Sunday, May 06, 2007
Nicolas Sarkozy elected French President
With a reported turnout of 85% to match the first round vote, and with three-quarters of the votes counted putting support for Sarkozy at 53%, the socialist candidate Segolene Royal conceded defeat. Whether the televised debate, or her comments on Sarkozy - She said she had a “responsibility to sound the alarm about the risks of this candidacy and the violence and brutality that will be spawned in the country.” - influenced the result isn’t clear, but the polls gave him a lead ahead of today’s second round vote. The Guardian claims that his first 100 days in office are already mapped out.. after a three-day retreat to, perhaps, a monastry.. hmm.. the BBC profile and expectations of what happens next is here. There have been reports of some skirmishes at the Bastille..
Pete Baker @ 09:39 PM
Putain
Posted by on May 06, 2007 @ 10:25 PMPete Baker,
As you are here maybe you’ll look at the ‘Tables turned?’ blog it only has eleven comments.
Posted by on May 06, 2007 @ 10:30 PM“Allons enfants de la Patrie le jour de gloire est arrive!”
Vive la France! Thank God they finally did the right thing (pun intended), just sit back and have fun as the BBC and Guardianistas’ heads melt.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 01:59 AMMerde!
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 08:20 AMVive la France! Thank God they finally did the right thing (pun intended),just sit back and have fun as the BBC and Guardianistas’ heads melt.
In the interests of trying to have a bit of a debate, would you care to explain the above comment? What do the Guardian and/or the BBC have to do with it ?
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 08:43 AMNice to see a high turn-out. Bets on the first strikes ...
It has occurred to me that France has a neo-Thatcherite.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:04 AMApres la victoire de Sarko, le deluge…
In any case I didn´t care much for Royal either. Jose Bove should have won.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:19 AM“The polls give him a lead” must rank as one of the understatements of the year. On Friday afternoon the market on Betfair was predicting that he had a 91% chance of being elected. His election was a veritable sure thing;
http://www.bettingmarket.com/frabetelesa419540.htm
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 09:42 AM**In the interests of trying to have a bit of a debate, would you care to explain the above comment? What do the Guardian and/or the BBC have to do with it ?**
Rather obvious I’d have thought both news organisations have been spinning Sarkozy as some form of Atila the Hun who likes to eat black babies lightly barbequed. (Why did the Beeb always refer to Sarkozy as the ‘right wing’ candidate but Royal was never the ‘left wing’ candidate but rather the nice soft focus “socialist” candidate?)
To them France, with its massive social spending, sclerotic economy, gee whizz trains (I’ve never understood the left’s obsession with trains), 35 hour week, statist mentality, elitist disdain for Anglo-America, nihilism, bolshie unions, protectionism etc etc has been a beacon of hope for a generation.
Now the evil goblin has got the keys to the magic kingdom and is going to sweep out the Augean stables that exist there and the libs can only sit and weep. Oh sure the lefties can whip up mobs to riot against the French people’s democratic choice (can you imagine the outrage of the Guardianistas if Sarko or heaven forfend Le Pen had warned of skinheads rioting if the French people elected Royal? Her statement was one of the most despicable I have ever heard a candidate in a major European democracy ever made and I reckon cost her the job) but in the end the good guys won.
Just watch now how the BBC and the Guardian report on France in the coming years gone will be the utopia they have described for the past thirty years instead all we’ll hear about will be the nasty dirty underbelly stories of French life, in just the same way they spin the USA when a Republican president is elected.
Ah who cares now is a time for all Francophiles to crack open bottles of Moet & Chandon, it’s been long overdue.
“Aux armes citoyens, formez vos bataillons, marchons, marchons. . .”
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 12:09 PM“I’ve never understood the left’s obsession with trains”
Because modern trains are non-polluting, smooth running, the fast ones are faster than a plane for journeys less than 400 km, you are less likely to be killed in one than a car, you know exactly when you are going to reach your destination (in the more socialist countries), and when commuting you can spend your time catching up on sleep or work instead of battling through rush hour traffic.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 12:58 PMIt never ceases to amaze me just how gullible and greedy the middle class electorate are, Sarkozy has sold himself as a outsider coming in to clean the stables [as someone put it above.] Yet he and his political friends have owned the stables and have had responsibility for keeping them clean for the past 14 years.
Indeed when Sarkozy announces his first government, from the PM down it will be made up of ministers who are responsible for making France what it is today, whether good or bad. To blame the socialists who have not had a president for 14 years is silly to say the least.
For poor old Harry to claim that these creeps have something new to offer just about takes the biscuit, for the truth of the matter is that neither candidates had a new thought in their heads. Thus the French middle classes being the cautious forelock tugging people their are simply voted for who they know.
As to the BBC after the Kelly affair it is completely in the UK governments pocket, one only has to watch and listen to its program content to understand that. Indeed if anything the beeb has once again become the English middle classes very own broadcast corporation and you will be hard placed to even hear a regional accent these days.
To appear front of camera at the Beeb one can be black, white, asian or chinese, the only criteria that is demanded is that you are middle class. As far as front of camera is concerned the BBC is not that different today than it was in the 1950s early 60s and the same is increasingly true of the media as a whole. It will not be long before middle class actors are once again playing cockneys and geordies [cor blimey me lord, away lad ;]
With his hatred of railways it seems Flash Harry is not yet doing his bit against global warming ;) I wonder if Harry hates them because private business has found it is unable to run railways effectively and competently and make a profit. As a good rail and public transport system is needed within a successful 21st century nation, it must be partly state owned. Which would allow it to be a beacon for future nationalization, for example in the supply of water, health care,
etc.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 01:51 PMmickhall: “It never ceases to amaze me just how gullible and greedy the middle class electorate are.”
Why, because they vote for their interests and beliefs, rather rather than be co-opted views you find palatable? It is an odd premise, that the product you play barker for is perfect, there is simply something wrong with the customers…
Whilst the third place candidate did not endorse either Royal or Sarkozy, the next tier down in his group were near unanimous for Sarkozy.
The short form is that Royal ran a middlin’ poor campaign, replete with errors, a seeming running ideological conflict with her hubby and the small matter than even the socialist parties seemed to lack enthusiasm for her candidacy. One can rarely in the 24/7 news cycle try to claim to be all things to all people and carry it off.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 02:28 PMI’m sorry for french people.Sarkozy’s win is a worst news for them.They chose to vote an aggressive,strict,authoritarian,militarist leader,who opposes to Turkey in Europe,who supportes the russian massacres in Chechnya,or the american carnages in Iraq and Afghanistan,or the murders in Palestine.It’s a dark day for France and Europe.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 02:34 PMFC: “In any case I didn´t care much for Royal either. Jose Bove should have won. “
Making the transition from longshots to sheer flights of fancy…
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 02:42 PM80% odd voted compared to our poor 40% or so in the election so i guess the victory is more representative.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 02:59 PMHarry Flashman: “gee whizz trains (I’ve never understood the left’s obsession with trains)”
Mayhap because theay are a perfect metaphor for leftist vision of the perfect government—riders are wholly dependent upon the whimsies of the system. They may choose to take the least inconvenient train, as there is no guarantee of a truly convenient one. Once aboard, the rider is wholly in the control of the powers-that-be and has little control over their own destiny. If things do not work out as promised, the riders has little to no recourse against the operators of the train. Just sit down, shut up and hang on.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:13 PMDread
You have a very outdate and if I may say so failed vision of the left, I suppose one can hardly blame you as some on the left do still stick to ridged authoritarian versions of socialism, but that is more of a generational thing. The problem with the neo-liberal right is they base
all freedoms on economics, in that if you make enough money you have the freedoms to do what you like and the cash to put it into practice, good health care and education for ones self and family is the best example of this.We on the left realize that this is an unrealistic formula for the majority, whether working or middle class, thus we must work collectively to provide the nations infrastructure, whether it be pensions, health care, public transport, law and order, basic infrastructure such as highways and water supply, education and national defense. For almost all of these things are to expensive for the majority of us to provide them for ourselves and families on an individual bases.
Up until comparatively recently post WW2 European conservatives also believed that the State should provide the aforementioned social wage, it is really only since Reganism that the respectable right came under the doleful influence of what we now call neo-liberal economics, but when they were the point men of the Chilean nazi Pinochet, [may he rot in hell] we called them the Chicago school of economics that they have turned away from this. One only has to look at the USA and to a lesser degree the UK to see what a disaster this has been for those who live under such a government.
A chaotic foreign policy that benefits only those who can get there snouts in the government trough [see Iraq and US multi nationals] the middle classes holding down two jobs to provide decent schooling and health care for their families and enormous level of personal debt and this is without the crime that has come in the wake of neo-liberalism which has filled the prisons to the benefit of once again of the multi nationals who now run many of these jails.
It really is a bit much for the neo-cons to condemn socialist for their wish to use the state when the main beneficiaries of neo liberal economics are individuals and companies who have enriched themselves via the largess of central government.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 03:49 PMThe French train network is excellent. The trains are punctual and fast: Paris to Marseille in three hours for example - a journey of 800 km or almost twice as far as Derry to Cork. As far as I know there has not been one death in a TGV train-accident since the service started in the 1980s, in any case it is surely a thousand times safer than travelling in the shiny metal boxes. I mean, what is not to like about the TGV?
Hopefully Sarko doesnt try and emulate her royal hagness, Mrs T, and screw up the system like she did in the UK with her privatization frenzy.Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:00 PMmickhall: “You have a very outdate and if I may say so failed vision of the left, I suppose one can hardly blame you as some on the left do still stick to ridged authoritarian versions of socialism, but that is more of a generational thing.”
They are still extant and I distrust this whole “kinder, gentler” language—been burned once, not enthusiastic about trusting it again.
mickhall: “We on the left realize that this is an unrealistic formula for the majority, whether working or middle class, thus we must work collectively to provide the nations infrastructure, whether it be pensions, health care, public transport, law and order, basic infrastructure such as highways and water supply, education and national defense.”
Pensions, in the main, should not be the perview of the state, not because it isn’t a good idea, but because they is the incessant urge to tinker. Likewise, government, esp. under leftists, tend to suffer mission drift, such that what was created as a “supplemental program” is, when politically convenient, cast as being someone’s sole support, leading to sweeteners and enhancements. Likewise, the left likes to pay folks who never paid in, creating additional drains.
Healthcare—again, a decent base-line is one thing, total care another, for largely the same reasons—mission drift and tinkering. Likewise, when cancer patients see an airline ticket as a integral component of their operation, be it Manhatten or Mumbai bound, I have to question the efficacy of a gov’t based solution.
The rest we would have little to disagree in concept, merely where to draw lines.
mickhall: “One only has to look at the USA and to a lesser degree the UK to see what a disaster this has been for those who live under such a government. “
Job growth, economic expansion, sub 5% unemployment… yeah, mick, its been hell.
mickhall: “A chaotic foreign policy that benefits only those who can get there snouts in the government trough [see Iraq and US multi nationals] the middle classes holding down two jobs to provide decent schooling and health care for their families and enormous level of personal debt and this is without the crime that has come in the wake of neo-liberalism which has filled the prisons to the benefit of once again of the multi nationals who now run many of these jails. “
Hyperbole, in the main—you seem to forget that this is gravy for the gander, as opposed to gravy for the goose. To paraphrase Ecclesiates, there is nothing new under the sun and it has all happened before. You main gripe seems to be it’s not your side sticking it to the public.
Again, the short form is that Royal lost. The public was not buying what she was selling. For you to tell me the product is perfect and the customers are broken seems a trifle… naive is perhaps the best word.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:03 PMF_C: “The French train network is excellent. The trains are punctual and fast: Paris to Marseille in three hours for example - a journey of 800 km or almost twice as far as Derry to Cork.”
Which does nothing to address my comments.
F_C: “I mean, what is not to like about the TGV? “
Does it always go where I want to go, when I want to go? It is personally convenient for me?
One size does not always fit all.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:08 PMFC
TVG train is cheap too, especially if you can be flexible about date and time. I paid 29 euros from Paris to Nice last year and no fuel surcharge or airport security taxes, I think the line has now been extended eastwards to Strasbourg etc. I read last week that a non discount fare London to Edinburgh is over 200 pound on the UK railway and they claim private is always more efficient and cheaper.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:08 PMmickhall: “TVG train is cheap too, especially if you can be flexible about date and time.”
In other words, no, it does not go where I want to go, when I need to go there…
A product is useless if it does not do what I need it to do.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:14 PMDread
I would never suggest any political product is perfect, as I spend much of my life finding holes in what politicians sell, and attempting to get the info out there, whether they are of the left or right. At heart I am a libertarian socialist and distrust all governments, although this was not always so.
All government and political systems are fallible because it is us humans who run them. I would like to believe come the revolution I would still be sitting here raging against that government to. It is just that having experenced a host of government, who have been of differing political persuasion, I tend to feel the best so far has been social democracy, although of course were such a government to come to power they would be far to conservative for me ;)
On a more serious issue, I take your point about drift, one of the tragedies of political life in the last two decades or so in the UK, has been that under both Thatcher and Blair there has not been an opposition worthy of the name to keep her/him and their administrations in check. Thus the media has played this role to a degree, but the down side of this has inevitably been the contempt many people now have for politicians.
Labour failed to check Thatcher in parliament and the tories failed likewise with Blair, indeed it has often been left to the unelected House of Lords to turn back government bills that should never have seen the light of day.
The outcome of this lack of real opposition in pariament is that government try and solve problems by administrative means alone, they continuously pass laws, often contradicting a previous law not long placed on the statues book.
In a democracy it takes at least two parties to make an effective parliamentary system, otherwise we end up with an elective dictatorship, no clearer example of the disaster that can occur when this occurs was Blairs WMDs war on Iraq. A good opposition would have picked up on this and done their job and opposed the government, war or no war, as the country was under no viable threat. Instead fearful and lacking both knowledge and confidence the tory oppostion voted with Blair and disaster struck us all.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 04:35 PMmickhall: “I would never suggest any political product is perfect, as I spend much of my life finding holes in what politicians sell, and attempting to get the info out there, whether they are of the left or right.”
And, yet, seem incensed when the tables are turned…
mickhall: “At heart I am a libertarian socialist and distrust all governments, although this was not always so. “
You keep using that word—“libertarian”—in a fashion that I am unfamiliar with. The essence of a socialist state is its intrusiveness, both social and economic, sticking their noses into a variety of areas where the government has no business.
mickhall: “On a more serious issue, I take your point about drift, one of the tragedies of political life in the last two decades or so in the UK, has been that under both Thatcher and Blair there has not been an opposition worthy of the name to keep her/him and their administrations in check.”
The problem is that people vote parties as institutions, rather than collections of interests. Ergo, reliable voting blocs are created and ignored. The other half of the problem is that institutions eventually end up running on momentum, whilst the opposition, as number two, continues to try harder.
Actually, I think a vigorous opposition is a useful thing. I think Bush’s greatest problem is that he was as successful as he was at the start of his first term vis-a-vis his agenda… tick too many things off the list and you end up with idle hands…
mickhall: “Labour failed to check Thatcher in parliament and the tories failed likewise with Blair, indeed it has often been left to the unelected House of Lords to turn back government bills that should never have seen the light of day. “
Any system where a party gets less than 40% of the national vote and a majority of the elected representatives, you have the makings of a problem. Throw in the lack of checks on Parliment and you start to have a recipe for disaster.
mickhall: “In a democracy it takes at least two parties to make an effective parliamentary system, otherwise we end up with an elective dictatorship, no clearer example of the disaster that can occur when this occurs was Blairs WMDs war on Iraq. A good opposition would have picked up on this and done their job and opposed the government, war or no war, as the country was under no viable threat. Instead fearful and lacking both knowledge and confidence the tory oppostion voted with Blair and disaster struck us all. “
It was a political calculation—the American Dems did the same—the made the political calculation—they have a reputation of being weak on defense and security issues and decided that an “us, too!” vote would help change that image. In both sides defense, Saddam had been playing silly buggers, trying to create enough questions to keep Iran from getting ambitious.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 05:21 PMMickhall
I love the TGV too. In fact I’ll be taking one next week. But there again, I’m not a French taxpayer, who will be subsidizing almost two thirds of the true cost of my rail trip.
If I were a French taxpayer I would be very angry at just how much the taxpayer has to subsidize the grossly overmanned and incredibly expensive system, both through (in)direct subsidies to SNCF and through having to pick up the tab for the RFF’s (the French equivalent of RailTrack) $20B+ debt. The UK rail companies could charge SNCF level fares if they too could engage in the Enronesque accounting practices that the French government use for both SNCF and RFF.
Posted by on May 07, 2007 @ 07:04 PM
