A while ago, I saw a Le Monde with a front page story I couldnt possibly resist. I hadnt gotten round to translating it yet, but I cant sleep so here goes. Its pretty funny.
Quote:Communists appreciate military music, Chirac supporters operetta
24 June 2005
Nicole Vulser
Le Monde (my translation - note, my French aint perfect, so there may be a mistake or two)
What is it the French warble under the shower? In fact, do they sing at all, under the shower or elsewhere? A study by TNS-Sofres, the first of its kind, undertaken at the behest of the Society of Composers and Music Editors (Sacem) [..] sounds out the answer and makes it possible to correct some common assumptions.
It will be impossible, henceforth, to ignore the relationship the compatriots of George Bizet and Michel Sardou maintain with music. The French mostly sing in the car (19%), when they hear music they well like (17%) and finally - and only then - in the bath or under the shower (13%).
Of the 2,110 individuals surveyed by the polling agency during four days at the end of May, 83% confirm they sing frequently or occasionally. Women sing more spontaneously (64%) than men (59%). Men of over 65, especially farmers and those without a degree, remain silent.
The world is badly made. At the risk of sometimes worrying their neighbours, those who live in an apartment nevertheless more often take to song than the inhabitants of private homes. Parisians, although they are surely short of bird song, nevertheless tend to compete with them more often than the inhabitants of suburbs or the countryside. [..]
And who sings the day after? It turns out that the most ardent supporters of rhyme and refrain voted, in the presidential elections of 2002, for [the Communist] Robert Hue (92%), [the Green] Noel Mamere (91%) or [one of the Trotskyites,] Olivier Besancenot (89%) or Arlette Laguiller (88%).
Music, which is listened to about two hours a day, is one of the arts that those polled could least do without (74%). Far ahead of literature, cinema, paintings, dance, theatre or sculpture. [..]
The preferred style [..]: 66% prefer chansons, 29% rock or pop; classical music and various foreign music share a third place (22%). They're followed by jazz, film music, reggea, folk music, techno and world music.
Finally, the issue of politico-musical affinities. They are instructive enough. Supporters of Olivier Besancenot and Noel Mamere especially appreciate Latin-American music. Supporters of Arlette Laguiller are most seduced by rap and R&B. Communists and Greens have a preference for blues. But it is only the Communist Party whose followers share a taste for military music. Chirac supporters, on the other hand, prefer operetta, opera and religious music.
Is property a form of theft? Trotskyites and Greens acknowledge it without hesitation. It is they, more than others, who illegally download music from the Internet.
Norway isn't in the EU, but since this thread has also become something of a depository for discussing politics in the different European countries, I thought it'd be interesting to post this peek into a the politics of a country that's still slanted in a bit of a different direction - and doesn't seem to suffer much from it.
Quote:Norway - Red-Green Alliance maintains the lead
Election Date: September 12, 2005
Background2005 Great Diet ElectionResults of Last Election:
Great Diet - Sept. 10, 2001
Vote% / Seats
Labour Party (DNA)
24.3% / 43
Conservatives (H)
21.2% / 38
Progress Party (FrP)
14.7% / 26
Christian People (KrF)
12.5% / 22
Socialist Left (SV)
12.4% / 23
Agrarians (Sp)
5.6% / 10
Liberal Left (V)
3.9% / 2
Coastal Party (KYST)
1.7% / 1
Red Electoral Alliance (RV)
1.2% / --
nimh,
Out of the total parties listed, how many are actually influential in passing bills and general government administration?
Would you say America is primarily a two party system? Do you believe the USA could ever juggle as many parties as Norway? Europe? Why or why not?
Mapleleaf wrote:Out of the total parties listed, how many are actually influential in passing bills and general government administration?
All of 'em that have seats in Parliament, I'd suppose.
For example, the current government relies on the support of not only the parties that actually take part in it, the Conservative, Christian People and Liberal Left parties, but also on that of the Progress Party, which "tolerates" it. If either the Conservatives, Christians or Progress Party withdraws its support, the government no longer has a majority.
Vice versa, even according to the current polls in which they're riding high, the Labour Party is hardly likely to gain a parliamentary majority of its own. Hence the necessity it would face of gaining the assent of the Agrarians and Socialist Left as well.
Every party plays its role. It is an incentive to pursue a more consensual type of politics than that associated with the US or Britain.
Mapleleaf wrote:Would you say America is primarily a two party system?
Of course.
Mapleleaf wrote:Do you believe the USA could ever juggle as many parties as Norway?
Why wouldnt it be? Americans are as intelligent as any other people. It has had its experiences with significant third (Progressive) parties in the past.
so nothing to do with the atkins diet?
Mapleleaf wrote:
"Do you believe the USA could ever juggle as many parties as Norway?
Why wouldn't it be? Americans are as intelligent as any other people. It has had its experiences with significant third (Progressive) parties in the past."
I know we have had experiences in the past; yet, in the present environment, I wonder whether we have the interest or motivation to open up our system to 3, 4 or more parties. I know the Europeans must frustrated with the endless charges and countercharges of the political scene; but, as you said, they have to cooperate to get anything accomplished.
Do you have a sense of the more successful countries, the ones which have the better records in governing?
Mapleleaf wrote:I know the Europeans must frustrated with the endless charges and countercharges of the political scene; but, as you said, they have to cooperate to get anything accomplished.
Do you have a sense of the more successful countries, the ones which have the better records in governing?
Actually, I don't think that "the Europeans" are frustrated with a multi-party political system.
I do think, such would happen, if we only had the "choice" between two alternatives.
What do you actually mean by your second question?
<edited: typo>
while the canadian parliament is not exactly like a european parliament, i'd say it's more european than "american" (meaning u.s. style).
currently the canadian parliament has 308 elected members.
party representation is as follows :
- liberals 108
- conservatives 98
- bloc quebecois 54
- new democratic party 19
- independent 3
- vacancy 1
as is evident, the governing liberals very much rely on the co-operation of other parties to pass legislation; this doesn't seem to have been much of a problem. i'd say that many canadian like the idea of "consensus building" in parliament rather than having a "strong" governing party - these "strong" parties seem to get arrogant very quickly and tend to forget who put them there in the first place. having a strong opposition ensures that that the governing party's feet "will be held to the fire" frequently.
personally, i have no problems with a minority government; some of canada's best legislation come about during terms of minority governments who had to be sensitive to the ideas of the opposition parties - and canadians in general.
a recent poll showethat if an election were to be held in the next six months, a liberal minority government would likely be the outcome again.
the various party representation throughout canada vary considerable from province to province; in my opinion another argument for having a parliament that mirrors that. hbg
Mapleleaf wrote:I know the Europeans must frustrated with the endless charges and countercharges of the political scene
Echoing Walter, I'm not frustrated by the charges and countercharges at all - or not half as much as I would be with the inane us vs them, with us or against us camp mentality of American politics with its unwavering loyalties.
I see (multi-party) politics as a river, consisting of a dozen currents that all together make up the flow, and thanks to their diversity can flexibly turn, skip and breach any rock or hitch. Wouldnt want it any other way.
The more a country divides up in two diametrically opposed camps, the more, it seems to me, public discourse degrades into the youse-stupid, we're-better triumphantalist, un-nuanced ignorant **** that pervades the Politics forum here.
Echoing all of Hamburger's points as well.
nimh : imo. one of the reasons for the low participation of american voters in elections is that there is not much of a choice. the last time americans had a choice of a third party was when ross perot formed the reform party and ran for prsident , but even as a millionaire(billionaire ?) he was not able to change the "establishment" - but at least he shook it up a bit. can't blame him for trying. i watched him a number of times on television and he certainly was a "colourful" character - but i understand both the democrats and the republicans hated his "disturbing" the electorate. hbg
hbg, Ross Perot was an enigma; he was not mature enough to be in politics. He started out strong, but ended with a squeek. I don't remember what exactly pulled the rug, but it wasn't something that important.
He lost the primary in one of the eastern states, I believe.
Perot wouldnt have taken part in any primary, would he? I mean, he was a third-party candidate after all, and one with his own party to boot, so what kind of primary should he have taken part in?
Sometimes I feel our discussion re countries we have never lived in lacks substance. The media and books can never lead you into a true understanding of a foreign culture; let alone, a clear picture of the various corners of America.
From a search:
"Ross Perot Did Not Cost George Bush The 1992 Presidential Election
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.
Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.
[ Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.]
But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%."
Interesting c.i., but whats that got to do with the primaries question?
to me (as a canadian) what was most astonishing was the fact that a first time candidate was able to get almost twenty million american voters to cast a vote for him. while it's impossible to tell what might have happened if he would have been able to keep his party/organization alive until the next election, to me it's still an unresolved puzzle.
he certaiinly was able to get out voters who probably had not voted before and may have never voted again.
perhaps the perot phenomenon has to be written off like twenty million americans seeing "flying saucers" ?
i have to admit that i watched him with some fascination when he appeared on TV. hbg
nimh, That's right; he didn't participate in any of the primaries, but he affected the primaries in ways that ended up as the 13 million votes he got in the election.
