French Regionals 2010

[Hash]

Fillon is apparently planing to offer his resignation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8579232.stm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Resignation in this case would mean Fillon handing Sarkozy his resignation, who would in turn refuse it and there would be a cabinet shuffle. Or it means it is accepted, but he forms a new government, in this case Fillon III Cabinet.

After every legislative election held after a new president is elected (1981, 2002, 2007), the Prime Minister resigns and is immediately re-nominated.

I really like that map ...

Not having looked into economic data, but I guess Paris-West, Elsass and South-Eastern PACA are wealthy areas compared with the rest of France ?

Paris, Yvelines, Var and Alpes-Maritimes are very wealthy, yes. Alsace is wealthy but also traditionally very right-wing.

[Hash]

Overseas:

Guyane:

UMP-DVG 56.1% (21 seats)
Taubira 43.8% (10 seats)

Martinique:

PPM-Letchimy 48.3% (26 seats)
MIM 41% (12 seats)
UMP 10.3% (3 seats)

Good to see that annoying sod Taubira lose. Hopefully she goes back and hides in her hole.

[Barnes]

Fillon is apparently planing to offer his resignation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8579232.stm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Resignation in this case would mean Fillon handing Sarkozy his resignation, who would in turn refuse it and there would be a cabinet shuffle. Or it means it is accepted, but he forms a new government, in this case Fillon III Cabinet.

After every legislative election held after a new president is elected (1981, 2002, 2007), the Prime Minister resigns and is immediately re-nominated.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

I'm much more knowledgeable of British politics then French.

[Hash]

Apparently Darcos is gonna have his head chopped, as could people like Amara and Bockel. Francois Baroin, a young Chirac protege, and Georges Tron, a Villepiniste are likely to get in.

Personally, I don't see Penchard staying in at overseas affairs.

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

I posted the changes in cabinet survivor.

[big bad fab]

Well, no big change between 1st and 2nd rounds and that's a small surprise.

Troadec's votes seem to have gone on Le Drian's list.
Laot's votes seem to have gone on Malgorn's list but only marginally.
Joncour's votes seem to have gone on Hascoët's list but only partly.

[Umengus]

the joke poll of the day...

CSA poll - presidential

Sarkozy: 35
Aubry: 31
Marine Le Pen: 12
Bayrou: 7
Duflot: 6
Besancenot: 5
Arthaud: 2
Buffet: 2

turnout: 60 %

AUbry: 52 %
Sarkozy: 48 %

turnout: 66 %

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

Not sure it fits in here.

Regionals are over now, good, awful campaign, in short: Frêche-Soumaré-PRAVDA POLLS.

Good that we will now switch to something I think I would control better than this stuff that people don't really know how to handle and which change every 2 elections (would one more time change next time), and that are the only stuff that really matters in France (no matter we like it or not, it's a fact) the presidentials.

[Umengus]

Ifop poll - presidential

Aubry: 27
Sarkozy: 26
Marine le Pen: 11
Duflot: 9
Bayrou: 7
De villepin: 6
Melanchon: 6

[Hash]

Stop posting these polls in this thread. This isn't the general discussion thread.

[Hash]

[MaxQue]

Would be an awful map for legislative elections for UMP.

Left won at least one "circonscription" in each department.

[Hash]

Would be an awful map for legislative elections for UMP.

Left won at least one "circonscription" in each department.

It would basically be a reverse 1993 map, in a way. But of course, legislative elections would never see those results exactly because turnout patterns will alter stuff, the protest vote and vote for the fringe will be lower and so on and so forth.

Argentan's massive lovefest for Beauvais is funny, btw.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Awesome.

Can you give us the constituency breakdown ?

[big bad fab]

Vendée, Loiret, Moselle are frightening !!
And Yvelines, Hauts-de-Seine, Marne, Aube are real bad.
(and, among these, these with no FN are a real disaster, of course).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Vendée, Loiret, Moselle are frightening !!
And Yvelines, Hauts-de-Seine, Marne, Aube are real bad.
(and, among these, these with no FN are a real disaster, of course).

LOL I just noticed the left won one of the two MPF consituencies. Very bad indeed.

[Hash]

Vendée, Loiret, Moselle are frightening !!
And Yvelines, Hauts-de-Seine, Marne, Aube are real bad.
(and, among these, these with no FN are a real disaster, of course).

LOL I just noticed the left won one of the two MPF consituencies. Very bad indeed.

Not too surprising. That's Fontenay le Comte's constituency, and it historically covers a part of the plaine as opposed to the bocage, so it's historically been less reactionary and clerical than the areas of the bocage (except Roche-sur-Yon, which is actually an artificial city and historically Vendéen in location only).

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

except Roche-sur-Yon, which is actually an artificial city

No, it's just a more recent one, or all cities are artificial. A lot of cities around the word have been the decision of one man, small or big to very big cities.

[Hash]

except Roche-sur-Yon, which is actually an artificial city

No, it's just a more recent one, or all cities are artificial. A lot of cities around the word have been the decision of one man, small or big to very big cities.

No, I meant artificial in the political sense. Aside from the fact that it was created by Napoleon in the middle of the bocage, La Roche has a quasi-zero influence on surrounding areas in terms of politics; when compared to cities like Rennes, Nantes, Rouen, Paris, Marseille, Lyon and so forth. Brest historically had little influence since it was an isolated republican working-class stronghold in the middle of the most clerical area of Brittany, and Le Havre is similar (it's surrounded by the Pays de Caux, which has little in common with Le Havre, Gonfreville-L'Orcher excluded).

In a political analysis of Vendée, one of my favourite topics, La Roche has a very little sphere of influence compared to, say, Rennes.

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

except Roche-sur-Yon, which is actually an artificial city

No, it's just a more recent one, or all cities are artificial. A lot of cities around the word have been the decision of one man, small or big to very big cities.

No, I meant artificial in the political sense. Aside from the fact that it was created by Napoleon in the middle of the bocage, La Roche has a quasi-zero influence on surrounding areas in terms of politics; when compared to cities like Rennes, Nantes, Rouen, Paris, Marseille, Lyon and so forth. Brest historically had little influence since it was an isolated republican working-class stronghold in the middle of the most clerical area of Brittany, and Le Havre is similar (it's surrounded by the Pays de Caux, which has little in common with Le Havre, Gonfreville-L'Orcher excluded).

In a political analysis of Vendée, one of my favourite topics, La Roche has a very little sphere of influence compared to, say, Rennes.

Well, aside from the fact we can't compare La Roche-sur-Yon to big cities like those you cited, I would get your point. But anyways, can we actually speak of a 'political influence' of cities today? In our media world, the political influences, which belong to the cultural influences, don't really care of what's happening in the next city, it cares more about what's happening through the waves. Today, the geographical influence that matters is, and by far, the economical one, and here, I doubt La Roche-sur-Yon, which is the biggest city at, how much? 70kms around? (La Rochelle or Nantes is closer?) has no economical influence on its surrounding and then on Vendée. And today the economical influence has so much influence that a lot of the actual current political influence depends on it, lots of local political decisions depends on the 'economical tissue'. And the same for Le Havre, the 1st harbor of France and Brest other big harbor, their size and their economical activities give them an important influence on their territory. And well, historically, maybe it has always been more or less like that, a lot on politics is often based on economy, anyways by far today.

In other words, maybe your point has been historically valid, but today, because of what became the cultural spheres, and the primacy of economy is no more I'd say.

[Hash]

except Roche-sur-Yon, which is actually an artificial city

No, it's just a more recent one, or all cities are artificial. A lot of cities around the word have been the decision of one man, small or big to very big cities.

No, I meant artificial in the political sense. Aside from the fact that it was created by Napoleon in the middle of the bocage, La Roche has a quasi-zero influence on surrounding areas in terms of politics; when compared to cities like Rennes, Nantes, Rouen, Paris, Marseille, Lyon and so forth. Brest historically had little influence since it was an isolated republican working-class stronghold in the middle of the most clerical area of Brittany, and Le Havre is similar (it's surrounded by the Pays de Caux, which has little in common with Le Havre, Gonfreville-L'Orcher excluded).

In a political analysis of Vendée, one of my favourite topics, La Roche has a very little sphere of influence compared to, say, Rennes.

Well, aside from the fact we can't compare La Roche-sur-Yon to big cities like those you cited, I would get your point. But anyways, can we actually speak of a 'political influence' of cities today? In our media world, the political influences, which belong to the cultural influences, don't really care of what's happening in the next city, it cares more about what's happening through the waves. Today, the geographical influence that matters is, and by far, the economical one, and here, I doubt La Roche-sur-Yon, which is the biggest city at, how much? 70kms around? (La Rochelle or Nantes is closer?) has no economical influence on its surrounding and then on Vendée. And today the economical influence has so much influence that a lot of the actual current political influence depends on it, lots of local political decisions depends on the 'economical tissue'. And the same for Le Havre, the 1st harbor of France and Brest other big harbor, their size and their economical activities give them an important influence on their territory. And well, historically, maybe it has always been more or less like that, a lot on politics is often based on economy, anyways by far today.

In other words, maybe your point has been historically valid, but today, because of what became the cultural spheres, and the primacy of economy is no more I'd say.

I get your point, and obviously political influence is closely related to economic influence and geographical conditions like roads, communications and work patterns. Yes, but do note that in political sociological analyses we refer to 'Rennes suburbia', 'Paris suburbia' and so forth. You don't often hear about 'the Roche suburbia'.

Suburban growth is not an historic thing, and suburban growth in a lot of France has had a direct political impact. Look the leftization of Breton/western suburbia, the rightization/far-rightization of Lyon suburbia. That's political influence. A city like La Roche, a prefecture, has had minimal impact on the political views of its suburbs. Being a small city near Nantes/La Rochelle plays a role, but its location in historically hostile ground (like Chalon-en-Champagne, used to be a PCF stronghold IIRC) and history in general cannot be forgotten. In political analyses which are coherent and intelligent, not paying attention to historical patterns would be stupid. Read Siegfred's stuff written in 1913, and you'll note how many things he describes haven't changed all that much and how much social-economic patterns he described in 1913 still apply, somewhat, in 2010. It's almost freaky.

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

I get your point, and obviously political influence is closely related to economic influence and geographical conditions like roads, communications and work patterns. Yes, but do note that in political sociological analyses we refer to 'Rennes suburbia', 'Paris suburbia' and so forth. You don't often hear about 'the Roche suburbia'.

Suburban growth is not an historic thing, and suburban growth in a lot of France has had a direct political impact. Look the leftization of Breton/western suburbia, the rightization/far-rightization of Lyon suburbia. That's political influence.

Well, I'm not sure in which sense we can establish the political influence here, how can we say that an inner city, the core of an agglomeration I mean, has a political influence on its suburb?

Anyways, in the case of a city like La Roche-sur-Yon its size makes that it's hard for it just to have suburb, some small-middle cities like that have one, like Brive-Malemort, maybe also Saintes-Chaniers to an extent, or Castres-Labruguière, for the examples I lived in/close of, but anyways for middle cities like that then like La Roche the influence it can have on its suburb doesn't really matters I'd say, it's too small to really matters. What has to be seen is the influence it can have on 'its economical tissue of what surrounds', then on a bigger territory than the suburb. In the case of La Roche I dunno exactly, but iirc it's the city of the size of Castres, about 40,000 habitants, and seeing that there is nothing that big at about 70 kms around and that the smaller (what? Sables d'Olonne and Fontenay-le-Comte) are about the half and less of La Roche in term of population iirc, then La Roche must have an actual impact on Vendée, because of the size of its population and then of its economical activity.

Other than that, yes, suburbias that are very big cities have an impact that can be regional and that can't have small-middle ones like La Roche-sur-Yon, but it's just a matter of size here, once more of population, then of economical activity. Other influences, political and cultural ones, have a geography of waves today. What remains at best are the musical scenes, the art centers, and the places of memory (museums, monuments), all what can be concrete then, and that can't pass through waves, but most of the cultural influence today doesn't need materialization.

The political influence that remains are in the places of important decisions for a territory, but anyways, today the geographical cultures first less and less exist, and second the political ones are more and more dissociated of them, especially in a country like France which mixed a lot the populations who worked in public domain. The pattern of actual geographical culture with actual influence on the political one mainly apply to old politicians who belong to a territory and who has been marked by the cultural heritage of this territory in which they have been raised and practiced their job while they were in the core of their life activity. Or in the places that created a political culture, but one more time, it mainly apply to old people. The dynamic, since TV took some importance, then about 40 years ago, and now the Internet, made that cultural influences belongs to waves, and the political/cultural heritage of the former generations isn't very much transmitted to the young ones, and by young I'd say like for TV till 40, or maybe 50, the counter-culture generation, and anyways less and less the more you go under 40, and this is quite normal since the society knew huge changes meanwhile, these political/cultural heritages can't find real echoes today.

I agree that History has to be looked in analyzes but only to understand a reality, if what existed in History still exist in the present, then a simple observation will show it, if not it won't. In short History explains Present, but isn't necessarily Present. And the impact that the historical memory can have on Present, depends on societies and epoch, in some it will have a big impact and a lot of the decisions taken in the present will be justified on the historical culture/heritage, but one more time, today, we live in our epoch that has cut a lot with its historical heritage, that is the sense of counter-culture, and the changes since have been huge, and awareness of History doesn't matter a lot culturally. Though, for a few years, there is a back to 'traditions/terroir/good ol' cultures', because feeling some misses in the current culture, so you know 'c'était mieux avant...' ('was better before...') mood and so forth, but as I could have already said I think it's just a 'back-and-forth'.

In short today we're in an epoch that has cut a lot with its historical heritage for about 40 years, since which the cultural and then political influences have mainly been developed through a geography of waves, the geographical influences that remain are those based on concrete things, of which economy became today the most important.

Though, that's is for a present analysis, if we try to project ourselves we can also notice that economy more and more goes toward dematerialization, at least that's the current dynamic.

Ahem, from La Roche-sur-Yon to the dematerialization of the human societies. The latter is not definitely done, but we already took a serious path toward it. That's our present and that's the way by now...

(wow, long post, hope that remains easy to read)

[Hash]

I'm quite sorry, but I don't have the time nor the courage to answer to all your points, and, as always, you've managed to lose me entirely and get me on another train line that my original line. Ahem.

I maintain my points, that La Roche is an artificial city (which was my sole point originally) with little influence even compared to other middle-cities. And that was only a minor detail to my larger point which was a simple explanation of the plaine vs. bocage in Vendée.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, planned towns often lack the... you know... of 'normal' towns. You can see it with the New Towns here.

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

Yah, sry for having been a bit far.

Well, it was just the word 'artificial' that made me started, 'cause you know, there can be a pejorative connotation in it ('fake', 'anomaly'), well, for La Roche, as for some other cities, maybe artificial isn't the good term, maybe 'more recent' would be enough, as 'more recent' it didn't find a place in deeper historical trends.

Anyhow, the point of the looong post was to say that today I'd say there have been a cut with historical trend since 40 years. Since 40 years there have been the development of the counter culture, that wanted to cut with past historical trends, the development of medias from which the largest part of the culture is spread and what spreads culture spreads political ideas, instead of the cultural then political centers that the cities were, and the development of transports that with car especially has permit a mobility of individuals never seen in History. For all of this, I'd say that all the people who were born 40 years ago and before are more or less (according to individuals) detached of the historical trends. Though, obviously these trends don't disappear, all the olds would still express them, and the generation who created counter-culture as well, they have been raised in it and with their retirement now they tend to go back to it, that is all people over 60. In between I'd say there is a mixed generation the 40-60.

So my point was in short (I try) this 'artificiality' of La Roche-sur-Yon would matter less and less today because of what we live since 40 years, the deeper historical trends being mainly maintained by people over 40 and especially over 60. New trends could be summed up by a lesser and lesser importance of geographical cultures, cultures happening mainly in media, geography being mainly important for economy.

I would only apply this analysis to France, to the development of its transportations and medias, I don't make of it a Western analysis.

Yeah, planned towns often lack the... you know... of 'normal' towns. You can see it with the New Towns here.

Eh yah, for the post WW2, and especially post counter-culture period, well, according the French examples I know, they express the reflect of the epoch they have been raised in. Even if some wanted to express 'futurism' it's rarely the case, or at least I couldn't think to an example that has really been 'futurist'. The fact they are build on plan makes more rigidity too, and for build-on-plan more recent cities, the building technologies make that they have been quickly built, not on several epochs, and also there haven't been much History on it to give them more...'character'. But for older one, I've never been to La Roche-sur-Yon, but I know Rochefort (Charente-Maritime) totally new city decided by Louis XIV, and except the fact that streets are 'right angle' that's a 'normal' city today. Would seem a city like Saint-Petersburg would have some 'you know' as well. I just mean, that's not necessarily the fact it has built on plan that it makes it miss of 'you know'.

Though, yah, new cities of the '70s really miss of 'you know'.

I saw something on the new ecological district of 'La Borne' in Grenoble yesterday on TV, damn, I want new ecological cities! I don't find it ugly, and most of all it gives back sense to architecture, to our accommodations, same in Sweden, seems they made good stuffs in Malmö...