CHIRAC, SARKOZY The French Right prepares for presidentials

walter wrote ;



didn't charles degaulle say : "how can you rule a country that has 246 different kinds of cheeses ?" - at least that's how he is being quoted in canada - where he caused quite a ruckus in 1967 !

mrs h still claims that he is the source of ALL trouble for canada from 1967 on .
hbg

Vive le Quebec libre ... :wink:


Latest results don't show much surprise ...

No surprise there, alas.

And echo Walter on what George said about Bayrou.

Perhaps I don't understand what you two mean. My impression is that Bayrou intends to establish a powerful centrist party that, based on my understanding of his expressed views, would compete primarily (but not exclusively) with the Socialists for the allegiance of voters. It also looks to me as though, at least so far, he has been decidedly unsuccessful in that endeavor.

As far as I followed the news, Bayrou will announce the start of his new party - now called "Mouvement Démocrate" - on next Thursday.

That should be early enough for the parliament elections. (It takes some time to create/form/legalise a new party here, George.)

I suppose, not only because he is a center-right man, he might get more supporters from the right than from the left.
(At least traditionally, the French left sticks more to their party/parties than the right.)

OK. Thanks

Parliment elections in June?

And when you look at the structure of the parliament - it really seems easier to get votes from the right than from the left

Yeap, June 10 and 17.

mon dieu vous avez all being paying attention here and I did not know...


well I think its a shame that Mmd Royal did not win, if only that France would be somewhere different

I don't think the French are in any real danger of succumbing to monotonous sameness.

Vive Le France!

But of course this does not in anyway reflect a response to Muslim immigration, and it certaintly doesn't suggest a move to the Right in France.

It was the election of the French president, Finn. No plebiscite or referendum.


It was a move to the further Right. That's what the French think (and attended to do) as well as anyone else.
(Though Sarko was the No. 3 in Chirac's party and government, he certainly presents the most rightish wing in this conservative party.)


----


As far as I notice, Steve, only some "heavy demonstrations" around the Place de la Bastille and the Rue de Lyon yesterday evening.

Everything calm later and elsewhere.

The graph Walter posted earlier showed that his voters divided up fairly equally between Royal and Sarkozy in the second round. Exit polls after the first round also showed his support coming from both camps fairly equally, though a little bit more from the Right than the Left.

Meanwhile, despite Bayrou's breakthrough into the high tens, both Sarkozy and Royal also scored the best first-round results for their parties in a long time.

All of this suggests that any chance of Bayrou's new party replacing either of the old parties is very slim. Instead, what he explicitly has stated as his goal, and what is far more likely, is that his new party would result in a switch to a three party system.

In the last three decades, the French party system has been characterised by two main parties + strong fringes on the far left and far right to "flank" them. These elections showed both of the fringes shrinking notably, but Bayrou setting up an alternative camp in the centre.

Although it has a largely majority-type electoral system, France, like all other European countries, is not the two-party system that you have in the US. Ergo, when a new party comes up it doesnt have to mean that it will replace one of the others over time - as in this case, it isnt even intended to.

It most certainly does mean a move to the Right; and issues of immigration and nationalism have certainly played a big role.

That said, 53% vs 47% doesnt exactly mean that the French people have collectively gathered around Sarkozy's agenda.

Ijust wondered if our left leaning European friends might continue to deny observed trends. I'm glad you did not.

You are certainly correct that the margin of victory does not reflect a sea change,but Sarkozy was hardly a stealth hard-liner, and every chance it got the opposition tried to stir up fears of riots in the street and police state responses. No doubt this approach helped drive the very large turnout and decent showing of Royal, but twas not enough.

There's hope for France yet, if "The American" can institute economic reforms and keep the "scum" contained.

Not only that I personally was able to see with my own eyes it differently - this is exactly what made him famous - to be an "authoritarian hardliner".
(Okay, that's not really the same as stealth hardliner)


Besides that, I really wonder why a lot of American papers see Sarkozy in such a pro-American view.
Certainly, he's more reflecting the traditional freindship of France with the USA - as Girac was reflecting the traditional opposite side.

But he's against the war in Iraq ("erreur historique"), referring to American politics he speaks as of "arrogance", he pro-Kyoto, pro EU, anti Turkey's membership in the EU .... views, shared by the previous president of France.

And Sarkozy was a member of the last cabinet, you remember? (And of previous conservative cabinets as well.)
So he actually back some politics ...

But the US-French relations certainly will become better, no doubt, as previously.
This especially, if François Fillon really will be the new French prime minister. (On the other hand, Sarkozy said today that hew will appoint ministers from the center and the left as well.)


But then there are the parliamentary elections in Juin which might show up some different results ...

It doesn't take much for a French politican to appear pro-American.

He can't be less than the prior lot.

France, Germany and the UK (for at least a little while more) with "pro-American" governments. Who would have thought?

Me

Well, and that's what makes me wonder: Sarkozy exactly is of the very same "prior lot" = same party, member of the cabinet ...

Obviously not.

Either he hid his true ideals or everyone assumed them because of his party affiliation.

Probably the latter because it seems clear that Europeans rely more on Party than individual candidate.

In this respect, Sarkozy, the Hungarian, is an American.

In the States it is widely accepted that that which happens in California will eventually happen in the rest of the 49. The world should accept that that which happens in the US will eventually happen in the the rest of the globe (For good or bad).

Liberals in the US have no problem with this California Imperative, in fact they count upon it, and yet Liberals in the rest of the world (or should I say Progressives?) have a problem with the dynamic because it is associated with America.

What does this leave us with? Progressive Europeans denying the American dynamic of progress because of nationalistic concerns OR that Liberal America is not thought of, internationally, as a force of PROGRESS?

In a century where there was supposed to be flying cars, universal healthcare, and a global government, there is none of the preceding. Why is this so?

The retrograde evil of reactionaries? The mindless stupidity of the masses? The utterly fanciful nature of Progressive ideals?

The world should be governed by those with a firm grip on reality but a penchant and daring for the ideal.