential. He is the only one who will take the fight to that self-righteous mob that condemnded many thousands of young people to long-term unemployment last year.

Someone who's committed herself to economic reforms but is more moderate (i.e., Royal) will be more effective in getting things done; Sarkozy will not be able to.
She'll get all the wrong things done. That's the problem.

It's pretty basic really: minimum wages, "unfair dismissal" laws - that's all just lobbying by those who already have work, and only serves to damage those who don't, which in France is...quite a few people.

Royal thinks we still live in a world in which class struggle should govern politics. Rather than trying to create a world in which everyone is their own boss, marketing their own skills to other people like them, she tries to create a world in which you are either a "capitalist" (and get hunted down by government tax collectors) or a "worker" (in which case you're basically considered underage or something, unable to make your own decisions and having to have "papa state" decide your life for you). Or of course unemployed, in which case you're making the just sacrifice so that other people can work.

How can that be considered normal? Is this the greatest example of groupthink in history?

And as for your claims that rich people only buy houses, I'd like them backed up with some sources. And if it is, maybe Ms Royal should ask herself why there is a capital gains tax of 27%, a measure clearly aimed at reducing the money people spend on investments. No wonder the state keeps handing out free money to corporations if they discourage normal people from investing in them. That's precisely the French malaise: people aren't investing, so the government taxes investments some more and then uses that money to invest. It's just a ridiculous logic, and it's everywhere: unemployment high? Just tax labour and employ public servants in their millions!

Look, the effects of a free market are no more an ideology than evolution is.

That's too simple. The market can be regulated to some degree. Only an extremist would advocate more and more deregulation; that's ideology, especially when it's "justified" on the basis of values and principles.


Royal thinks we still live in a world in which class struggle should govern politics. Rather than trying to create a world in which everyone is their own boss, marketing their own skills to other people like them, she tries to create a world in which you are either a "capitalist" (and get hunted down by government tax collectors) or a "worker" (in which case you're basically considered underage or something, unable to make your own decisions and having to have "papa state" decide your life for you). Or of course unemployed, in which case you're making the just sacrifice so that other people can work.

That's utterly and completely wrong. I don't know where you've got this from, but there's quite literally not an ounce of truth to it. Royal has never talked about, or hinted at, class struggle. She doesn't talk about "workers" versus "capitalists". She's been repeatedly criticised by parts of the left for being strongly to the right of her party, for abandoning left-wing principles, etc... To compare her to a Marxist in any shape or form is utterly ludicrous and only shows that foreign media have little or no understanding of French politics and society (but then, that was obvious already).

Have you been following what she's been saying at all? From what you've just written, clearly not. If you understand French at all, you should go directly to the source (http://www.desirsdavenir.org/index.php), instead of relying on second-hand accounts from people who've never lived in France.


And as for your claims that rich people only buy houses,


I (or, more accurately, Royal) never said "only". But spéculation immobilière has been a problem for a while now, and no-one denies it.

As for unemployment... A journalist (I forget in which newspaper) was recently arguing that Sarkozy's focus on encouraging employers to press their existing employees to work longer hours (by reducing employers' taxes on employees' extra hours) will be detrimental to job-seekers. Royal has been saying roughly the same. Sarkozy never talks about the unemployed (except when he says he wants to completely eliminate unemployment, without ever explaining how, then back-peddles on that and hopes no-one will notice); his oft-repeated mantra is that those who are already employed should work longer hours.

Now, if you make it easier for employers to have employees who work longer, instead of hiring extra employees, how does that not make job-seekers' situation even more difficult?

Royal wants to provide assistance to job-seekers to help them find jobs suited to their skills and needs, and says employees will have to accept suitable jobs or face losing assistance. She wants to make it easier for people to find work, so that they can earn a living. She also wants to give tax cuts to employers (especially in small companies) who hire extra workers. (Hardly Marxist rhetoric, that, eh? Let me guess, your anti-Royal foreign news sources "forgot" to mention that?) Sarkozy has suggested none of these things. Only Royal has suggested concrete policies to help decrease unemployment, adapting her policies to market realities (which is why I say the point you quoted above was absolutely wrong). Royal's approach to these issues is pragmatic and practical, while maintaining essential social rights (which no-one except the mosy raging neocon would question); Sarkozy's approach is rigidly ideological.

If you were better informed, and knowing what your general views are, I honestly think you would support Royal. Someone who embraces market realities and wants to fight unemployment by giving tax cuts to small business that employ more people, while maintaining essential social protections, and has broken away from her party's left-wing "old guard", wooing the centre, would, I'd have thought, be exactly the kind of candidate you'd support.

By the way, current polls say Sarkozy will win with between 52.5% and 54% of the vote.

Also, Philippe de Villiers (extreme right), who initially refused to support either Sarkozy or Royal, has now urged the 2.5% or so of voters who chose him in the first round to vote for Sarkozy in the second.

Le Pen will be saying tomorrow whether he refuses to support either candidate (likely), or supports Sarkozy (possible, but fairly unlikely) or Royal (extremely improbable).

By the way, current polls say Sarkozy will win with between 52.5% and 54% of the vote.

Also, Philippe de Villiers (extreme right), who initially refused to support either Sarkozy or Royal, has now urged the 2.5% or so of voters who chose him in the first round to vote for Sarkozy in the second.

Le Pen will be saying tomorrow whether he refuses to support either candidate (likely), or supports Sarkozy (possible, but fairly unlikely) or Royal (extremely improbable).
So you think Sarkozy is likely to win now?

The polls have been known to be wrong. But it's likely that he'll win.

It depends on how the other candidates' voters vote in the second round.

* Polls suggest that Bayrou's voters will support Royal more than Sarkozy, but this isn't certain, and the proportion doesn't seem to be enough to sway the balance.
* Will Le Pen's voters mostly vote Sarkozy, or will they abstain?
* Will far left voters massively rally to support Royal (and defeat Sarkozy), or not?

Yesterday Le Pen called for his supporters to abstain from voting in the second round.

Today is the "big debate" between Sarkozy and Royal. It's a tradition that the two second round candidates have one big debate on tv between the two rounds.

Well, the second round of the election is tomorrow... on my birthday. Latest news: Bayrou (Centrist) has said that he will not be voting for Sarkozy, but has not said whether he will vote for Royal, vote blank or abstain. Bayrou (who has traditionally been centre-right) earlier criticised Sarkozy as dangerous, power-hungry and a bully who likes to "intimidate" the media.

I'll let you know the results when I have them. But it should be Sarkozy with a large margin and no surprises (bloody "birthday present" :().

Or, you can watch the results live on France 24 (http://www.france24.com) (click on "live feed"). The programme will start at 7pm French time (6pm GMT); the results will be announced at 8pm French time (7pm GMT).

Well, the second round of the election is tomorrow... on my birthday. Latest news: Bayrou (Centrist) has said that he will not be voting for Sarkozy, but has not said whether he will vote for Royal, vote blank or abstain. Bayrou (who has traditionally been centre-right) earlier criticised Sarkozy as dangerous, power-hungry and a bully who likes to "intimidate" the media.

I'll let you know the results when I have them. But it should be Sarkozy with a large margin and no surprises (bloody "birthday present" :().

Or, you can watch the results live on France 24 (http://www.france24.com) (click on "live feed"). The programme will start at 7pm French time (6pm GMT); the results will be announced at 8pm French time (7pm GMT).

Yesterday Le Pen called for his supporters to abstain from voting in the second round.

Today is the "big debate" between Sarkozy and Royal. It's a tradition that the two second round candidates have one big debate on tv between the two rounds.
I'd say that both are good news for Royal, but the polls unfortunately put Sarkozy well ahead. I can't call myself an expert on the matter, but I think that M. Baryou's assessment seems correct - there's something about him that makes me feel uneasy.

Is it likely that the UMP will get a majority in the elections to the National Assembly too, or will they have to find a coalition partner?

Is it likely that the UMP will get a majority in the elections to the National Assembly too, or will they have to find a coalition partner?

There's been a bit of debate about introducing partial proportional representation in Parliament, but the upcoming election won't be on a proportional basis, so it's highly likely that the UMP will have an absolute majority. They already have one now (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembl%C3%A9e_nationale_%28France%29#Composition).

The paradox of the UDF, meanwhile, is that, although Bayrou now calls himself a "pure centrist" and opposes Sarkozy, and while there will probably be more centrist voters choosing Royal than choosing Sarkozy, a lot of UDF MPs remain firmly right-wing and allied to the UMP, and openly support Sarkozy, criticising their own party leader. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the "centre" in the legislative elections.

Sadly, I'm expecting a fairly comfortable win for Sarko. :eek:

There's been a bit of debate about introducing partial proportional representation in Parliament, but the upcoming election won't be on a proportional basis, so it's highly likely that the UMP will have an absolute majority. They already have one now (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembl%C3%A9e_nationale_%28France%29#Composition).
Why don't they just do what Germany does and go for full PR? Oh well, never mind.

The paradox of the UDF, meanwhile, is that, although Bayrou now calls himself a "pure centrist" and opposes Sarkozy, and while there will probably be more centrist voters choosing Royal than choosing Sarkozy, a lot of UDF MPs remain firmly right-wing and allied to the UMP, and openly support Sarkozy, criticising their own party leader. It'll be interesting to see what happens to the "centre" in the legislative elections.
It's no wonder then that the table on the French wikipedia puts the 'Centre & Droite' together then. It sounds like a bit of a poor strategy of the UDF MPs to put in their lot with Sarkozy. People who want Sarkozy are surely going to vote for the UMP and not the UDF anyway. I wonder if that might turn a few UDF voters to the Parti Socialiste. My guess is that it'll end up like Scotland: a gentle squeeze on that smaller parties.

Well, I've just been to vote for Ségolène Royal.

You can watch the results live at 7pm GMT (8pm French time) here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world.html) (click on "Live feed").

Well, I've just been to vote for Ségolène Royal.

You can watch the results live at 7pm GMT (8pm French time) here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world.html) (click on "Live feed").

Guess, I'll hear the results when my alarm goes off at 6am.

Is it your birthday, Ariddia?

Is it your birthday, Ariddia?

Yes, it is.

Not the ideal day to hear that Sarkozy is going to be our president for the next five years, eh?

That's too simple. The market can be regulated to some degree. Only an extremist would advocate more and more deregulation; that's ideology, especially when it's "justified" on the basis of values and principles

Horror! Values and principles!

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

(C) Goldwater 1964

Horror! Values and principles!

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!


I'm so glad to see you finally espousing communism.

(More to the point, you're taking me out of context. I have nothing against values and principles, as you well know. I was replying to Neu Leonstein, who claimed that a fully deregulated market is not a matter of ideology and principles. It's very dishonest of you to distort the meaning of what I said.)

I'm so glad to see you finally espousing communism.

There is no communism.

There is no left or right, only up and down...

On another thought, you're perfectly right, Ariddia.

There's nothing wrong in the content or wording of French government regulations on the economy.

Nothing that a long application of the BACKSPACE button won't fix, that is.

Yes, it is.

Not the ideal day to hear that Sarkozy is going to be our president for the next five years, eh?

Happy birthday. You don't look a day over 22.

Sarkozy as a birthday present? Bleuk.

On another thought, you're perfectly right, Ariddia.

There's nothing wrong in the content or wording of French government regulations on the economy.

Nothing that a long application of the BACKSPACE button won't fix, that is.

Since we've had an anti-socialist, right-wing, "full speed ahead with the free market" government for the past five years, I take it you're an anti-capitalist, then?

Happy birthday. You don't look a day over 22.

Sarkozy as a birthday present? Bleuk.

Indeed...

Now I'll always be able to remember the day I turned a quarter of a century old as the day Sarkozy came to power. :(

Indeed...

Now I'll always be able to remember the day I turned a quarter of a century old as the day Sarkozy came to power. :(

Half my age (almost) and twice as smart (almost). Cripes, I feel old.

twice as smart (almost)

Not really...

But at least you're making me feel a little less old than I was (feeling) a few minutes ago. ;)

Joyeux anniversaire, Aridd, mais ce n'est pas un cadeau bon...

And that's streching my French to the limits. I hadn't thought I'd be so bad after not studying it for two years.

And blimey, 25 when Sarkozy becomes President, makes being born under Thatcher almost bearable in comprison.

Since we've had an anti-socialist, right-wing, "full speed ahead with the free market" government for the past five years, I take it you're an anti-capitalist, then?

How does France manage to still have a graduated income tax, publicly-funded education, and labor regulations that make Germany look like a Free Market Paradise?

If you're not repealing regulations, clearly you're not capitalist enough.

By the way, Jolt ate my big ass reply post a few days ago, and I just couldn't write it all over again.

In short, after some more research I agreed with Ariddia that Royal isn't a Marxist, I instead came to the conclusion that she's an extremely cynical lady, using taxpayer-funded gifts to buy votes. None of the policies she's advocated actually address the illness itself, though some of them could feasibly treat symptoms...until the government deficit gets too big at which point they'd get repealed and we're back at square one. It's sorta like trying to fix a cut in the jugular with a band-aid.

While Sarkozy has said stupid things and certainly isn't my pick character-wise, he seems to be the only one willing to treat the actual illness and break with the old France. As hard as that may sound, one can only build a functioning, social and just state in France by pretty much destroying the current behemoth. And while Sarkozy won't go anywhere near as far as I would consider necessary, he's the least bad choice.

I would think that the majority of French voters know that in their heart as well and will vote accordingly. As powerful as the memes might be, I refuse to believe that the French are that indoctrinated by this campaign against this strawman they call "neoliberalism". Which by the well brings up a question I asked myself a few days ago: Which was first - French anti-liberalism, or French anti-Americanism? :confused:

Merci, Newer Burmecia!

How does France manage to still have a graduated income tax, publicly-funded education, and labor regulations that make Germany look like a Free Market Paradise?

If you're not repealing regulations, clearly you're not capitalist enough.

What on earth is wrong with having a publicly funded education system?

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but I have to question whether you know anything at all about France - our society, our history, our customs, the issues which concern French voters. Your "one size fits all" approach is both simplistic and unrealistic.


In short, after some more research I agreed with Ariddia that Royal isn't a Marxist, I instead came to the conclusion that she's an extremely cynical lady, using taxpayer-funded gifts to buy votes. None of the policies she's advocated actually address the illness itself, though some of them could feasibly treat symptoms...until the government deficit gets too big at which point they'd get repealed and we're back at square one. It's sorta like trying to fix a cut in the jugular with a band-aid.


Royal is far from perfect. I still believe, however, that her policies would be more feasible and efficient than Sarkozy's, and that she'd have less trouble implementing them. Also, Sarkozy is clearly making empty and unrealistic promises to buy votes. As I mentioned earlier, he promised to completely eliminate unemployment in five years, then back-pedalled later and said "reduce it to 5%" - without ever explaining how he intends to do that. It's just words.

As for the costs of their respective policies... Economists evaluated both their programmes and stated that the costs would be the same for each. So no-one has made any attempt to say that Royal's programme would increase the deficit, because independent experts have agreed that hers will cost no more than Sarkozy's (or, if you prefer to see it the other way, that Sarkozy will be spending just as much).


Which by the well brings up a question I asked myself a few days ago: Which was first - French anti-liberalism, or French anti-Americanism? :confused:

That's a complex question... Depends what you mean by "anti-Americanism", I suppose. Suspicion of foreign economic doctrines is deep-rooted, and comes both from attachment to hard-won social rights which began in the 1930s, and to a deep-held belief that France has its own way, is different, and that there's no reason why we should blindly do what outsiders tell us to do.

What on earth is wrong with having a publicly funded education system?

Sorry, I meant a publicly funded HIGHER education system.

There's a generally common definition of what a free-market, right-wing, anti-socialist is. And publicly funded higher education isn't part of it.

Now here's my point:

For good and bad, the French politicial mainstream is very much to the left of the political mainstream of, say, the US, and politicians who are seen as 'right-wing' in France would likely not be seen that way in America.

Royal is far from perfect. I still believe, however, that her policies would be more feasible and efficient than Sarkozy's, and that she'd have less trouble implementing them.
Efficiency is something I'd be very mindful of when talking about government. I mean, she likes rent control, for crying out loud!

As for the trouble implementing them...well, obviously. Sego's idea is pretty much to hand people free money. Sarko's policy is to make them work harder for it. Add to that those self-righteous knobs with their protests and signs and street demonstrations, and you get the picture.

Also, Sarkozy is clearly making empty and unrealistic promises to buy votes. As I mentioned earlier, he promised to completely eliminate unemployment in five years, then back-pedalled later and said "reduce it to 5%" - without ever explaining how he intends to do that. It's just words.
Well, I don't know the context of those words. There is in fact a "natural" unemployment rate which is not zero, and may well be 5%.

If he were successful in getting France's natural rate back to 5%, it would be a massive achievement, because at this point labour market rigidities and red tape have put it at probably double that.

As for the costs of their respective policies... Economists evaluated both their programmes and stated that the costs would be the same for each.
Have you got any figures for that? Which item in Sarko's program could possibly cost as much as Sego's public housing?

...France has its own way, is different, and that there's no reason why we should blindly do what outsiders tell us to do.
Hmm, maybe the EU can eventually cure that. But Sarko's definitely not the guy for that, so maybe next time. Bigger Fish to fry and all that.

For good and bad, the French politicial mainstream is very much to the left of the political mainstream of, say, the US, and politicians who are seen as 'right-wing' in France would likely not be seen that way in America.

I think we can both agree on that point, yes. From a French perspective, there is no left in the US - only a right-wing party (the Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party (Republicans), the likes of which could never be successful over here.

I just thought I'd drop in and say that BVA and Ipsos are both reporting in their most recent polls 55-45 for Sarkozy. Looks rather grim for Royal.

I think we can both agree on that point, yes. From a French perspective, there is no left in the US - only a right-wing party (the Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party (Republicans), the likes of which could never be successful over here.

Thank you very much.

From what I see there's no need for a socialist to fear Sarcozy - he won't bring any kind of real 'neoliberal revolution' to France or 'get away from the May '68 Mindset' as he promises.

I think we can both agree on that point, yes. From a French perspective, there is no left in the US - only a right-wing party (the Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party (Republicans), the likes of which could never be successful over here.

If you look at it from most perspectives you'll conclude the same thing.

As for the trouble implementing them...well, obviously. Sego's idea is pretty much to hand people free money. Sarko's policy is to make them work harder for it.

Have you actually listened to what each one has been saying?

Sarko keeps repeating that he wants to give people the right to work more if they want to (a claim favourably echoed by the BBC, who haven't bothered to check the facts). He's somehow managed to give some people the impression that French workers are not allowed to work more than 35 hours a week. That's incorrect.

His policy will be to make it cheaper for employers to extend their employees' working hours (theoretically with the employees' consent). As the left has rightly pointed out, this will mean employers will stand to gain by pushing their existing employees to work longer hours instead of creating new jobs. His policy goes against the idea of reducing unemployment.

And nowhere, never does Ségo advocate free handouts. (I would be very curious to hear where you got that idea.) On the contrary, she says that the unemployed will obtain assistance in finding a suitable job, and that they will then have to accept that job or face losing unemployment benefits. Her policies will put an end to "free handouts", and will effectively decrease unemployment.

Unlike Sarkozy, who says he wants to eliminate unemployment, but never says how he's going to do that, and advocates policies which will maintain or increase unemployment, Royal has stated clear policies to decrease unemployment and put people back to work.


If he were successful in getting France's natural rate back to 5%, it would be a massive achievement,


The fact that he has no idea how to achieve that probably explains why he hasn't tried to explain how he's going to do it (unlike Royal, who has explained her intended policies on this topic).


Have you got any figures for that? Which item in Sarko's program could possibly cost as much as Sego's public housing?


It was said on television by journalists several times. They mentioned it to both candidates, who both knew about it and did not dispute it. (Although Royal said that, by adding in some other factor, her policies would actually cost less than Sarkozy's.)


Hmm, maybe the EU can eventually cure that.

Forcing foreign ways on a society that is not structured for them is not a "cure" but a recipe for disaster. Only someone who is utterly ignorant of differences between countries, and their causes, could argue in favour of a "one size fits all" approach.

I just thought I'd drop in and say that BVA and Ipsos are both reporting in their most recent polls 55-45 for Sarkozy. Looks rather grim for Royal.

Yes, I saw that. The Tribune de Genêve has published a poll which puts Sarkozy at 54.5%.

Thank you very much.

From what I see there's no need for a socialist to fear Sarcozy - he won't bring any kind of real 'neoliberal revolution' to France or 'get away from the May '68 Mindset' as he promises.

I think he'll definitely try. The question is whether or not he'll succeed.

I think he'll definitely try. The question is whether or not he'll succeed.
I'm not sure whether he will, though. After all, the UMP already has its candidate as President, Prime Minister and a Senate/Assembly majority, and yet the status quo hasn't changed, as far as I'm aware. Sarkozy might well be the new liberal force in France, but by looking at his party, I doubt as to whether they all believe in it as much as he does.

I'm not sure whether he will, though. After all, the UMP already has its candidate as President, Prime Minister and a Senate/Assembly majority, and yet the status quo hasn't changed, as far as I'm aware. Sarkozy might well be the new liberal force in France, but by looking at his party, I doubt as to whether they all believe in it as much as he does.

I don't know... He's pretty much reshaped the party in his own image.

Anyway... The foreign press say they have the results for the election.

According to the Tribune de Genève (Switzerland), Sarkozy has won with between 53% and 55% of the vote (http://www.tdg.ch/).

La Libre Belgique (Belgium) says about the same thing (http://www.lalibre.be/).

The election programme on France 24 (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/switchLanguage.do?lang=en) has begun.

Have you actually listened to what each one has been saying?

Sarko keeps repeating that he wants to give people the right to work more if they want to (a claim favourably echoed by the BBC, who haven't bothered to check the facts). He's somehow managed to give some people the impression that French workers are not allowed to work more than 35 hours a week. That's incorrect.

His policy will be to make it cheaper for employers to extend their employees' working hours (theoretically with the employees' consent). As the left has rightly pointed out, this will mean employers will stand to gain by pushing their existing employees to work longer hours instead of creating new jobs. His policy goes against the idea of reducing unemployment.

This point is only accurate if France has a fixed pool of work-hours. There is no logical reason for this assumption.

This point is only accurate if France has a fixed pool of work-hours. There is no logical reason for this assumption.

If it is cheaper for an employer to get his existing employees to work longer hours than for him to hire extra workers, what do you think he's going to do?

Anyway, the result is now confirmed. Sarkozy has been elected with about 53% of the vote. Apparently, George W. Bush has called him to congratulate him.

In a month's time, we'll be electing Parliament.

In a month's time, we'll be electing Parliament.

I would so wish for a cohabitation with Royal as prime minister! That would be hilarious.

I would so wish for a cohabitation with Royal as prime minister! That would be hilarious.

That would be amusing, yes. Sarkozy would be terribly frustrated.

Incidentally, I'm starting to get mildly annoyed at the BBC for putting a pro-Sarkozy spin on everything while claiming to be objective. And for repeating that "Mr Sarkozy has promised to make the 35-hour working week a minimum rather than a maximum" (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631001.stm)). The 35-hour workweek is currently a minimum, not a maximum! The maximum is, I think, somewhere over 50. I just wonder whether the BBC has failed to get its facts straight, or whether they're deliberately lying. Presumably the former.

Yes, it is.

Not the ideal day to hear that Sarkozy is going to be our president for the next five years, eh?

Happy birthday Adriddia, pity it's such a crappy present.

Happy birthday Adriddia, pity it's such a crappy present.

Thanks.

Well... We'll see what happens now.

If there's one thing Sarkozy is an expert at, it's creating tension and setting people up against one another. So these should be a fun five years. :(

That would be amusing, yes. Sarkozy would be terribly frustrated.

Incidentally, I'm starting to get mildly annoyed at the BBC for putting a pro-Sarkozy spin on everything while claiming to be objective. And for repeating that "Mr Sarkozy has promised to make the 35-hour working week a minimum rather than a maximum" (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631001.stm)). The 35-hour workweek is currently a minimum, not a maximum! The maximum is, I think, somewhere over 50. I just wonder whether the BBC has failed to get its facts straight, or whether they're deliberately lying. Presumably the former.
So much for "liberal PC Union bias"...

The BBC also calls Sarkozy "centre-right". He's not centre-right. Bayrou is centre-right, and Bayrou has said that Sarkozy is a power-hungry, dangerous bully with "a taste for intimidating journalists". Bayrou disagrees with Sarkozy on many things.

More importantly, Sarkozy himself insists that he is not centre-right! He's hard-line right-wing, and says so himself. He talks about being part of "la droite décomplexée" - i.e., "the right which is proud/not ashamed to be strongly on the right".

So why does the BBC insist on calling him "centre-right" when everyone in France, his supporters, his opponents and he himself, agree that he is hardline right-wing?

None Of Them! They Are All Bloody French!

The BBC also calls Sarkozy "centre-right". He's not centre-right. Bayrou is centre-right, and Bayrou has said that Sarkozy is a power-hungry, dangerous bully with "a taste for intimidating journalists". Bayrou disagrees with Sarkozy on many things.

More importantly, Sarkozy himself insists that he is not centre-right! He's hard-line right-wing, and says so himself. He talks about being part of "la droite décomplexée" - i.e., "the right which is proud/not ashamed to be strongly on the right".

So why does the BBC insist on calling him "centre-right" when everyone in France, his supporters, his opponents and he himself, agree that he is hardline right-wing?
Undoubtedly a misunderstanding. The BBC calls every right wing government centre-right - apart from the British right wing government, of course, which curiously gets left out from being described in terms of left and right at all.

I mean, It does not matter who they elect, they will still do what ever they like and screw the rest of Europe!(which they want to run!)

And Sarkozy's first act after being elected has been to go on holiday, on an extremely expensive luxury yacht off the coast of Malta.


President-elect Nicolas Sarkozy may have been seeking some relaxation, but his Mediterranean getaway has instead sailed him straight into his first storm as French newspapers slammed Wednesday his luxury yacht cruise as ostentatious.

[...]

The rental price for the yacht which can accommodate 12 people would normally be up to 200,000 euros (270,000 dollars) per week in the high season.

"A way of showing-off money that recalls Silvio Berlusconi," the billionaire former Italian prime minister who never let office hinder his high-flying lifestyle, concluded La Republique des Pyrenees.

The conservative Le Figaro was bewildered by the change in plans from a vacation on the French Mediterranean island of Corsica to the luxury cruise which has caused "concern among a number of friends of Nicolas Sarkozy."


(Full article (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070509-sarkozy-holidays-yacht.html))

I read that in the Guardian this morning. Surely he has better things to do with his time when he's going to be inaugurated as President in a week?

There is an upside to his presidency: here's something for Joseph and I to argue about than Thatcher's (:mad:) legacy.

Look, he's been campaigning for months without end. Why is he not allowed to take a few days off (working out his future cabinet in the meantime)?

He doesn't have any function just yet, does he. So far Chirac is still running the country.

Of course, that's not the problem. The problem is that *gasp* he picked an expensive holiday rather than a really cheap one. Maybe he should just have asked Segolene whether he could stay in her mansion in Tuscany, that would've been cheaper. :rolleyes:

Why do you automatically assume I'm being entirely critical? Stop being so simplistic. :rolleyes:

Why do you automatically assume I'm being entirely critical? Stop being so simplistic. :rolleyes:
I really meant the article more than you (or rather, one side of the arguments mentioned in it...). Shadowboxing, so to speak. :p

Though I must admit I assumed you'd agree with it. But maybe I was overly simplistic, so I'm sorry. It's just that arguing with Kilobugya on the other thread is not healthy for me. There's lots of lefties out there that argue the various merits of their various ideas, but very few say to my face that they want to keep in me in chains to "limit the damage" I do...presumably to their egos.

Which brings me back to the envy which in my opinion fuels criticism of Sarkozy's choice of holiday.

The problem here is not really that Sarkozy is enjoying a 3 days break -he is human after all-, but rather that everything here if offered to him by his friend Vincent Bolloré, the CEO of Havas and many other companies, some deeply involved especially in Africa... and not just for the cocoa!

It is very difficult to draw the line between friendship, bribery and graft...

Would have Sarko go to the house of his -other- friend Christian Clavier, nobody would have give a damn about it. Christian Clavier doesn't have anything to trade with the government (well, that I am aware of...)

Sarkozy's friends (mentioned by Le Figaro) presumably think it's bad for his image.

I don't disagree with the idea that he's entitled to a few days' holiday after campaigning, and before being invested President. And if he wants to spend a lot of his own money, well, it's his to spend. Although I do think his choice may not have been a particularly smart one. It does make me wonder whether he's trying to create a new image of himself, or whether he just thinks "to hell with how people interpret it".

Several hundred students at the University of Paris 1 have decided to block the university (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-908086@51-861150,0.html) in protest against Sarkozy's planned "anti-social" reforms.

Several hundred students at the University of Paris 1 have decided to block the university (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-908086@51-861150,0.html) in protest against Sarkozy's planned "anti-social" reforms.
See, that's where I reckon Sarko will be useful. The previous government would just have folded.

Sarkozy will just feel sorry for them because they're missing out on education and keep doing whatever it is he's doing.

What amazes me is the hypocrisy of those protesters. I want to bet that none of them protest when Chavez or Morales win elections. Democracy is just fine then. It's only when the people choose someone they don't like that the system is crooked and they need to use their vocal minority campaigns to try and force their ideas on others.

I would so wish for cohabitation with Royal ...same here :D :D ;) :D

.. and says so himself. He talks about being part of "la droite décomplexée" - ..... "la droite americana" :D