France General Discussion

[Hash]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

Yup, but as I said from the beginning it has to be cited if so, like radios and papers are cited when they command it. In order that people know from where this does come, because for example, political parties are surely not masochist, if they command a poll they would choose a pollster that use to give them good figures, what we can see as a bias. People have, at least, to be aware when a political party is behind one for me, that's the slightest I would ask.

[Hash]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

Yup, but as I said from the beginning it has to be cited if so, like radios and papers are cited when they command it. In order that people know from where this does come, because for example, political parties are surely not masochist, if they command a poll they would choose a pollster that use to give them good figures, what we can see as a bias. People have, at least, to be aware when a political party is behind one for me, that's the slightest I would ask.

Such things, to my knowledge, are always available when polls are cited in serious legitimate media sources.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

Yup, but as I said from the beginning it has to be cited if so, like radios and papers are cited when they command it. In order that people know from where this does come, because for example, political parties are surely not masochist, if they command a poll they would choose a pollster that use to give them good figures, what we can see as a bias. People have, at least, to be aware when a political party is behind one for me, that's the slightest I would ask.

Such things, to my knowledge, are always available when polls are cited in serious legitimate media sources.

Except when they aren't.

[Hash]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

Yup, but as I said from the beginning it has to be cited if so, like radios and papers are cited when they command it. In order that people know from where this does come, because for example, political parties are surely not masochist, if they command a poll they would choose a pollster that use to give them good figures, what we can see as a bias. People have, at least, to be aware when a political party is behind one for me, that's the slightest I would ask.

Such things, to my knowledge, are always available when polls are cited in serious legitimate media sources.

Except when they aren't.

cite plz

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's a difference between internal private polls and public polls. Le Figaro isn't perfect, sometimes it's rightly demonized by the left (though most of the time isn't unfairly demonized) but the fact that they commanded a public electoral poll doesn't mean that the poll is flawed or biased. I'm tired of that bs.

Yup, but as I said from the beginning it has to be cited if so, like radios and papers are cited when they command it. In order that people know from where this does come, because for example, political parties are surely not masochist, if they command a poll they would choose a pollster that use to give them good figures, what we can see as a bias. People have, at least, to be aware when a political party is behind one for me, that's the slightest I would ask.

Such things, to my knowledge, are always available when polls are cited in serious legitimate media sources.

Except when they aren't.

cite plz

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/face-a-la-polemique-l-elysee-dit-jouer-la-transparence-sur-les-sondages_826490.html

I just googled "affaire des sondages de l'Elysée" to find that. If you want other sources, just click the link.

[Hash]

Obviously, I wasn't talking about the Elysée polls, since that wasn't your original point, I was talking about your original point of public OpinionWay polls published in Le Figaro. When those polls are published in the media, I have yet to see times when it isn't said that they're commissioned by Le Figaro.

I'm not defending Le Figaro, even though I prefer it over Le Monde, but I'm only saying, as I've said since this debate started, that OpinionWay polls for Le Figaro may be inaccurate but they're not biased towards the right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously, I wasn't talking about the Elysée polls, since that wasn't your original point, I was talking about your original point of public OpinionWay polls published in Le Figaro. When those polls are published in the media, I have yet to see times when it isn't said that they're commissioned by Le Figaro.

I'm not defending Le Figaro, even though I prefer it over Le Monde, but I'm only saying, as I've said since this debate started, that OpinionWay polls for Le Figaro may be inaccurate but they're not biased towards the right.

Which just means you misunderstood my point, since it was from the beginning a sarcastic comment about the Figaro's behaviour precisely concerning this scandal. That's what I was trying to tell you from the beginning, but you seem to re a real specialist for misunderstandings.

[big bad fab]

To come back to Benoît's idea that such polls are too far away from the election, I also agree.

But you are forced to take them into account, at least a bit:

1- because medias tell their stories with them: and Villepin is the new story of the time... as Duflot was a bit, some time ago;

2- because politicans and parties use them to make their strategies,

3- because... regional elections aren't very exciting... and French politicans are globally utter these days... so, to have fun with French politics means that you are forced to play a bit with those polls... sigh...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

To come back to Benoît's idea that such polls are too far away from the election, I also agree.

But you are forced to take them into account, at least a bit:

1- because medias tell their stories with them: and Villepin is the new story of the time... as Duflot was a bit, some time ago;

2- because politicans and parties use them to make their strategies,

3- because... regional elections aren't very exciting... and French politicans are globally utter these days... so, to have fun with French politics means that you are forced to play a bit with those polls... sigh...

Well, yes, yes, as long as you just play, sure you can play, but coming to any conclusions is, and seems we would all agree on that, totally irrelevant.

You're right saying politicians take it into account, that's the only interest we can find in them, the consequences that they will have on politicians' behavior, but please, let's save paper, rain forest is in danger, come on......

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just heard the interview of BHL on France Inter this morning. And that's really sickening. I would never have imagined Demorand acting like a moronic clown, and employing the usual populist critics that are so popular in this damn country... The level of the debate, at leasr in the first part of the interview, has never been lower : just stupid personal attacks based on nothing. And the worst is that the guys who love to make stupid jokes about BHL feel very clever. There are certainly many reasons to disagree with Lévy's ideas, or find the character egomaniac or petty, but acting like that just helps discrediting his enemies, as well as all those who attack him only because it's trendy to do.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just heard the interview of BHL on France Inter this morning. And that's really sickening. I would never have imagined Demorand acting like a moronic clown, and employing the usual populist critics that are so popular in this damn country... The level of the debate, at leasr in the first part of the interview, has never been lower : just stupid personal attacks based on nothing. And the worst is that the guys who love to make stupid jokes about BHL feel very clever. There are certainly many reasons to disagree with Lévy's ideas, or find the character egomaniac or petty, but acting like that just helps discrediting his enemies, as well as all those who attack him only because it's trendy to do.

Yes, there are many reasons to bash BHL, the 1st one would be to stop calling him a philosopher. But I agree journalists can't help but do that in stupid ways, and about De Morand, from what I can see of him on 'C politique', yes, the guy goes more and more through stupid populist stuffs. Too bad.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just heard the interview of BHL on France Inter this morning. And that's really sickening. I would never have imagined Demorand acting like a moronic clown, and employing the usual populist critics that are so popular in this damn country... The level of the debate, at leasr in the first part of the interview, has never been lower : just stupid personal attacks based on nothing. And the worst is that the guys who love to make stupid jokes about BHL feel very clever. There are certainly many reasons to disagree with Lévy's ideas, or find the character egomaniac or petty, but acting like that just helps discrediting his enemies, as well as all those who attack him only because it's trendy to do.

Yes, there are many reasons to bash BHL, the 1st one would be to stop calling him a philosopher. But I agree journalists can't help but do that in stupid ways, and about De Morand, from what I can see of him on 'C politique', yes, the guy goes more and more through stupid populist stuffs. Too bad.

As for the guy himself, I've never ready any of his books, but I tend to agree with most of what I've heard him say. Sometimes, he seems to go extremely simplistic, and I agree that we've had (and have) deeper philosophers. But still, his vision of international issues is quite close to mine.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Just heard the interview of BHL on France Inter this morning. And that's really sickening. I would never have imagined Demorand acting like a moronic clown, and employing the usual populist critics that are so popular in this damn country... The level of the debate, at leasr in the first part of the interview, has never been lower : just stupid personal attacks based on nothing. And the worst is that the guys who love to make stupid jokes about BHL feel very clever. There are certainly many reasons to disagree with Lévy's ideas, or find the character egomaniac or petty, but acting like that just helps discrediting his enemies, as well as all those who attack him only because it's trendy to do.

Yes, there are many reasons to bash BHL, the 1st one would be to stop calling him a philosopher. But I agree journalists can't help but do that in stupid ways, and about De Morand, from what I can see of him on 'C politique', yes, the guy goes more and more through stupid populist stuffs. Too bad.

As for the guy himself, I've never ready any of his books, but I tend to agree with most of what I've heard him say. Sometimes, he seems to go extremely simplistic, and I agree that we've had (and have) deeper philosophers. But still, his vision of international issues is quite close to mine.

Oh dear...

Well, just, for the respect of other philosophers, he is not one, at all. Call him the way you want but not a philosopher.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just heard the interview of BHL on France Inter this morning. And that's really sickening. I would never have imagined Demorand acting like a moronic clown, and employing the usual populist critics that are so popular in this damn country... The level of the debate, at leasr in the first part of the interview, has never been lower : just stupid personal attacks based on nothing. And the worst is that the guys who love to make stupid jokes about BHL feel very clever. There are certainly many reasons to disagree with Lévy's ideas, or find the character egomaniac or petty, but acting like that just helps discrediting his enemies, as well as all those who attack him only because it's trendy to do.

Yes, there are many reasons to bash BHL, the 1st one would be to stop calling him a philosopher. But I agree journalists can't help but do that in stupid ways, and about De Morand, from what I can see of him on 'C politique', yes, the guy goes more and more through stupid populist stuffs. Too bad.

As for the guy himself, I've never ready any of his books, but I tend to agree with most of what I've heard him say. Sometimes, he seems to go extremely simplistic, and I agree that we've had (and have) deeper philosophers. But still, his vision of international issues is quite close to mine.

Oh dear...

Well, just, for the respect of other philosophers, he is not one, at all. Call him the way you want but not a philosopher.

As you wish.

[Hash]

French journalists are very, very stupid and useless. Calling them journalists is being nice. I know I've said it many times, but France's stock of journalist is pretty sh**t poor when compared to other countries - which, granted, aren't much better.

All national media boast their parish, their people and that sh**t. I'm fed up of, say, the CBC, getting all hyper over some apparently 'great Canadian athlete' who's nothing more than a mediocre athlete. The media is more interested by their little interests, their little news and their spin than it is my actual events around the world which merit attention. The coup in Niger will get a minute of news, but the winner of Huntsville's Biology Contest who happens to be a handicap will get a flipping feature report. This sobbing parents of a local person who died in a plane crash which claimed 250 lives will take more space than the main story, flip.[/rant]

[Antonio the Sixth]

French journalists are very, very stupid and useless. Calling them journalists is being nice. I know I've said it many times, but France's stock of journalist is pretty sh**t poor when compared to other countries - which, granted, aren't much better.

All national media boast their parish, their people and that sh**t. I'm fed up of, say, the CBC, getting all hyper over some apparently 'great Canadian athlete' who's nothing more than a mediocre athlete. The media is more interested by their little interests, their little news and their spin than it is my actual events around the world which merit attention. The coup in Niger will get a minute of news, but the winner of Huntsville's Biology Contest who happens to be a handicap will get a flipping feature report. This sobbing parents of a local person who died in a plane crash which claimed 250 lives will take more space than the main story, flip.[/rant]

Sadly, I 100% agree with you...

[Hash]

Didier Migaud, PS deputy from Isère (since 1988) and president of the Assembly's finance commission since 2007 (since 2007, the presidency of the  finance commission is given to the opposition) is Sarkozy's choice to succeed Philippe Séguin.

Migaud is a fabiusien, rather moderate and pragmatic, and is very popular in his constituency (50.7% for Sarkozy, 62.8% for Migaud in 2007).

The PS' choice to succeed him in the finance commission is Jérôme Cahuzac (Lot-et-Garonne). As for his seat, I'm not sure if his suppléant replaces him or if there's a by-election.

As for the Constitutional Council, Sarkozy has also opted for a leftist - although one who has been close friends with him since 2007 but who remains a major 'old' figure of the Mitterrand era - Michel Charasse (RDSE Senator from Puy-de-Dôme). For obvious reasons, I'm far from a fan. I'm sure the Puy-de-Dôme PS will be happy to be rid of him.

The two other nominations - by the 2 presidents of the chambers are, by Larcher Hubert Haenel (UMP Senator for Haut-Rhin); and by Accoyer Jacques Barrot (former European Commissioner, former UDF-UMP deputy for Haute-Loire).

[Hash]

Ah, here is LO176-1 of the Code electoral dealing with this kind of stuff:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would assume there will be a by-election.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Other news:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections-regionales-2010/2010/02/23/01034-20100223ARTFIG00759-les-colistiers-de-freche-exclus-du-ps-pour-deux-ans-.php#xtor=AL-5

People on Frêche's lists in Languedoc-Roussillon are excluded from PS during 2 years. A victory there would really be interesting, and amongst other things, would comfort me that the PS is on its end...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Charasse is by no way a socialist anymore, so I'd like the medias stop calling him so...

And for Languedoc-Roussillon, they just got what they deserved. You can't support a list against your own party and pretend to remain in it. The decision was quite proud in fact, and it was the right one.

[Hash]

Charasse is more of an old rural SFIO figure than anything else.

The problem with the decision in the Languedoc-Roussillon, where Freche has a large following within the party, is that it could create some division (though not a party split) which could be problematic looking ahead to the 2011 cantonals and Senatorials. Just look at the little chaos Charasse and his DVG followers created in the Puy-de-Dome PS (that said, it would be more of an internal thing if it happens and wouldn't help the UMP).

[big bad fab]

Ah, here is LO176-1 of the Code electoral dealing with this kind of stuff:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would assume there will be a by-election.

Yep. Not a very interesting one, though.

BTW, I'm quite happy with Migaud, because the reform of financial jurisdictions, of local financial courts under the Cour des comptes, will probably be revised or even dropped.
Unless Migaud, who had a bad report on the Grenoble "communauté d'agglomération", over which he presided, from his local financial court, wants to have a small revenge !
But I don't think so, he is a respectful guy, a moderate and reasonable one.

Ouf ! Sarkozy hasn't made a bad pick, for once !

[Hash]

Since I usually post interesting Ifop sociological studies, here's one on the Christian left in France

http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/1082-1-study_file.pdf

It also says that 50% of French are non-practicing Catholics, 14.2% practicing and 35.8% none/others.

[Hash]

CSA apparently thinks it's useful to poll 2012 in 2010. But the media likes this.

Sarkozy (UMP) 32%
Aubry (PS) 19%
Bayrou (MoDem) 12%
Villepin (DVD) 10%
Le Pen (FN) 9%
Duflot (Green) 8%
Besancenot (NPA) 6%
Buffet (PCF) 3%
Arthaud (LO) 1%

Sarkozy (UMP) 52%
Aubry (PS) 48%

Sarkozy (UMP) 29%
Strauss-Kahn (PS) 22%
Bayrou (MoDem) 10%
Villepin (DVD) 10%
Le Pen (FN) 9%
Duflot (Green) 9%
Besancenot (NPA) 7%
Buffet (PCF) 3%
Arthaud (LO) 1%

Strauss-Kahn (PS) 52%
Sarkozy (UMP) 48%

interestingly...

Fillon (UMP) 27%
Aubry (PS) 21%
Bayrou (MoDem) 11%
Duflot (Green) 11%
Villepin (DVD) 9%
Le Pen (FN) 8%
Besancenot (NPA) 7%
Buffet (PCF) 3%
Arthaud (LO) 3%

Strauss-Kahn (PS) 27%
Fillon (UMP) 25%
Bayrou (MoDem) 11%
Duflot (Green) 10%
Le Pen (FN) 8%
Villepin (DVD) 7%
Besancenot (NPA) 6%
Buffet (PCF) 3%
Arthaud (LO) 3%

Strauss-Kahn (PS) 54%
Fillon (UMP) 46%

Aubry (PS) 51%
Fillon (UMP) 49%

These lowlifes don't do crosstabs for the Sarkozy matchup (although that's the most likely, obviously) but they have full crosstabs for the Fillon ones.

One which is interesting is the ouvrier vote in the runoffs: 66-34 for Aubry (she wins 51-49 overall) but only 59-41 for DSK (he wins 54-46 overall)...