Well. Now that Nicolas Sarkozy is out of the picture, will the actual political debate start? You know, the kind with real bits of genuine ideas, ideology-free?
Let's face it: we'll have to wait some more, and probably far beyond the upcoming legislative elections. Which shall be, like the presidential elections, handed on a plate by the incumbent to the opposition because in his political suicide, Sarkozy erected an inextricable triangle between amoral populists (UMP leader Jean-Francois Cope, a Sarko mini-me), moderate reformers (former PMs Francois Fillon and Alain Juppe), and the extreme right (Marine Le Pen's Front National).
By "political suicide", I'm not refering to Sarkozy's shameless courting of Le Pen's voters, but to the very fact that this Hyper-Hype President decided to seek a second mandate, ultimate proof that the man totally lacks historical vision and distance with himself. As I forecast the very evening of his election in 2007*, Sarkozy had been awarded a very clear mandate to reform, but would risk everything should he ever try to betray the Republic by undermining its pilars (particularly secularism, and the balance of powers - executive, legislative, judiciary, media...).
The "surprise" lies in the narrowness of the score** which, combined to a massive total of blank votes, confirmed that the republican sanction against Nicolas Sarkozy was not at all coupled with a massive adhesion to Francois Hollande or to his program.
In spite of the record unpopularity of his opponent, Hollande barely fulfilled the only promise he could keep: to replace Sarkozy. Should he fail to win a large legislative majority in spite of the above mentioned 'political triangles', "Flanby" would fully deserve his nickname: a brand of sweet, soft, boneless pudding, promoted to the top job simply because it happened to be there when DSK and Sarkozy committed suicide.
Anyway, by opting for a run off between two promises of denial and 'fuite en avant', the French had already decided two weeks ago to procrastinate, to refuse the debate, to refuse change. Alternation without the courage of reforming, that's cowardness, that's the non-choice, not casting a blank vote. Full disclosure: I voted for change and reforms within the Republic in the first round (Francois Bayrou), and for change and reforms within the Republic in the second round (blank vote = blank page for the future winner, who will end up facing reality and rewriting his program / BTW just like she doesn't own France, Marine Le Pen doesn't own the blank vote).
Beyond France, both leading parties are also condemned to reform themselves, and the earlier the better. Nicolas Sarkozy managed to destroy the UMP the very same way George W. Bush did with the Republican Party***, and even if they manage to get rid of 'mini-me' Cope, center-right moderates probably won't have time to sort things out before the legislative elections. Even if its 'champion' won, the French Socialist Party remains an embarrassing anachronism refusing to evolve towards a modern socio-democracy, refusing to purge itself ideologically, refusing to accept that the 'French model' must adapt to survive, refusing to consider 'solutions' that are not demagogic and not ideologically driven, refusing to consider welfare policies that are not undermining welfare state as a whole. Marine Le Pen might be the first one to officially reform her party, but make no mistake: the Front National will only rename itself to fool more people into distancing themselves from democratic and republican values.
Denial can help you win elections, but Greece show us the economical, political, and social future of democracies that stick to the self-destructive dynamics of a system based on "reformless alternation".
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
* see "2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid", and in French "Traitre à la
nation", "Sarko triomphe - Blogule blanc
aux reformes"
** FH 51.6%, NS 48.4% (or FH 48.5%, NS 45.6%, blank 5.8%)
*** see "GOP: time to
split"
Showing posts with label Francois Bayrou. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francois Bayrou. Show all posts
20120507
20120207
2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid
In 2011, America discovered that helping a young democracy could result in a new theocracy. France tried that too, back in 1776, and as of today, the result is still unclear: the President of the United States pledges allegiance on a Bible, finishing with a vibrant "so help me God", and he would never dare ending a speech without godblessamericaing the audience urbi et orbi, for fear of being considered Un-Amerikan. In this presumably model democracy, all Greenbacks are tagged with the words "in God we trust", Satanists are better considered than atheists because at least they believe in fallen angels, and self-proclaimed 'republicans' would rather be represented by a Christian ayatollah (Santorum) than a moderate Mormon (Romney).
Technically, mixing religion with politics is not compatible with democratic and republican ideals, and I already explained how, in France, putting secularism at the core of the Constitution was meant to secure both democracy and the freedom of religion, and how that fragile balance was undermined as Nicolas Sarkozy followed George W. Bush's dangerous path (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one").
Of course, the French democracy was threatened long before Bush or Sarko came to power. And the 'laicite' and 'egalite' dogmas didn't succeed in a truly multicultural / multicultual society.
Anyway. Back in 2007, I voted Sarkozy because France needed reforms, and only he could deliver. I didn't trust the man, but somehow counted on the vast majority of UMP lawmakers to prevent him from breaking his very formal pledge to respect the French brand of secularism. Of course, Sarkozy implemented only a small part of the necessary reforms, and broke his pledge. He followed Bush's missteps to the tiniest detail, undermining the delicate balance of powers at all levels (executive, legislative, justice, media, religion...).
I can't imagine how low the French economy would have dived had Segolene Royal won the 2007 elections, but we would probably be very glad to maintain double A ratings. Yet unlike most his European counterparts who got the pink slip following the (first) depression, Sarkozy will not be judged by the economy: he simply cannot be re-elected because he betrayed the nation.
His main rival, Francois Hollande, also happens to be an impostor. He even received a boost from Sarkozy, who believed he could play the same trick as in 2007: I have my friends in the media push a weak and hollow candidate (then Hollande companion Segolene Royal), I vampirize the extreme-right with preemptive strikes in the no-man's land between 'law and order' and outright fascism, and I leverage my reputation as a doer.
Hollande is not as weak and hollow as he seems to be: he shares some of the key 'qualities' that helped his model, Francois Mitterrand, reach the top... only not the qualities leftist voters wished he had. And unsurprisingly, the worst enemy of Hollande happens to be Mitterrand's archrival Michel Rocard.
Traditionally, the French have their hearts on their left, but their wallets on their right, so they tend to vote for a center-right candidate. Fourty years ago, Mitterrand, a conservative with an ambiguous Vichy background, highjacked the Socialist party and managed to build an artificial platform where the Communists brought the votes needed to claim the Elysee Palace. Rocard, the reformer who dreamt of transforming a patchworked party into a modern social democrat powerhouse, was sidelined before witnessing, helplessly, his side fail miserably each time it claimed victory (most notably: ill timed, ideology driven 'reforms' in the early eighties or late nineties).
Holland lacks experience in governments, but he already proved his inability and unwillingness to reform the Socialist Party when he was Secretary General. Worse, instead of seizing the momentum when he finally was chosen as the party champion, he opted for yet another impossible consensus. Needless to say, his majority is bound to fail.
So the choice for those 2012 elections is clear: continuity, alternation, or change.
- Continuity means Nicolas Sarkozy and a moral collapse.
- Alternation means Francois Hollande and a deeper decline for French economy and politics.
- Change means either Marine Le Pen and the Front National, a French Revolution for the worse, or Francois Bayrou and the MoDem, a bet on the ability to build a national alliance government with moderate reformers from both sides.
Back in 2007, I hesitated between Bayrou and Sarkozy: the former would have made a good and fair president, but he didn't have the capacity to reform. Now France could be ready for a less partisan approach. Furthermore, a Bayrou victory would necessarily lead to the much needed reforms of both the Parti Socialiste and the UMP. The PS remains one of the few dinosaurs sticking to XIXth century politics, and the UMP needs to discard un-republican (no cap letter, please) elements from its platform.
The worse is that even top members from both leading parties are not enthusiastic about their own champions:
- socialist 'elephants' know Hollande is a fake but the right has never been that weak ahead of a Presidential election (even the Senate sports a socialist 'pink'), and nice positions are up for grabs in the government
- UMP leaders know Sarko doesn't stand a chance, and they already prepare for 2017 and the ineluctable failure of Hollande. Francois Fillon plans to conquer Paris and to capitalize on a strong performance as PM, while Jean-Francois Cope shamelessly carves himself into a Sarkozy mini-me.
Compared to Nicolas Sarkozy's, Barack Obama's reelection bid almost looks like a stroll in the park: both performed relatively well on the economic front, but the POTUS can put much more blame on the opposition, including during his tenure (after the 'sound economy of 2008', last year's budget mess...), and the Republican Party is even more divided, ideologically crippled, inconsistent, and unfit to govern than the French Socialist Party.
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
Technically, mixing religion with politics is not compatible with democratic and republican ideals, and I already explained how, in France, putting secularism at the core of the Constitution was meant to secure both democracy and the freedom of religion, and how that fragile balance was undermined as Nicolas Sarkozy followed George W. Bush's dangerous path (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one").
Of course, the French democracy was threatened long before Bush or Sarko came to power. And the 'laicite' and 'egalite' dogmas didn't succeed in a truly multicultural / multicultual society.
Anyway. Back in 2007, I voted Sarkozy because France needed reforms, and only he could deliver. I didn't trust the man, but somehow counted on the vast majority of UMP lawmakers to prevent him from breaking his very formal pledge to respect the French brand of secularism. Of course, Sarkozy implemented only a small part of the necessary reforms, and broke his pledge. He followed Bush's missteps to the tiniest detail, undermining the delicate balance of powers at all levels (executive, legislative, justice, media, religion...).
I can't imagine how low the French economy would have dived had Segolene Royal won the 2007 elections, but we would probably be very glad to maintain double A ratings. Yet unlike most his European counterparts who got the pink slip following the (first) depression, Sarkozy will not be judged by the economy: he simply cannot be re-elected because he betrayed the nation.
His main rival, Francois Hollande, also happens to be an impostor. He even received a boost from Sarkozy, who believed he could play the same trick as in 2007: I have my friends in the media push a weak and hollow candidate (then Hollande companion Segolene Royal), I vampirize the extreme-right with preemptive strikes in the no-man's land between 'law and order' and outright fascism, and I leverage my reputation as a doer.
Hollande is not as weak and hollow as he seems to be: he shares some of the key 'qualities' that helped his model, Francois Mitterrand, reach the top... only not the qualities leftist voters wished he had. And unsurprisingly, the worst enemy of Hollande happens to be Mitterrand's archrival Michel Rocard.
Traditionally, the French have their hearts on their left, but their wallets on their right, so they tend to vote for a center-right candidate. Fourty years ago, Mitterrand, a conservative with an ambiguous Vichy background, highjacked the Socialist party and managed to build an artificial platform where the Communists brought the votes needed to claim the Elysee Palace. Rocard, the reformer who dreamt of transforming a patchworked party into a modern social democrat powerhouse, was sidelined before witnessing, helplessly, his side fail miserably each time it claimed victory (most notably: ill timed, ideology driven 'reforms' in the early eighties or late nineties).
Holland lacks experience in governments, but he already proved his inability and unwillingness to reform the Socialist Party when he was Secretary General. Worse, instead of seizing the momentum when he finally was chosen as the party champion, he opted for yet another impossible consensus. Needless to say, his majority is bound to fail.
So the choice for those 2012 elections is clear: continuity, alternation, or change.
- Continuity means Nicolas Sarkozy and a moral collapse.
- Alternation means Francois Hollande and a deeper decline for French economy and politics.
- Change means either Marine Le Pen and the Front National, a French Revolution for the worse, or Francois Bayrou and the MoDem, a bet on the ability to build a national alliance government with moderate reformers from both sides.
Back in 2007, I hesitated between Bayrou and Sarkozy: the former would have made a good and fair president, but he didn't have the capacity to reform. Now France could be ready for a less partisan approach. Furthermore, a Bayrou victory would necessarily lead to the much needed reforms of both the Parti Socialiste and the UMP. The PS remains one of the few dinosaurs sticking to XIXth century politics, and the UMP needs to discard un-republican (no cap letter, please) elements from its platform.
The worse is that even top members from both leading parties are not enthusiastic about their own champions:
- socialist 'elephants' know Hollande is a fake but the right has never been that weak ahead of a Presidential election (even the Senate sports a socialist 'pink'), and nice positions are up for grabs in the government
- UMP leaders know Sarko doesn't stand a chance, and they already prepare for 2017 and the ineluctable failure of Hollande. Francois Fillon plans to conquer Paris and to capitalize on a strong performance as PM, while Jean-Francois Cope shamelessly carves himself into a Sarkozy mini-me.
Compared to Nicolas Sarkozy's, Barack Obama's reelection bid almost looks like a stroll in the park: both performed relatively well on the economic front, but the POTUS can put much more blame on the opposition, including during his tenure (after the 'sound economy of 2008', last year's budget mess...), and the Republican Party is even more divided, ideologically crippled, inconsistent, and unfit to govern than the French Socialist Party.
blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!
20071113
Hillary vs anyone = Bloomberg 2008 ?
Over one year ago, I predicted a candidacy of Segolene Royal in France would be the best opportunity for center hopeful Francois Bayrou. Sego eventually did get her chance, but Bayrou blew his own.
I've been telling the same about Michael Bloomberg for a while : should Hillary Clinton prevail in the Primaries and run without Obama, the mayor of New York could win as an independent. Except this time, the man would deliver.
Don't get me wrong. I'm mentioning "the man" and not "the male", and the fact that both Royal and Clinton are female is a pure coincidence. There was clearly a question of character and competence for Royal*, whilst Clinton mainly suffers, more or less unfairly, from a popularity problem.
I'm quite sure Bloomberg waits for the outcome of the Democratic race. Should he bring a new, disruptive face as a Veep**, he would gain momentum within weeks. Heck : for all you know, he could hire the best team. Not as a candidate, but as the head of a non partisan administration.
The US are ripe for a telluric change in politics. This is no more about Elephants vs Donkeys but about forward looking and humanists vs conservative and determinists. And consider "conservative" and "determinist" at the literal sense of the term : a hardcore liberal can be ultra conservative and an ayatollah of free trade as determinist as a radical Hegelian.
Bloomberg is by no means the perfect man. Yet he does stand a chance and he could make a change.
Anyway, I believe both Obama and Hillary can deliver great presidencies. And I sincerely hope whoever wins will actually reach across the aisles to make a sustainable difference.
What America needs now is not alternance from Reps to Dems but from offside politics to noble politics, from the negation of the republic and of democracy to the essence of republic and democracy.
* see my not so kind blogules on her in French.
** I mean someone coming out of the blue, not out of the Grand Old Blue Party.
I've been telling the same about Michael Bloomberg for a while : should Hillary Clinton prevail in the Primaries and run without Obama, the mayor of New York could win as an independent. Except this time, the man would deliver.
Don't get me wrong. I'm mentioning "the man" and not "the male", and the fact that both Royal and Clinton are female is a pure coincidence. There was clearly a question of character and competence for Royal*, whilst Clinton mainly suffers, more or less unfairly, from a popularity problem.
I'm quite sure Bloomberg waits for the outcome of the Democratic race. Should he bring a new, disruptive face as a Veep**, he would gain momentum within weeks. Heck : for all you know, he could hire the best team. Not as a candidate, but as the head of a non partisan administration.
The US are ripe for a telluric change in politics. This is no more about Elephants vs Donkeys but about forward looking and humanists vs conservative and determinists. And consider "conservative" and "determinist" at the literal sense of the term : a hardcore liberal can be ultra conservative and an ayatollah of free trade as determinist as a radical Hegelian.
Bloomberg is by no means the perfect man. Yet he does stand a chance and he could make a change.
Anyway, I believe both Obama and Hillary can deliver great presidencies. And I sincerely hope whoever wins will actually reach across the aisles to make a sustainable difference.
What America needs now is not alternance from Reps to Dems but from offside politics to noble politics, from the negation of the republic and of democracy to the essence of republic and democracy.
* see my not so kind blogules on her in French.
** I mean someone coming out of the blue, not out of the Grand Old Blue Party.
20070504
Masks off - red blogule to Segolene Royal's imposture
Let us consider my fellow French citizens as junkies, eager to give up their illusions but still hooked to them and asking candidates for yet another fix...
Segolene Royal comes to them and tells them : "I'm listening to what you say. I will give you a dose even bigger than the one you're dreaming of. You will feel good today and tomorrow will look brighter - actually, I'm sure things will get better for you.
Nicolas Sarkozy tells the French : "I'm really listening to what you say, and I understand that what you mean is not give me more but get me out of here. I won't push you down any further, I will help you up.
The sales pitch is less sexy but a little bit more responsible.
As you noticed earlier in this excuse for a blog, I don't precisely like Mr Sarkozy. But I know he is the only one who can put the country back on track. And I know he is now under the strict control and scrutiny of the UMP's centrist majority, the very people who will actually do the job with him, but people who won't stay with him if he happens to deviate from the healthy line (ie Sarko confirmed several times he won't touch to France's secularism).
I seriously considered voting for Bayrou one year ago. Back then, I was sure he had a chance, the same way I knew back in 1996 Blair could win the following year, to the great surprise of my British friends. But the man proved once again to be a disapointment ; a good man but a loner, not a leader. His surrealistic "debate" with Royal confirmed my worries : this man of dialogue drowned in Sego's autistic monologue.
But last Tuesday, Royal eventually met someone who exposed her sideral vacuity. I often compare her to Dubya : both are impostors and fake compassionate conservatists, but at least Bush is a good actor and he knows both the role he has to play and the man he truly is. Sego doesn't even know who nor what she is. She is actually running away from this confrontation and discovered the way of persuasing herself she exists in a selfpersuasive mantra technique : she routinely picks up things that sound nice everywhere and adds them to her speech, which grows into something as huge as implausible and inconsistent, and when someone says a trifle loud something looks a trifle too much she withdraws it. No one stopped her during the Socialist Party's primaries, no one stopped her during the campaign, and someone eventually said "get real", someone eventually imposed her first actual debate.
Even then, Sego refused any contradiction (no, not true, you're lying), she denied the right to answer (you don't have the right to answer, no). But Sarko kept focusing on the content while Sego sticked to the appearence, putting all her weight in one attack carefully planed. Sarko already knew Sego would attack because she warned her staff before. The question was when. She knew Le Petit Nicolas would raise the issue of the disabled children (he actually delivered the very same words a couple of days earlier in a prime time interview), and her strategy was to strike at this precise moment. She did a pretty good job in pretending to choke on what he said as if it were the first time she heard it, and she convinced many observers of her courage and sincerity. But she also lost many sympathisers who considered her as... sympathetic (66% of voters before the debate, 53% after - Opinionway poll). And women are not fooled : they don't like her and prefer to vote for Sarko (49% vs 38% - TNS Sofres barometer).
Masks are off and I do hope French citizens will vote with more discernment in 2007 than US citizens in 2004.
Segolene Royal comes to them and tells them : "I'm listening to what you say. I will give you a dose even bigger than the one you're dreaming of. You will feel good today and tomorrow will look brighter - actually, I'm sure things will get better for you.
Nicolas Sarkozy tells the French : "I'm really listening to what you say, and I understand that what you mean is not give me more but get me out of here. I won't push you down any further, I will help you up.
The sales pitch is less sexy but a little bit more responsible.
As you noticed earlier in this excuse for a blog, I don't precisely like Mr Sarkozy. But I know he is the only one who can put the country back on track. And I know he is now under the strict control and scrutiny of the UMP's centrist majority, the very people who will actually do the job with him, but people who won't stay with him if he happens to deviate from the healthy line (ie Sarko confirmed several times he won't touch to France's secularism).
I seriously considered voting for Bayrou one year ago. Back then, I was sure he had a chance, the same way I knew back in 1996 Blair could win the following year, to the great surprise of my British friends. But the man proved once again to be a disapointment ; a good man but a loner, not a leader. His surrealistic "debate" with Royal confirmed my worries : this man of dialogue drowned in Sego's autistic monologue.
But last Tuesday, Royal eventually met someone who exposed her sideral vacuity. I often compare her to Dubya : both are impostors and fake compassionate conservatists, but at least Bush is a good actor and he knows both the role he has to play and the man he truly is. Sego doesn't even know who nor what she is. She is actually running away from this confrontation and discovered the way of persuasing herself she exists in a selfpersuasive mantra technique : she routinely picks up things that sound nice everywhere and adds them to her speech, which grows into something as huge as implausible and inconsistent, and when someone says a trifle loud something looks a trifle too much she withdraws it. No one stopped her during the Socialist Party's primaries, no one stopped her during the campaign, and someone eventually said "get real", someone eventually imposed her first actual debate.
Even then, Sego refused any contradiction (no, not true, you're lying), she denied the right to answer (you don't have the right to answer, no). But Sarko kept focusing on the content while Sego sticked to the appearence, putting all her weight in one attack carefully planed. Sarko already knew Sego would attack because she warned her staff before. The question was when. She knew Le Petit Nicolas would raise the issue of the disabled children (he actually delivered the very same words a couple of days earlier in a prime time interview), and her strategy was to strike at this precise moment. She did a pretty good job in pretending to choke on what he said as if it were the first time she heard it, and she convinced many observers of her courage and sincerity. But she also lost many sympathisers who considered her as... sympathetic (66% of voters before the debate, 53% after - Opinionway poll). And women are not fooled : they don't like her and prefer to vote for Sarko (49% vs 38% - TNS Sofres barometer).
Masks are off and I do hope French citizens will vote with more discernment in 2007 than US citizens in 2004.
20070420
Le vote futile - why French socialists shouldn't vote for Royal
Before the 2004 elections, I would advise Republicans who loved their party and who truly respected republican values not to vote for Bush. I'm not sure the GOP will recover from the 2006 fiasco on time for 2008...
I'm telling the same thing to French socialists right now : if you believe in a modern form of socialism and compassionate politics, do not vote for Segolene Royal this Sunday. France cannot afford to be ruled by the Socialist Party as it is right now, and certainly not by a candidate who proved unable to federate her own family, unable to give a clear vision, unable to rise above a swamp of demagogy.
Royal never ventured beyond areas where debate could rage. Europe ? 35-hour week ? the national debt ? Well below the radar of touchy issues and just above the minefield of personal attacks on her rivals, Sego decided to focus on the consensual issue of the budget devoted to the French President for her last week of campaigning. Pathetic.
Socialists reformers want the French PS to implode. This party died two years ago after the Referendum on Europe, and the worst thing that could happen now would be a socialist majority composed of conflicting minorities. Ruling over such a mess would be much tougher than achieving Bayrou's dream of a balanced government positioned at the center.
Reformers should not accept Sego's conservative agenda, and conservative leftists would better vote for one of the small candidates "to the left of the left". At least, Mrs Buffet believes in what she says and respects the political debate.
But both reformers and hardliners are hesitating : Le Pen could reach the second round again.
But since this man cannot be elected (unless France turns into Florida), even that would be better than electing Royal : the socialists, who did not move one inch since April 21, 2002 despite the humiliation, would then be forced to evolve and split. Let the primates go their way and the moderates pave a new one.
If Royal were to win, France would lose immediately, and the Parti Socialist not long after. The only winner would be the Royal - Hollande couple.
I hope socialists won't subscribe to this hollow program.
Unless they enjoy being dubbed Europe's stupidest left.
I'm telling the same thing to French socialists right now : if you believe in a modern form of socialism and compassionate politics, do not vote for Segolene Royal this Sunday. France cannot afford to be ruled by the Socialist Party as it is right now, and certainly not by a candidate who proved unable to federate her own family, unable to give a clear vision, unable to rise above a swamp of demagogy.
Royal never ventured beyond areas where debate could rage. Europe ? 35-hour week ? the national debt ? Well below the radar of touchy issues and just above the minefield of personal attacks on her rivals, Sego decided to focus on the consensual issue of the budget devoted to the French President for her last week of campaigning. Pathetic.
Socialists reformers want the French PS to implode. This party died two years ago after the Referendum on Europe, and the worst thing that could happen now would be a socialist majority composed of conflicting minorities. Ruling over such a mess would be much tougher than achieving Bayrou's dream of a balanced government positioned at the center.
Reformers should not accept Sego's conservative agenda, and conservative leftists would better vote for one of the small candidates "to the left of the left". At least, Mrs Buffet believes in what she says and respects the political debate.
But both reformers and hardliners are hesitating : Le Pen could reach the second round again.
But since this man cannot be elected (unless France turns into Florida), even that would be better than electing Royal : the socialists, who did not move one inch since April 21, 2002 despite the humiliation, would then be forced to evolve and split. Let the primates go their way and the moderates pave a new one.
If Royal were to win, France would lose immediately, and the Parti Socialist not long after. The only winner would be the Royal - Hollande couple.
I hope socialists won't subscribe to this hollow program.
Unless they enjoy being dubbed Europe's stupidest left.
20070216
Red blogule to French oldcons, neocons and cons in general
The French are switching from a Left / Right to a Conservative / Progressive political rift. The defining moment was the vote for the European Constitution, with a significant collateral damage : the end of the Socialist Party (PS) as we've known it since Francois Mitterrand claimed it a couple of decades ago.
Reformers from the PS have more in common with reformers from the UMP than with their fellow party members stuck somewhere in the middle of the XIXth Century. Sarkozy and fellow reformers have successfuly sidelined traditional conservatives within their own ranks - a minority of harmless old farts snoring all day long at the Senate.
I'm sure the French economy would perform well with Nicolas Sarkozy, but I'm rather scared by his attacks on secular legislations and his ability to fuel radicalism and fundamentalism. I don't quite like the idea of this man enjoying the support of both US and Israeli fundamentalists and neocons, and even the presence of a Karl Rove wannabe on his side, Brice Hortefeux.
I'd rather see a more moderate kind of reformer rule the country. Francois Bayrou (UDF) has a clear opening since Dominique Strauss-Kahn lost the PS primaries vs Segolene Royal. Should he reach the second round of these elections, he would crush Royal and could even be a problem for Sarkozy (if socialist voters prefer barring Sarko to abstention).
Segolene Royal is not a moderate reformer. She is neither conservative nor reformist. She is an ambitious person used to follow charismatic leaders and has some trouble turning into a charismatic leader radiating with her own views. She keeps putting all opinions at the same level and refusing to take any clear position. As expected and despite a massive victory in the socialist primaries (60%), Royal proved unable to get full support from her own party. A couple of days ago, a group of VIMs from the left (Very Important Women) were considering a petition to call for her withdrawal from the presidential race - just to make sure this wouldn't be interpreted as yet another proof of France's reactionnary machismo (anytime Royal is under attack, she bites with the issue back).
Bayrou may be closing the gap, Royal is still far ahead of the centrist candidate and she still has a large and motivated core of supporters. But she flunked last week-end's exam, introducing a program that didn't really prove disruptive... but for the national budget. A copycat of Mitterrand's 1981 program, which led that man to the top job but the country to the bottom : a massive budget deficit, a big financial crisis and a total loss of international competitivity at a critical moment. Eric Besson, the man in charge of the financial side of Royal program, timely decided to quit after a clash with Francois Holland, secretary general of the PS and Sego's longtime compagnon.
Right now, Sarkozy enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But he has also been trapped into a lousy campaign where everybody promises everything to everyone. Even Bayrou, the apostle of budget orthodoxy, claims a 20 billion Euros program.
Ten years ago, France was ahead of Germany in its reforms. But the PM, Alain Juppe, went too far too quick, and Chirac (not so wisely advised by Villepin) decided to dissolve the assembly. The PS won the 1997 elections and Lionel Jospin surfed on the internet bubble years to post nice growth rates, but also to reform the country the wrong way (more spendings and the mother of all mistakes ; the 35-hour Week). Chirac won again in 2002 but limited new reforms to cautious steps when his neighbor Gerhard Schroeder would take all the risks. Schroeder lost to Merkel but Germany is now much fitter than France to face future challenges.
Here's the new deal for France : an economic breakdown with Segolene Royal, a political gamble with Nicolas Sarkozy. Should Francois Bayrou win next May, he would have the opportunity to form a new party with socialist and UMP moderate reformers. Instead of going down by turning right or left, France must try to go and grow up.
Reformers from the PS have more in common with reformers from the UMP than with their fellow party members stuck somewhere in the middle of the XIXth Century. Sarkozy and fellow reformers have successfuly sidelined traditional conservatives within their own ranks - a minority of harmless old farts snoring all day long at the Senate.
I'm sure the French economy would perform well with Nicolas Sarkozy, but I'm rather scared by his attacks on secular legislations and his ability to fuel radicalism and fundamentalism. I don't quite like the idea of this man enjoying the support of both US and Israeli fundamentalists and neocons, and even the presence of a Karl Rove wannabe on his side, Brice Hortefeux.
I'd rather see a more moderate kind of reformer rule the country. Francois Bayrou (UDF) has a clear opening since Dominique Strauss-Kahn lost the PS primaries vs Segolene Royal. Should he reach the second round of these elections, he would crush Royal and could even be a problem for Sarkozy (if socialist voters prefer barring Sarko to abstention).
Segolene Royal is not a moderate reformer. She is neither conservative nor reformist. She is an ambitious person used to follow charismatic leaders and has some trouble turning into a charismatic leader radiating with her own views. She keeps putting all opinions at the same level and refusing to take any clear position. As expected and despite a massive victory in the socialist primaries (60%), Royal proved unable to get full support from her own party. A couple of days ago, a group of VIMs from the left (Very Important Women) were considering a petition to call for her withdrawal from the presidential race - just to make sure this wouldn't be interpreted as yet another proof of France's reactionnary machismo (anytime Royal is under attack, she bites with the issue back).
Bayrou may be closing the gap, Royal is still far ahead of the centrist candidate and she still has a large and motivated core of supporters. But she flunked last week-end's exam, introducing a program that didn't really prove disruptive... but for the national budget. A copycat of Mitterrand's 1981 program, which led that man to the top job but the country to the bottom : a massive budget deficit, a big financial crisis and a total loss of international competitivity at a critical moment. Eric Besson, the man in charge of the financial side of Royal program, timely decided to quit after a clash with Francois Holland, secretary general of the PS and Sego's longtime compagnon.
Right now, Sarkozy enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But he has also been trapped into a lousy campaign where everybody promises everything to everyone. Even Bayrou, the apostle of budget orthodoxy, claims a 20 billion Euros program.
Ten years ago, France was ahead of Germany in its reforms. But the PM, Alain Juppe, went too far too quick, and Chirac (not so wisely advised by Villepin) decided to dissolve the assembly. The PS won the 1997 elections and Lionel Jospin surfed on the internet bubble years to post nice growth rates, but also to reform the country the wrong way (more spendings and the mother of all mistakes ; the 35-hour Week). Chirac won again in 2002 but limited new reforms to cautious steps when his neighbor Gerhard Schroeder would take all the risks. Schroeder lost to Merkel but Germany is now much fitter than France to face future challenges.
Here's the new deal for France : an economic breakdown with Segolene Royal, a political gamble with Nicolas Sarkozy. Should Francois Bayrou win next May, he would have the opportunity to form a new party with socialist and UMP moderate reformers. Instead of going down by turning right or left, France must try to go and grow up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
