France 2012: the official thread

[redcommander]

If for whatever reason Le Pen doesn't get the necessary signatures to qualify, would Mélenchon take away most of her support since they're both fighting for the same working class section of the electorate?

[Hashemite]

If for whatever reason Le Pen doesn't get the necessary signatures to qualify, would Mélenchon take away most of her support since they're both fighting for the same working class section of the electorate?

Mélenchon's electorate is hardly heavily working-class. Besides, the type of working-class attracted to Mélenchon has, in general, little in common politically with those attracted to Le Pen (and vice versa).

Also,



Giscard's 1981 slogan vs.

[Senator MaxQue]

Doesn't Giscard lost that year?

[Colbert]

(yes he lose)


MLP battle, part II.

Some secret polls, as said the newspaper Marianne and some commentators, give MLP and Nicolas Ier equal at 22%

So, UMP is using is power to afraiding mayors wich could give their approve to MLP candidature.

But, le canard enchainé, the so-called "satiric" newspaper (and, for real, public office of intelligence service, FBI-like) said that Socialist Party is helping MLP to have the signatures (?) she need.

The only "chance" for MLP to don't be candidate is this : she present her 500/600 signs to the constitutionnal court, but, at the last moment, some of the mayors said "no".
So, she had no time to have others signatures, and can be candidate.


(sorry for my english)

[Swedish Cheese]

And here's one Twitter account that I won't be following: https://twitter.com/#!/NicolasSarkozy

Is he really using "A Strong France" as a slogan? Talk about original...

"My opponent has never run anything except his parliamentary office" would be another good slogan...

Well, he ran the Socialist Party for more than 10 years...

Considering it's the Socialist Party of France I'm not sure how running it is really a merit.

[Californian Tony]

All right, having been called out by several people has made it hard for me to reply in time, but here is it, for Iannis, Fabien and Al.

State-interventionist approach to people needs, basically poor people, is a failure, especially in big not efficient  countries, basicaly everywhere but small scandinavian countries

Why would it work in the scandinavians and fail elsewhere ? Considering the philosophical argument you develop later, the size of a country should be irrelevant to its functioning.

Of course, the reason why it works better in the scandinavians is because these countries are the only ones that have followed social-democratic principles to their full extent, while other countries had their welfare systems impeded by old corporatist/familialist structures, by lack of civism or by an ideological hegemony of classical liberalism.

It is also ludicrous to say welfare state has "failed" outside the scandinavians. Of course it hasn't worked as well as in Sweden or Norway, but it's not a case if the golden age of welfare-state (1945-1975) was also the age of economic prosperity. It's not a case if poverty was almost eradicated in those countries at that time. Nor it is a case if the countries with the highest level of social protection have lower poverty rates, more middle classes, better living conditions, better perceptions of well-being.

it's not efficient firstly ideally because it deresponsabilize the family and the individuals, weakening the social connections, the solidarity among individuals or families, or through NGOs etc, and the civil society, which are the structures that are the more naturally fitted to the needs of poor people.

Welfare State obviously doesn't weaken social connections. To the contrary, where do you find broken social links ? Where people are left to their own devices. How will families be "responsabilized" if lone mothers aren't even able to feed their own children ? The idea that any social issue could be fixed only by individual action simply doesn't stand to facts. As for NGOs, come on : seriously ? Isn't it obvious that NGOs intervene where there's something wrong in a society to begin with ? They don't fix the problem, simply do their possible to alleviate its gravest symptoms.

I think that a public functionaire will never be more efficient than the family or the neighbour or an association made by volunteer who have a REAL interest on the problem they face and try to resolve.

Well, of course you can't ask every civil servant to be perfectly knowledgeable about a particular situation, or as compassionate as you would like him to be. On the other hand, "associations" and "neighbours" are unable to take the problem at its root. Yes, they'll give an occasional help in the most desperate situations, and then what ? Is that sufficient for a no-income unemployed to find his job and get back a normal life ? It just doesn't work that way, as a quick look at history and/or geography would immediately tells you. "Associations" and "neighbours" don't change the society, they can't attack the mechanisms that originate poverty at their core.

It's simple, we see how in continental Europe the level of voluntary funding of charity isititutions is very low, people don't feel responsible for the poor, they rely totally on the State

Yeah, well, of course. Because continental Europe doesn't need charities as much as America does, due to the inability of its State to solve the structural problem of poverty. See above.

they even find a shame to pay more than 5% of their income for personal education or health, giving all the responsibility to the inefficient State sector.

Well yes, some people think education and health are public goods which should be kept outside of the market's realm. Some people think health and education are human rights, whose access shouldn't be limited by income. Some people realize that the pursuit of private interests just isn't acceptable when things as important as health and education are at stake. As for the "inefficiency" of government and the superiority of private sector, facts deny it everyday. Just take a look at the awful mess of America's health system.

The high level of taxation needed for this system (started to help just the poorest without frinds and family and latere degenerated) is not only unequal (since basically everything is "free", so even rich people don't pay for a surgery operation)

Yes, in an universalistic welfare state health and education are free, regardless of your income. Income-testing denaturates the welfare State, as it makes it a residual system aimed at correcting the worst effects of market rather than a process of social transformation. If, instead, the same rights are given to anybody, not only everybody, poor comprised, benefits more from them, but they are also more popular because the middle-classes are also included.

As for it being unequal, of course it isn't as long as it is funded on progressive taxation. Unfortunately, the neoliberal right has kept pushing for tax cut and managed to impose their anti-tax ideology, making us forget the fundamental truth that taxes are nothing but the instrument to build a fair society.

and is diseducative ,since people don't understand the real cost of what they use, like education, they are not ready to make donations for reasearch, it's all "up to the State", and private companies and multinational become the "evil" and young people don't invest in their own education enrolling in unuseful faculties, given they pay a only a very small part of this education.

Yeah, it is so good when poor people know the real cost of education - because they can't afford it. As for the rich, they're rich enough not to care about this cost anyways. So yeah, let's "educate" people at the toughness and unfairness of life, rather than making life less tough and fairer !

Meanwhile, not having to care for education or health allows middle classes to spare more, to invest more, thus helping them climbing the social ladder if they are motivated enough. And cheap studies means that not only those whose parents are rich can afford a high quality education.

It is also a damage, because it destroys the competitiveness of the economy, and we see it in Italy and France, and that's why Hollande's intention to rais taxes on the only possible source of productivity, the big companies, is really tragic.

The big companies are the "only possible source of productivity" ? How weird. I'd always thought that the only possible source of productivity were, you know, people who actually produce. Corporation of course contribute to production, but it is absurd to say they are the producers.

What I do find tragic, is the silly neoliberal dogma, the idea that everything goes fine when there are no taxes and businesses are free to do whatever they want. This has been proven wrong thousands of times in the history of humanity, yet people still buy in the "laisser faire" rhetoric and worship the Great Self-Regulatory Market.


And anyways all this is besides the point, so please let me come back on my argument with Fabien.

Anyway, just one thing: I make a difference between leftist governments and leftist ideas. On education, even Peyrefitte in 1968-69 (yes, this Peyrefitte) and of course VGE in 74-81 had leftist ideas. So, that's not just a question of political parties (on education, I prefer Chevènement than Chatel, without any doubt).

Why exactly would you call this policies left-wing ? I personally don't see what's so inherently leftist about spurning the "culture générale", making the school a mere preparation to professional career, disemphasizing the teaching of civism, etc. If your issue is instead about stuff like having uniforms, hitting bad pupils with rulers etc, then we of course disagree.

And anyways, if the left and right have the same policies on this topic, why prefering one over another ? What do you fear so much about Hollande's next education minister which would be worse than Chatel's policies ?

And just another one: I don't compare current plans for euthanasia of old/sick people and Swedish euthanasia in the 1930s, but the latter and the new "choices" offered to future parents and the fact that medical employees of some labs are those who pick which child will be born... For me, it's frightening. And, still, it's something both capitalists (because there is money and because controlling birth is good as "time is money") and leftists (because each human being is now a little God) agree on.

OK. I don't really have a precise idea on this issue (because indeed, it's something pretty new and which doesn't have yet taken important proportion) but I would tend to share your concerns. As a left-winger, I tend to think regulation is necessary in order to avoid derives. So, again, I don't see what you fear so much about the left on these issues. Do they have made of genetic selection a crucial campaign theme so far ? If it's the case, I must have missed it...

The points when left-wing progressivism and "catho-tradis" disagree (apart from the complex issue of abortion) are those where the catholic position defies any rationality, like gay marriage or stem cell research.

And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm not exactly a fan of Third Way politics and one of my main concern is restoring the Welfare State as it was in its glory days, the 1960-70s. My adhesion to social-democracy and rejection of socialism has nothing to do with the "new left" rhetoric, because the "new left" is far to the right of real social-democracy.

[Californian Tony]

Doesn't Giscard lost that year?

I think that's what Gaël was implying.

[Californian Tony]

Here are the graphs based on Fabien's tracker, if someone still cares.





If Sarkozy can't get above 45% within one month, he's most probably screwed.

[Leftbehind]

And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm not exactly a fan of Third Way politics and one of my main concern is restoring the Welfare State as it was in its glory days, the 1960-70s. My adhesion to social-democracy and rejection of socialism has nothing to do with the "new left" rhetoric, because the "new left" is far to the right of real social-democracy.

Aren't you conflating two different movements here? The historical New Left and the Third-Way/"modernisers" that've co-opted European social democratic/labour parties?

But beyond that, I didn't find much to disagree with in your post.

Good to see Melenchon returning slowly to a respectable number.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Sarkozy hold his 1st meeting.

The slap machine began, and on the tough force since the very 1st round.

When one says to the English press that one is liberal and when one says to the French that the enemy is Finance, one LIES, one lies morning and evening.

Good one, and the PS is back to his old schizophrenia with that. The words 'English' and 'liberal' are quite crippling. He also amongst other things well pointed out the messy and petty electoral agreements between PS and Greens.

Everything is back, tough clear slaps, national lyrism, easy to get concepts. And he pushes a maximum on the referendum strategy. 'If social corpses block politics then I'll give all power to the PEOPLE to decide for himself, because the PEOPLE knows very well what is good for them or not, there shouldn't be any barriers between the power and THE PEOPLE.'

The meeting was sober in its design, the 1st big stuff would be in Marseille on Sunday, but still, at the end of that one you had the exciting crowds chanting 'NICOLAS! NICOLAS! NICOLAS!'...'SARKO! SARKO! SARKO!'. Hollande never had such stuffs so far. Sarkozy will have to confirm if his skills are back or not during this meeting. So far so good.

Hollande was then speaking on TF1 at 20h, like Sarkozy did yesterday, one hour after this meeting. So far he doesn't answer so bad, but he remains very on the defensive, and not clear and messy to expose his ideas, while Sarkozy knows how to find clear lines.

Can't wait to see Mélenchon entering in the actual campaign now, apparently Le Pen is less comfortable for it, she just refused a debate on France2 with him. Not good for her to flee... I think she'll get her sigs, no matter it would be with some help or not, she would be more dangerous outside of the game than inside I'd think, or at least the hypothesis of this would be considered more hazardous by the Right, and the Left would prefer having her to harm Sarkozy.

I hope Dupont-Aignan and Nihous will have their sigs too, that would be less % for Marine Le Pen.

Sarkozy 10,5 millions people audience yesterday on TV, quite big, but lol, DSK had done 14 millions at the same place to explain himself on his 'New-York adventure'. Would be interesting to know Hollande's audience.

[big bad fab]

Here are the graphs based on Fabien's tracker, if someone still cares.





If Sarkozy can't get above 45% within one month, he's most probably screwed.

Lately, there is a symetry emerging between Hollande and Bayrou, and between Sarkozy and Le Pen.
I don't think it's only visual.
Though, of course, electors are not switching directly from one to another.

[Senator MaxQue]

Just a comment on productivity causd by big businesses.

It's wrong. In Canada, I remember reading than 70% of the GNP is created by small businesses.

Small businesses are way more productive than the big ones.

[Californian Tony]

And I also consider myself to be a pretty old-styled leftist.

Really?

Yes, really. I'm not exactly a fan of Third Way politics and one of my main concern is restoring the Welfare State as it was in its glory days, the 1960-70s. My adhesion to social-democracy and rejection of socialism has nothing to do with the "new left" rhetoric, because the "new left" is far to the right of real social-democracy.

Aren't you conflating two different movements here? The historical New Left and the Third-Way/"modernisers" that've co-opted European social democratic/labour parties?

But beyond that, I didn't find much to disagree with in your post.

Good to see Melenchon returning slowly to a respectable number.

I think I might have used the term "new left" improperly, in that case. I was still refered to the "Third-Way/Neue Mitte/Modernizer" stream.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Just a comment on productivity causd by big businesses.

It's wrong. In Canada, I remember reading than 70% of the GNP is created by small businesses.

Small businesses are way more productive than the big ones.

That's one of the big argument of this campaign, France is a model of economy which enjoys very big companies, and thus has several very big worldwide ones, but their international dimensions precisely make a lot of jobs internationally and not necessarily in France, then both PS and UMP are fighting to say 'I'll be the one who will develop PME more!' (PME being the French acronym for small business, small and middle business to be precise). And both of them basing themselves on German economical results to say 'thats' the way Germany succeeded to be economical champion', and then the fight becomes, amongst other things, who will be the best at copying the German economical model. It was at least the case so far, I'd be surprised Sarkozy pushes too much in this direction, a bit of Germany can fine to be elected (recent polls said that 82% of French had a good opinion of Germans, well, it was ordered by the German embassy in Paris though), but too much Germany wouldn't be much sexy, he planed to invite Merkel during his campaign though.

That being said, 10 years ago, the 1st European economical power was France, and it had the same economical model than now, Germany became the 1st European economical power after Schroeder screwed social rights in his country, and well, the rise of China which would have bought a lot of big cars and of industrial machines would have helped too.

[Colbert]

Can't wait to see Mélenchon entering in the actual campaign now, apparently Le Pen is less comfortable for it, she just refused a debate on France2 with him. Not good for her to flee...

I think tactically, she wants to debate with a PS or UMP leader. melanchon is not boxing in the same category (hum...i'm afraid this expression was not american, but word-to-word translation^^)

[You kip if you want to...]

Make your own France Forte poster

[Iannis]

@ Antonio V, I would like to know why ishoud be "human right" to study sociology paying just the 5% of the family income and not, let's say, 15%. It's so nice to be so romantic and rhetoric unless we face the daily facts and we come down to the earth and we see so many young people that spending so little in university are not incentivated at all to learn some job unless they are forced at the end of a likely unuseful faculty, they are not incentivated to study something useful (i.e. with some loans they have to repay with work) or to graduate fast, in a word they are not incentivated to become productive for themselves and moreover for the society, for the poor people. Any money wasted in low university fees, in the total coverage of health system in Italy and France are money lost for poor people, in many ways: it's quite ironic that the surgery of a rich man is payed in a big part by the taxes of people muche poorer than him. All the money not spent by high middle income families in instruction (let's say by two affluent public servants who earn together more than 50000€ per year and spende just 1500 for the son's university, probably less than for holidays) are money lost for more reasearch and for more scolarships.
That's why I say that present welfare state has gone too far. We started paying the tuition for primary school for peasant's sons, and ended up paying 70% of the cost of studies for a affluent history student at university. Something has gone wrong, and we see it from the fact tha in Italy and France, taxes on companies are higher than in sweden, I say Sweden, not Ireland.
And you doubt that only companies with a certain number of emplyoyees are productive? You know whats' "economy of scale"? Do you think that a small company of 40 employees can be competitive in China, and make research and development? That it can have so muche reserves of money to spend for some investment that will be effective only after some years?

[Californian Tony]

Make your own France Forte poster

Awesome tool.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Awwwwww

People get crazy about that, Libération, Le Nouvel Obs, Le Télégramme de Brest, for those I heard of, everybody analyzing the stuff, 'is it tactic?? is it not?? is the fact it's been posted on a Russian site first a strategy?? blahblahblah'.

Ah and, on the very night of the publication of Sarkozy campaign poster you might have seen all the parodies of it. But who cares about Hollande poster?? I've only quickly seen it once on itélé.

Anything Sarkozy does makes people crazy...

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

To be fair:



I wonder which one is worse. Very Hollande, nothing great, nothing awful, middle. That being said, I don't know if that will be the definite poster.

Ah, and, a guy on Internet pointed out that the sea behind Sarkozy on his poster, comes from a pic from a pics bank, and it's a pic of...Aegean Sea. ^^

[You kip if you want to...]

Neither of them beat this monstrocity.

[Californian Tony]

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

I just heard Le Pen bitched the fact it was a Greek sea on Sarkozy's poster the 20h of TF1 tonight.

She should pay attention, a pic of some of her posters that showed a tramp sleeping on the floor, and accusing Sarkozy of being responsible of this, also comes from a pics bank, and is in fact some American actor doing it ^^.

Mayas is fancy.

[Swedish Cheese]

[redcommander]

Neither of them beat this monstrocity.

Cameron's posters are always too busy, and don't succinctly express his policies.