NationStates Jolt Archive

After electing a new President, the French are now electing their parliament.

As far as I can tell, the Left is set to a receive a historically low share of the votes and Sarkozy's UMP should easily get the majority they need to push ahead with wide-ranging reforms.

There'll be a second round to decide those seats that haven't had a clear winner in the first, but the trend isn't expected to change.

So what does this now mean for France? Will Sarkozy back down like Chirac did, or will he pull things through (afterall, he did get the mandate for it and he didn't hide his intentions).

And where will the French Left go from here? The commies look like they've lost worse than ever before, and the socialists received a drubbing as well. Is Hollande's generation done, and will there be new faces leading the Socialists soon? And will they finally begin the move towards the centre that other left parties in Europe finished ages ago?

Sarkozy showed signs that he wouldn't back down when he first became president. With a new mandate, I doubt he will back down at all. He may be the most influential French president since Mitterand, or even DeGaulle.

We'll have to wait for the second round of results to see, but the polls posted at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_legislative_election%2C_2007) show the UDF, the Communists and the others/independents as the biggest losers, with the Socialists potentially avoiding a deathblow. One poll even has them gaining votes, so it's a little early to call a drubbing, even if them beating the UMP is impossible by all accounts.

We're going to have to wait and see. The party is undoubtedly going to change (they haven't won anything recently, as far as I know), but I hope we won't see les Nouveau Socialistes in the same mould as New Labour at least.

the polls posted at wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_legislative_election%2C_2007) show the UDF, the Communists and the others/independents as the biggest losers

Depends what you mean by "UDF". The UDF as such no longer exists. It's split in half, between those who say the centre should be centrist (Mouvement Démocrate), and those who say the centre should be right-wing (Nouveau Centre). The MoDem obtained about 7.5% of the vote nationally, but will only have about 2 seats, whereas the Nouveau Centre got 2.5% of the vote, and will have a fairly significant number of seats.

That's due to the absurdity of our electoral system. With about 40% of the vote, the UMP is projected to snatch up about 80% of seats.

In my area the UMP came first (by a large margin), but didn't quite hit 50%, so there'll be a second round. The Communists came second and the Socialists third, so the Socialists will probably withdraw and support the Communist candidate. But it'll be an easy victory for the UMP candidate.

So, what reforms are those Sarky is talking about, apart from of course the immigration thing?

So, what reforms are those Sarky is talking about, apart from of course the immigration thing?
Well, explicitly some tax cuts, gradual erosion of the 35 hour week and reductions in the number of public employees (with a subsequent reduction in the state pension commitments).

More generally, I would expect a cut-back in labour market rigidities and reduction in non-wage labour costs.

Unfortunately, industrial policy probably won't change. For some reason mercantilist ideas from Louis' courts is still looked upon as a model idea by many in the French elite. So it'll be state money for French companies to buy foreign targets, and state money to prevent French targets from being bought by foreign firms. Rather infuriating, if you ask me, but then I see that sort of thing as cheating.

Well, at least that's something.

As far as I can tell, the Left is set to a receive a historically low share of the votes and Sarkozy's UMP should easily get the majority they need to push ahead with wide-ranging reforms.

With a very high abstention rate, especially the young people didn't go to vote, they are either hopeless after Sarkozy's victory, or hopeless thank to the media telling us again and again that the UMP will have an overwhelming majority anyway (nice self-fullfilling prophecy).

So what does this now mean for France? Will Sarkozy back down like Chirac did, or will he pull things through (afterall, he did get the mandate for it and he didn't hide his intentions).

For what did Sarkozy get a mandate ? If you look to most of his speeches and most of what the media said, it's to put order, by force, in the "troublesome" areas. Nothing more. He didn't hide his intentions on the social/economical field, but he didn't advertise them much either, and the media (which he controls) made their best to move the debate on the immigration/security field. On social issues, Sarkozy doesn't have a majority of french behind him (his recent will to reduce the amount of money the state pays back when you visit a doctor, for example, is opposed by more than 60% of french).

That's a huge problem of representative democracy, people get elected on one or a few fields/themes, but will then decide for all of them. That's why we (radical leftists) prefer participative democracy, and why we support strong counter-power, like labor unions. If you look at France since like 20 years, no major union strike happened without a strong support from the majority of the population, in this respect, the unions are defending the democracy (which means, "the people command") against the flaws of representative democracy.

And where will the French Left go from here?

That's a very difficult question... I don't know yet.

The commies look like they've lost worse than ever before,

Not as much as we could have expected, seeing how big the "blue tsunami" is. We are still strong in our strongholds (people who have communist representatives tend to reelect them again and again, which is a good point for us), and we'll be the 4th party of the assembly (after the UMP, the PS, the UDF-Nouveau Centre), well ahead of the Greens, UDF-MoDem and of the extreme right. We are losing, but not that much.

and the socialists received a drubbing as well. Is Hollande's generation done, and will there be new faces leading the Socialists soon? And will they finally begin the move towards the centre that other left parties in Europe finished ages ago?

They already started, since 1983, and that's why they lost in 1993, 1995, 2002 and 2007. And they only won in 1997 because people were still very upset from Juppé. As long as the PS will not be "socialist" or even leftists but will look towards the center, they'll lose. You don't win an ideological battle by refusing to fight it. That's how Sarkozy won: because no one opposed him (well, the antiliberal left did, but the media did their best to mute them, so it didn't really matter).

So, what reforms are those Sarky is talking about, apart from of course the immigration thing?

On the justice/police part: thougher sentences for "small" crimes including to children, forcing education workers (teachers, ...) to denounce any "suspect" attitude, more control of the government on judges, lower defense rights.

On social issues: even more disbanding of the social security system (healthcare/retirement/unemployment), disbanding of "social housing" (cheaper housing for low-income people), disbanding of the "working code" and all the workers' protection systems, major lowering of the quality of the public education system (which was already deeply damaged by 5 yers of right-wing gov).

On the economical issues: tax cuts for the wealthy and especially the very wealthy (the "bouclier fiscal" which mostly concerns the 1% wealthiest), tax cuts for employers, all that compensated by an increase of VAT and massive firing of public workers especially in education and healthcare, incitating companies to increase the working hours instead of employing unemployed people, massive privatisations of public companies which have proved being among the most efficient and reliable of the world (SNCF, EDF).

On international politics: behaving as a puppet of GW Bush, signing through the Assembly a "light" version (but nearly the same) of the European Constitution that was massively (55%) rejected by french people 2 years ago.

With a very high abstention rate, especially the young people didn't go to vote, they are either hopeless after Sarkozy's victory, or hopeless thank to the media telling us again and again that the UMP will have an overwhelming majority anyway (nice self-fullfilling prophecy).
Whatever the case may be, you can't blame anyone but the people who didn't go. But in the Presidential elections the turn-out was huge and Sarkozy won by a comfortable margin. Unless there's a lot of people who want a right-wing President and a left-wing Parliament, I wouldn't think greater turn-out would have made a huge difference.

But maybe that'll fix itself in the second round.

For what did Sarkozy get a mandate ? If you look to most of his speeches and most of what the media said, it's to put order, by force, in the "troublesome" areas. Nothing more.
And the French people are hapless sheep who don't realise what Sarkozy stands for?

Look, I'm not happy with people like Chavez winning massive election victories. But I'm careful not to blame "the media" or anyone else. As long as the election process itself is up to standard, I think the electorate made its choice and I have enough respect for the system to accept it (albeit grudgingly).

You have to be careful now that you don't become hypocritical and start condemning a democratic outcome in France when you praise it in Venezuela.

That's a huge problem of representative democracy, people get elected on one or a few fields/themes, but will then decide for all of them.
Which means that there must be something the UMP and Sarkozy are doing a lot better than Royale and the PS. What is it?

If you look at France since like 20 years, no major union strike happened without a strong support from the majority of the population...
Yeah, them tending to shut down all transport until they get their way tends to make people want the dispute to be over. Happily, that way of "convincing" people of their arguments will soon be gone.

I still have to ask you for proof of your figures though.

As long as the PS will not be "socialist" or even leftists but will look towards the center, they'll lose. You don't win an ideological battle by refusing to fight it.
Spoken like a true radical.

Pity is that most people aren't. Most people don't want ideological battles, but to live a decent life as unbothered by politics as possible.

Just look - everywhere in the Western world (and indeed in most developing nations) radical parties are allowed to run. They just never get elected to anything important. They propose far-reaching, often unproven policy changes that are obviously based on ideology.

But the electorate generally doesn't like being looked at as lab rats for some big experiment to prove Marx or Hitler or whoever was right afterall. So centrist parties with real, attainable goals and real, sensible and not too exciting policies tend to do well.

Of course that's the general thing. More specific to the Socialists is their very own failure to make anyone care about them. Yet somehow in Britain (which pre-Thatcher wasn't all that more right-wing than France, and after her reign wouldn't have been in the mood for more right-wing stuff) Labour managed to make itself electable again by picking the right leader with a new vision more in tune with people's lives than with Das Kapital.

The Socialists have to manage the same feat. That doesn't mean just copying Blair, nor does it even necessarily mean that the Third Way is the way to go (though in my opinion that's precisely what no one in France is offering at the moment). It means kicking out the old guard, going through the books and party manifestos and scrapping any reference to a time when classes still existed and perhaps looking at Scandinavia for ideas on how to implement Socialist ideals in the 21st century.

Once they do that, I'm sure they'll be competitive in elections again. But until that day, they just look more and more anachronistic and no amount of blaming anyone will change the fact that anachronisms aren't an attractive election package.

Whatever the case may be, you can't blame anyone but the people who didn't go.

I can also blame the media which did their best for it to happen. Both by saying that it's hopeless and by the coverage of the two election: they spent much, much less of their time speaking of this election than on the previous one.

But "blaming" doesn't interest me, saying "this one is guilty" is pointless. What I do (or try to do at least) is to analyze cause-consequence chains, mechanisms and logics within the society. And the role of the media in this is important. I'm not "blaming" the media, I'm analysing their role.

But in the Presidential elections the turn-out was huge and Sarkozy won by a comfortable margin.

53% is non-negligeable, but not that comfortable either, it's not 63% like Chávez did ;)

Unless there's a lot of people who want a right-wing President and a left-wing Parliament, I wouldn't think greater turn-out would have made a huge difference.

There are a lot of people who are not right-wing, but like Sarkozy's energy, will and charisma (he's very charismatic, in his own way), those may have voted more to the left on this election than on the previous one. But I can't tell if it would have been 1% (which would still be a victory of the right) or 5% (which would have meant a victory of the left).

And the French people are hapless sheep who don't realise what Sarkozy stands for?

Some don't really realise it, yes. It doesn't mean they are "sheeps". Everyone fails to realise things and falls to "manipulation" at least once during his life, saying that some did on that specific case isn't insulting anyone.

Look, I'm not happy with people like Chavez winning massive election victories. But I'm careful not to blame "the media" or anyone else. As long as the election process itself is up to standard, I think the electorate made its choice and I have enough respect for the system to accept it (albeit grudgingly).

I "accept" it. It won't take weapons and assault the parliament, or even strike just because I don't like Sarkozy. But accepting Sarkozy's victory doesn't mean accepting everything he'll do. And it definitely doesn't mean you can't look for reasons, causes of it, nor analyse the role played by very powerful entities like the media in it.

For the system, I oppose it, so well... I oppose the presidential election because it gives too much important to persons and not enough to programs (even if sometimes it plays for my side, like in Venezuela), I oppose the two-round run-off because it kills "small" parties, I oppose reprensative democracy (or more exactly, I think it's much better than dictatorship, but that it's only a very bad approximation of democracy, and that we should try more direct democracy, something usually called "participative democracy"), and I oppose the current structures of media, which for almost all of them are controlled either by the government (right-wing) or by big transnational groups (right-wing, too).

You have to be careful now that you don't become hypocritical and start condemning a democratic outcome in France when you praise it in Venezuela.

Well, there are two keys difference: in Venezuela most of the media are against Chávez, while in France nearly all of them are for Sarkozy. The second one is 53% for one, 63% for the other. And a third one: Venezuelian can recall Chávez at half of his mandate, we can't here (Chirac would have been revocated in 2004, and the left would have won this year).

But then, I'm not "condemning", I'm disapproving (as you do with Chávez), and looking for causes. Nothing bad in that.

Which means that there must be something the UMP and Sarkozy are doing a lot better than Royale and the PS. What is it?

The whole immigration-insecurity field. Not really that they are doing a lot better, but they can call to fear and people do agree with them on those fields. And manipulate statistics to appear they succeed.

Yeah, them tending to shut down all transport until they get their way tends to make people want the dispute to be over.

That's not at all what happened in the big strikes. In all the big strikes of the latest 20 years, the huge majority of the people were with the strikers. What upsets people are the "small" (one-day partial) strikes over their working condition, but once again, the primary problem is the direction of the SNCF which refuse to negociate with unions before the strike (their strategy being: let's them strike, and then let's see, if enough people striked, we'll negociate). The few times in which the direction of the SNCF accepted to negociate before, usually a compromise is found.

I still have to ask you for proof of your figures though.

Polls done by the same polling institute which predicted Sarkozy's victory ;)

Pity is that most people aren't. Most people don't want ideological battles, but to live a decent life as unbothered by politics as possible.

That's why they voted for the radical Sarkozy against the centrists Royal and Bayrou ?

Just look - everywhere in the Western world (and indeed in most developing nations) radical parties are allowed to run. They just never get elected to anything important. They propose far-reaching, often unproven policy changes that are obviously based on ideology.

Reagan, Bush (both), Tatcher were radicals. So are Chávez, Morales, Correa, Ortega. So was Mitterrand in 1981. Sarkozy is a radical, too.

So centrist parties with real, attainable goals and real, sensible and not too exciting policies tend to do well.

That's definitely not what you can see in France, and in many other countries.

Labour managed to make itself electable again by picking the right leader with a new vision more in tune with people's lives than with Das Kapital.

A clear show of how they think: people do politics to "be elected". I don't do politics to "be elected", but to improve life of people. If being elected means giving up your values and ethics, I prefer to lose. "Labour" was elected, but the values of the Labour were sacrified in the process. Exactly like the 1917 Revolution managed to save itself by destroying its own values...

The Socialists have to manage the same feat. That doesn't mean just copying Blair, nor does it even necessarily mean that the Third Way is the way to go (though in my opinion that's precisely what no one in France is offering at the moment).

That's exactly what Royal was offering, and why she lost (even if, after 2004 elections and 2006 protests, the left could have win this election easily on a leftist program). She kept referring to Blair, to Shroeder, claiming friendship with Bayrou, and having a program full of "third way" like solutions.

reference to a time when classes still existed

Classes still exist. 50% of the capital is still owned by 1% of the population, 90% by 10% of the population. If that's not classes, I don't know what classes mean.

and perhaps looking at Scandinavia for ideas on how to implement Socialist ideals in the 21st century.

Socialism of the XXIest century is being implemented - in Venezuela. And it works. Very well.

Once they do that, I'm sure they'll be competitive in elections again. But until that day, they just look more and more anachronistic and no amount of blaming anyone will change the fact that anachronisms aren't an attractive election package.

Anachronisms ?! Sarkozy is the guy wanting to scrap the post-WW2 social system to go back to a pre-WW2 one, but still it's the left which is anachronic ? Ridiculous.

Radicalism is now bad?

Yeah, them tending to shut down all transport until they get their way tends to make people want the dispute to be over.

You know you have no idea what you're talking about here, so why do you say that? Simply because that's the way you'd want it to be, and you don't want to concede a point?

Every time there's a massive strike, polls have indicated that a large part of public opinion (usually well over 60%) support the strikers.


Just look - everywhere in the Western world (and indeed in most developing nations) radical parties are allowed to run. They just never get elected to anything important. They propose far-reaching, often unproven policy changes that are obviously based on ideology.


So why was Sarkozy, a radical, campaigning on a promise of radical and sweeping change, elected? He based his campaign on ideology, with frequent references (including in his victory speech) to the "values" of work and "authority" (a word he likes a lot and uses often).

Depends what you mean by "UDF". The UDF as such no longer exists. It's split in half, between those who say the centre should be centrist (Mouvement Démocrate), and those who say the centre should be right-wing (Nouveau Centre).
The two halves got put together for polling purposes, so I kept them that way.

The MoDem obtained about 7.5% of the vote nationally, but will only have about 2 seats, whereas the Nouveau Centre got 2.5% of the vote, and will have a fairly significant number of seats.

That's due to the absurdity of our electoral system. With about 40% of the vote, the UMP is projected to snatch up about 80% of seats.
I have to say, when it comes to complex and strange electoral systems, France comes out on top. At least in Presidential elections the winner has to get 50% of the vote. I can't say that what we have in Britain is any better (because it isn't when someone gets 1/3 of the votes and 2/3 of the seats) but at least it isn't so damned...odd.

I'd go for PR tomorrow.

In my area the UMP came first (by a large margin), but didn't quite hit 50%, so there'll be a second round. The Communists came second and the Socialists third, so the Socialists will probably withdraw and support the Communist candidate. But it'll be an easy victory for the UMP candidate.
Seems rather like home. There's no point in even voting in such a safe Tory seat.

Radicalism is now bad?

Somehow it got before yours post

Seems rather like home. There's no point in even voting in such a safe Tory seat.

I vote anyway, because I don't like the idea of "there's no point in voting". I vote on principle, and to show that I do support a certain party, even if they have no hope of winning.

I vote anyway, because I don't like the idea of "there's no point in voting". I vote on principle, and to show that I do support a certain party, even if they have no hope of winning.
I've voted in every election I can. All one of them. ;)

And even then, I couldn't vote for the party I really wanted to win, because of the wonderful Labour/Tory/Liberal/BNP monopoly in my area.

I vote anyway, because I don't like the idea of "there's no point in voting". I vote on principle, and to show that I do support a certain party, even if they have no hope of winning.

Yeah, same for me...

She kept referring to Blair, to Shroeder, claiming friendship with Bayrou, and having a program full of "third way" like solutions.
I'll leave the rest because it's tedious (Sarkozy isn't a radical, he's most likely still to the left of Tony Blair, for example and I lol'd at the Venezuelan media being against Chavez), but this shows me how much you misunderstand.

Royal wanted to build more public housing, wanted to raise minimum wages and to enshrine yet more job security in the legislation, all coupled with a background of angry rants at "capital" and pledges to tax it more.

That's not the Third Way. That's the second way.

The Third Way ceases to take its economics from people who think revolution and utopia are good ideas. It instead looks at good ideas from anywhere, from Röpke over Stiglitz to Friedman. It accepts the Welfare Theorems as a pretty good approximation of the truth. It knows and cares about the information problem and accepts that government simply cannot run stuff better than a free market in most cases. The Third Way wants to modify the way markets work, not actively intervene or surpress them.

The Third Way would have tried to get rid of labour legislation and instead made it easier for people to switch to another job. It would get rid of a wealth tax and get rid of public employees. It would build a system of incentives, not hand-outs. Just referring to Blair or Clinton (or, I suppose, Schröder though I'm loathe to credit him with that much brain) in a speech isn't enough. If her policies don't look anything like theirs, she's not like them.

So yeah, you can disagree with the Third Way and continue to think privatisation is a bad thing or that employers shouldn't have the right to hire and fire people if they so please. You can say it's because you don't want to compromise just to get elected.

But until you get elected, you won't be able to implement any of your program, or help people. Nationalisations and class struggle pulled votes in the 50s and 60s, and maybe even in the 70s. Mitterand found out the hard way that they don't anymore.

Since then, I have the distinct feeling the PS only ever got votes when people didn't like their opposition. The party itself is a mess, and Royal demonstrated it by presenting a program without any sort of coherence. What I'm saying is that when they finally get around to writing a new party line, they need to make sure they have an open mind.

I'll leave the rest because it's tedious (Sarkozy isn't a radical, he's most likely still to the left of Tony Blair, for example

Sarkozy is radical compared to French situation since the end of WW2. Radicalism is always relative to a situation.

and I lol'd at the Venezuelan media being against Chavez

Which just show your ignorance. At the time of the election, 4 TV channels were openly and strongly against Chávez, 1 was for him. Nowadays, with RCTV replaced by TVes, it's 3 against 2. For radio stations it's around the same (4 to 1 against Chávez), and for newspapers, it's even worse. What is "funny" is seeing all those newspaper shops with Chávez posters (because the shop owner is pro-Chávez) but selling newspapers with nearly all of them big titles against Chávez (comparing him to Hitler and such)...

Royal wanted to build more public housing,

To a point. More exactly, it was rebuilding the ones destroyed (because too crappy to be fixed), and only a small amount.

wanted to raise minimum wages

Slowly over 5 years, which is just a tiny bit more than the minimal increase.

and to enshrine yet more job security in the legislation,

Not at all, she wanted to create something very similar to the CPE, and to lower job security.

all coupled with a background of angry rants at "capital" and pledges to tax it more.

Not at all, she always opposed increases in taxes, and wasn't angry at the capital... saddly.

Get your facts fixed, before saying non-sense.

But until you get elected, you won't be able to implement any of your program, or help people. Nationalisations and class struggle pulled votes in the 50s and 60s, and maybe even in the 70s. Mitterand found out the hard way that they don't anymore.

Oh, I forgot this part, which shows your _total_ ignorance of french politics. Mitterand won in 1981 ON nationalisations and "class struggle". He lost in 1986 because in 1983 he turned back on this and began the "third way" turn of the PS.

And btw, the vast majority (60%) of French are opposed to the privatisation of EDF, GDF and SNCF. But Royal didn't speak of renationalising or not privatising them. It was in the program of the PS, but in what Royal said and claimed.

What are these EDF, GDF, SNCF?

What are these EDF, GDF, SNCF?

EDF is electricity public service, GDF natural gaz public service and SNCF train public service. All three of them are of very high quality (even if the quality went down those latest 15 years), cheap (compared to other european countries) and very reliable, and world leaders in their domain (SNCF has the world record on train speed, ...) and French people don't want them to be privatised.

But EDF and GDF were already partly privatised by Villepin and Sarkozy, saddly.

EDF is electricity public service, GDF natural gaz public service and SNCF train public service. All three of them are of very high quality (even if the quality went down those latest 15 years), cheap (compared to other european countries) and very reliable, and world leaders in their domain (SNCF has the world record on train speed, ...) and French people don't want them to be privatised.

But EDF and GDF were already partly privatised by Villepin and Sarkozy, saddly.
Hell, I'd take SNCF/RATP over British Rail (or what's left of it) any day. Sarkozy isn't planning on privatising it, is he?

Interestingly, since UK electricity was privatised in the nineties, EDF has bought the south east Distribution Network Operator. Interesting, no?

Hell, I'd take SNCF/RATP over British Rail (or what's left of it) any day. Sarkozy isn't planning on privatising it, is he?

Indeed, SNCF/RATP are very good, and privatising rails often (always?) ended up in disaster (UK, Argentina, ...). Sarkozy didn't really say he will privatise it, but the European Union will ask for it, and Sarkozy will be more than happy to comply... they started preparing the privatisation since 1993, they won't stop now that they can do it :(

Interestingly, since UK electricity was privatised in the nineties, EDF has bought the south east Distribution Network Operator. Interesting, no?

Funny... well, EDF started already to act more like a private corporation (buying things all around the world, focusing on profitability) and less like a public service (providing everyone with cheap and reliable electricity, investing in R&D and not in buying other corporations, ...). And now with 20% of it in the stock market, they'll be forced to act even more as a private company, and even less as a public service.

There's a variety of successful private rail services out there.

Indeed, SNCF/RATP are very good, and privatising rails often (always?) ended up in disaster (UK, Argentina, ...). Sarkozy didn't really say he will privatise it, but the European Union will ask for it, and Sarkozy will be more than happy to comply... they started preparing the privatisation since 1993, they won't stop now that they can do it :(
Just send them on 'British Rail', and make sure they pay for it out their own pockets. I'm sure they'll enjoy paying for train tickets that go up two to three times the rate of inflation every year for appalling commuter service. And that's with three times the government subsidy that the nationalised system produced.

Funny... well, EDF started already to act more like a private corporation (buying things all around the world, focusing on profitability) and less like a public service (providing everyone with cheap and reliable electricity, investing in R&D and not in buying other corporations, ...). And now with 20% of it in the stock market, they'll be forced to act even more as a private company, and even less as a public service.
Well, the DNOs (local grids) and the National Grid, which are a natural monopoly, should be nationalised. I don't see why one company should have a complete monopoly on electricity distribution and maintenance in an area without being accountable.

There's a variety of successful private rail services out there.

I work in the rail industry in the uk. Private rail has worked for freight services (to a degree) but has been an unmitigated disaster for passenger services.

Does anyone know how to say 'shower curtain rod' in french?

Thanks.

I work in the rail industry in the uk. Private rail has worked for freight services (to a degree) but has been an unmitigated disaster for passenger services.

The UK isn't the only country out there. :D

After electing a new President, the French are now electing their parliament.

As far as I can tell, the Left is set to a receive a historically low share of the votes and Sarkozy's UMP should easily get the majority they need to push ahead with wide-ranging reforms.

There'll be a second round to decide those seats that haven't had a clear winner in the first, but the trend isn't expected to change.

So what does this now mean for France? Will Sarkozy back down like Chirac did, or will he pull things through (afterall, he did get the mandate for it and he didn't hide his intentions).

And where will the French Left go from here? The commies look like they've lost worse than ever before, and the socialists received a drubbing as well. Is Hollande's generation done, and will there be new faces leading the Socialists soon? And will they finally begin the move towards the centre that other left parties in Europe finished ages ago?


Sarkozy will be restrained to some degree by the power of the left in France. There will likely be violent opposition to any major neoliberal reforms. I would really put his election down to the general naffness and sleaziness of Chirac's generation of politicians and the need to reconsider certain aspects of French society. However, I do not believe that Sarkozy is the beginning of a new France at all. People compare his rise to Thatcher's, but I think we need to be careful in doing that. France and Britain could not be more different in their attitudes and outlooks on what is politically acceptable. It may be that France is flirting with market liberalisation, but I don't think it will like the taste of reforms.

Only trouble will come from this.