French General Elections!

[raphael123]

Anyone been following it?

An 85% turn-out - a clear sign that politics actually mean something over there! I think it's because the two main parties are so completely different. It's something I've mentioned in other topics, that Tories and Labour, the two main parties in the UK are too similar, with only slight differences in their policies, hence why I'd change my vote dependent on my personal circumstances, as Tories and Labour have pretty much the same ideas.

Going to the 2 potential presidents, Sarkozy and Royal - I'm divided. Maybe I don't know enough on the two to make a fully educated decision as to who I'd vote for, but Sarkozy seems to be the right man, who would restore law and order definately, and be tough on immigrants. Royal's ideas are idealistic, but whether they are realistic I'm not sure. Also, would she have the inner strength to carry out what she is saying - to me, she doesn't seem tough enough, and would be viewed as a bit of a soft touch. Royal being the mummy who tries to tell you to tidy your room, but the kid doesn't do it until his dad comes home and forces him (The dad being Sarkozy).

What does everyone make of these elections, and the candidates? :)

[BDunnell]

I hate the idea of Sarkozy winning, and I don't think he will. He has played consistently on the latent racism of many voters.

[raphael123]

I hate the idea of Sarkozy winning, and I don't think he will. He has played consistently on the latent racism of many voters.

Is that the reason you hate the idea of Sarkozy winning?

I think France needs someone like Sarkozy in power to try and control the 'racaille', even if it does end up in him being accused of being a racist. However we've seen how the 'soft touch' approach has worked in this country regarding immigrants! And it hasn't exactly made Blair and our government popular. I think Royal wouldn't be tough enough.

However I agree, I don't think Sarkozy will get through. I think the people who are more central, will now go for Royal, as Sarkozy may be seen as 'too extreme' in comparison to Royal.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I hate the idea of Sarkozy winning, and I don't think he will. He has played consistently on the latent racism of many voters.

Wheere have you found racism here, I wonder. Sarkozy is a perfect material for racism himself being half Jewish, half Hungarian. I don't see much racism in trying to discipline urban scum regardless of their ethnic origin. Somebody who sells drugs and set cars ablaze, instead of trying to inegrate into the society like his parents did, clearly deserves some slapping.

On the other hand, Royale is too idealistic. I understand her nostalgia for old good times when everybody had a job and the welfare was functioning perfectly, but those days are gone and the system is no longer sustainable. Her program translated into plain language is going on with your capuccino in face of a coming flood.

[raphael123]

Wheere have you found racism here, I wonder. Sarkozy is a perfect material for racism himself being half Jewish, half Hungarian. I don't see much racism in trying to discipline urban scum regardless of their ethnic origin. Somebody who sells drugs and set cars ablaze, instead of trying to inegrate into the society like his parents did, clearly deserves some slapping.

On the other hand, Royale is too idealistic. I understand her nostalgia for old good times when everybody had a job and the welfare was functioning perfectly, but those days are gone and the system is no longer sustainable. Her program translated into plain language is going on with your capuccino in face of a coming flood.

I couldn't have put it more perfectly! Regarding law and order, and his stance on immigrants, Sarkozy is spot on (in my eyes!), however his other policies on the economy etc, and working hours, I'm not 100% sure on, however maybe I just haven't read up enough on it.

However his views on immigrants and law and order are his biggest claim to fame so far in his political career.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It's because anyone who is conservative is obviously racist :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

I didn't say directly racist, I referred to his exploitation of latent racism which does exist in many people. I mean, I don't see people in the UK being concerned about white Australians and South Africans moving here in large numbers.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I didn't say directly racist, I referred to his exploitation of latent racism which does exist in many people. I mean, I don't see people in the UK being concerned about white Australians and South Africans moving here in large numbers.

It is not the race that matters. It is a certain set of values and a code of behaviour. Education and wealth matter, too. Nobody would mind an African doctor, a South Asian computer man or an Arab bussinessman who get along with the locals and generate their income by legitimate means. On the other hand, who needs a perfectly white and Christian East European, who is a pimp or just a welfare eater?

[raphael123]

Well said Rudy.

On a slightly different note, I noticed people jumping to racism conclusion regarding Lewis Hamiltons nick name, someone said something like Black Speed. Straight away someone said 'oh no I don't think we should use that word' - why should people assume it's meant negatively? Maybe it shows their views on racism! It shouldn't be viewed as anything different than e.g. The Flying Finn, unless your in the belief that being black is something to be ashamed of.

Anyway, sorry, that's slightly off topic from the french elections, but as the discussion is on Sarkozy and the fact some regard him as a racist, I think it's relevant. It's not all about race, it's about whether someone from a country like Pakistan etc cultures allows them to fit into the UK's/France culture, and if not, are they prepared to compromise? If not, you shouldn't go there in the first place.

[Malbec]

I think France needs someone like Sarkozy in power to try and control the 'racaille', even if it does end up in him being accused of being a racist. However we've seen how the 'soft touch' approach has worked in this country regarding immigrants!

So, will Sarkozy cut both ways and move to reduce the amount of racism, particularly with respect to employment, that exists in French society?

What is the definition of an immigrant? If you're referring to the rioters in the banlieue (sp?), most of them were 2nd/3rd generation Frenchmen who were brought up that they would receive equal treatment by society and have found anything but. 300,000 Algerians and Moroccans fought and risked their lives to liberate their motherland from German occupation in WW2. Don't their descendants have the right to be referred to as something other than 'immigrant'? Isn't the French failure to view them as anything other than immigrants part of the problem?

From my position across the English channel I would prefer a French president who is willing to streamline the French economy, even if its just a little. I'd also prefer a president willing to address both urban deprivation and also the racism that many French of African descent face head on.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sarkozy might be the last hope for France, because people like Royal would ignore the problems by offering up more policy of the same vein that has the French economy slowing, immigration issues festering and of course, the Republic being surpassed economically and politically by the Germans and the UK within the EU.

France has lot of issues that will kill their nation's potential for the way of life they want, and they have all roots in socialism and the misguided idea that you can regulate the human condition. Well, France cant, no more than any other nation, and if they don't elect Sarkozy, things will just slowly get worse.

Gotta like that 85% turnout. It proves at least the French are not jaded or not involved in politics, unlike over here in Canada or the US where the turnouts are between 60 and 75% for most national votes...

[BDunnell]

So, will Sarkozy cut both ways and move to reduce the amount of racism, particularly with respect to employment, that exists in French society?

What is the definition of an immigrant? If you're referring to the rioters in the banlieue (sp?), most of them were 2nd/3rd generation Frenchmen who were brought up that they would receive equal treatment by society and have found anything but. 300,000 Algerians and Moroccans fought and risked their lives to liberate their motherland from German occupation in WW2. Don't their descendants have the right to be referred to as something other than 'immigrant'? Isn't the French failure to view them as anything other than immigrants part of the problem?

From my position across the English channel I would prefer a French president who is willing to streamline the French economy, even if its just a little. I'd also prefer a president willing to address both urban deprivation and also the racism that many French of African descent face head on.

Me too. The problems of the suburbs of French cities are rather more complex than just being anti-social behaviour. I have more faith in a government led by someone like Royal to deal with these underlying factors in an appropriate manner than a Sarkozy regime. Don't forget that Jean-Marie le Pen gave Sarkozy's policies something of an endorsement during the camapign.

[BDunnell]

It is not the race that matters. It is a certain set of values and a code of behaviour. Education and wealth matter, too. Nobody would mind an African doctor, a South Asian computer man or an Arab bussinessman who get along with the locals and generate their income by legitimate means. On the other hand, who needs a perfectly white and Christian East European, who is a pimp or just a welfare eater?

In the UK, the 'debate' on this subject often comes down to people objecting to the sheer numbers of immigrants coming in. I doubt most of those who object to this give much thought as to the individuals behind the numbers.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dunnell, if you think it is only on the numbers of individuals, I suspect you are in a minority. I am sure it grates on many native born UK citizens to see massive numbers of Muslims come to Britain to flaunt their religion and defiance to fit into a British culture. It is a natural backlash and it is happening in France, Germany, Canada and anywhere else where Muslim's arrive and a select few refuse to do anything but tell us how they will not assilimlate and they would like to make our nations muslim. IT is the hothead minority of this group that raises the most hackles and it has done so from what I have read in many nations.

France is on the front lines of this, for over 10% of their population now is of the Muslim faith, and many of the Arab immigrants have their roots in deep, not to mention the Algerians and the Morrocans who have been there for 2 or 3 generations and are still not accepted as "French". Until France gets a grip on what they want from their Muslim Minority, either outright equality with a blind eye to religion, or they continue to put down their religious freedoms in the secular machinery of government, then they will have issues. Again, the hotheads will stir the pot. The riots of the unemployed and militant Muslim minority were perpertrated not by the greater group of Muslims, who are just trying to make a new life, but the hotheads. The fact that the French have let things fester this long shows once again their inability to read what is happening in the bosom of the nation.

Sarkozy, unlike that idiot LePen seems to grasp this, and unlike Royal, will try a new tack on dealing with the problem. The Socialists created the mess, so why would anyone in France think they will change their message and actions now? I have only read what is going on from a afar in the Canadian media, but I do think the French cannot continue on the course they are on now....

[borderpatrolguy2007]

Dunnell, if you think it is only on the numbers of individuals, I suspect you are in a minority. I am sure it grates on many native born UK citizens to see massive numbers of Muslims come to Britain to flaunt their religion and defiance to fit into a British culture. It is a natural backlash and it is happening in France, Germany, Canada and anywhere else where Muslim's arrive and a select few refuse to do anything but tell us how they will not assilimlate and they would like to make our nations muslim. IT is the hothead minority of this group that raises the most hackles and it has done so from what I have read in many nations.

France is on the front lines of this, for over 10% of their population now is of the Muslim faith, and many of the Arab immigrants have their roots in deep, not to mention the Algerians and the Morrocans who have been there for 2 or 3 generations and are still not accepted as "French". Until France gets a grip on what they want from their Muslim Minority, either outright equality with a blind eye to religion, or they continue to put down their religious freedoms in the secular machinery of government, then they will have issues. Again, the hotheads will stir the pot. The riots of the unemployed and militant Muslim minority were perpertrated not by the greater group of Muslims, who are just trying to make a new life, but the hotheads. The fact that the French have let things fester this long shows once again their inability to read what is happening in the bosom of the nation.



Mark -

As a US Border Patrol agent I see this on a daily basis. Everything you've noted above are issues the US currently faces only replace Muslims with Hispanics, particularly Mexicans (even then many Muslims cross into the US border). While I openly welcome anyone into our country, the US has a system in place by which these people can enter the nation legally. Right now, the number of illegal aliens entering the US is reaching epic proportions (and thats not including those entering with illegal/terrorist intent).

[BDunnell]

Dunnell, if you think it is only on the numbers of individuals, I suspect you are in a minority. I am sure it grates on many native born UK citizens to see massive numbers of Muslims come to Britain to flaunt their religion and defiance to fit into a British culture.

I agree that I am probably in a minority. This is because I believe most people are entirely wrong to be concerned. I do not feel in any sense threatened by immigration, nor that I am being done out of anything that I would otherwise have if immigration didn't occur on its present scale. I do not live in some 'ivory tower', nor am I any less of a hard-working person than all of the 'hard-working' people we are often told are concerned about such things. Much of the language used in relation to immigration in the UK is deeply inflammatory, and I detest this.


IT is the hothead minority of this group that raises the most hackles and it has done so from what I have read in many nations.

Far too many people equate, for instance, everyone who is a Muslim with this minority. Politicians such as Sarkozy and his ilk do little or nothing to dispel this. This is what makes me most angry.


France is on the front lines of this, for over 10% of their population now is of the Muslim faith, and many of the Arab immigrants have their roots in deep, not to mention the Algerians and the Morrocans who have been there for 2 or 3 generations and are still not accepted as "French". Until France gets a grip on what they want from their Muslim Minority, either outright equality with a blind eye to religion, or they continue to put down their religious freedoms in the secular machinery of government, then they will have issues. Again, the hotheads will stir the pot. The riots of the unemployed and militant Muslim minority were perpertrated not by the greater group of Muslims, who are just trying to make a new life, but the hotheads. The fact that the French have let things fester this long shows once again their inability to read what is happening in the bosom of the nation.

I do not believe that the left has an absolute monopoly on good ideas on how to deal with situations such as this, any more than I believe that the right has an absolute monopoly on bad ideas. These are immensely complex issues of religion, nationality, culture and many other factors that ought to transcend party lines. However, I believe that a politician such as Royal is more likely to take a more thoughtful approach to these problems than a populist right-winger like Sarkozy.

And I would be interested to know where you get your idea that all of France's current problems stem from the policies Socialist governments comes from. I suspect that the real answer to these problems lies rather deeper than this, as such things always do.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I feel France's problems come from socialist governments because they have been in power basically for at least the last two to three terms. Mitterand was a socialist, and while Chirac isn't, the PM and the government essentially has. Their immigration policy and their economic policies (no one can work more than 35 hours a week!) are socialist in nature. IT hasn't been a raving bunch of right wing reactionary people running France Ben, they are what they are. They need to change the direction of the ship, it really is that simple. I am not saying all their problems are solved, I too think running a country doesn't come with a handy manual of instructions and simple solutions, but they cant keep living like they are now. Their economy is lagging behind many others in Europe, not to mention Canada, US and Austraila in terms of growth and potential. France is a great nation saddled with an orthodoxy of ideas that have clogged its arteries. Unlike the UK, who has found a good balance of ideas between the left and right, France has been governed essentially from the left.....

[raphael123]

I can completely understand the people who are wary of Sarkozy, however for those people who have lived in France, or spent any large amount of time there, I think would get a greater understanding of why Sarkozy is so popular due to his tough image on cracking down on immigrants and criminals. While I tend to agree with what Royal says, at the end of the day it is hugely idealisitc, and I doubt very much whether it would work when put into practice. It also seems to me that she is an opportunist, who will say whatever is needed to get more votes, even if it means compromising her initial stance on things, which suggests she's not as tough as she wants to make out. She has already stated she wants to negotiate with Bayrou to try and capture his votes, while Sarkozy has refused to compromise his politic stance on things - which suggests he will carry it out, even if there are strikes etc, which the french always seem to resort to when they don't like soemthing!

I think it is now time for a tough line approach to combat rising inner city crimes and tackle the immigrants problem over there. I know there are some regions in France, just 4-5yrs ago, that the police would simply not step foot inside due to the fact it was just too dangerous! Then Sarkozy later simply sent in tanks etc to sort it out! I think that's the approach that is needed - a tough line approach. Not the 'well, lets try and find out WHY they are misbehaving in the first place'. If you take a leniant approach, people won't be scared of committing the crimes.

As for the UK, I'm not sure why some seem to think people object to the number rather than the individual. Though the amount of immigrants is a factor for most people in the UK I'm sure, I don't think anyone objects to immigrants who fit into the culture, and make a contribution to the welfare of the country. I think people don't like it when people from a completely different culture move here, and rather than try and fit in, simply form a sub culture, which tend to clash. Some people ask 'well...why should they try and fit?!', but I'm firmly in the belief that when your living in a country with a different culture, it's your responsibility to make an effort to fit in, and if your religion doesn't allow you to do that, you should stay in a country where you can fit in. The same applies to when you go round someone's house, if you have to take your shoes off at a guests house, then you do it, even if you don't do so at home.

Anyway, I hope the French public go out and vote Sarkozy in - I think that is what is needed more so than Royal. However I think the Bayrou voters will tend to vote for Royal, due to her being less extreme than Sarkozy.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Anyway, I hope the French public go out and vote Sarkozy in - I think that is what is needed more so than Royal. However I think the Bayrou voters will tend to vote for Royal, due to her being less extreme than Sarkozy.

O tempora, o mores! How far this world has gone to the left, if we speak of a moderately rightist politician as somebody extreme! He is no more extreme than Tony Blair, IMHO.

[raphael123]

I think Sarkozy is more extreme regarding law and order, and immigrants - in comparison to Tony Blair. I think Blair is closer to the centre than Sarkozy.

Tho I agree Sarkozy isn't really that extreme, though as a UK resident, it is extreme when you compare him our supposedly right wing party the Tories! I suppose it's dependent on your political parties in your country as to what is regarded as extreme.

[BDunnell]

I think it is now time for a tough line approach to combat rising inner city crimes and tackle the immigrants problem over there. I know there are some regions in France, just 4-5yrs ago, that the police would simply not step foot inside due to the fact it was just too dangerous! Then Sarkozy later simply sent in tanks etc to sort it out! I think that's the approach that is needed - a tough line approach. Not the 'well, lets try and find out WHY they are misbehaving in the first place'.

I find the simplicity of your argument absolutely staggering. Of course you need to understand why the problems are occurring in the first place. You cannot keep putting tanks on the streets. It may deal with the problems in the short term, and impress people such as yourself as an example of someone 'cracking down', but longer-term, the social and economic problems of these areas have to be tackled. There is no question of that.

[raphael123]

It seems to be working now. Police can go in the area and at least attempt to police the area these days, which wasn't possible before. And I don't think I've stated that Sarkozy wouldn't try to tackle social and economic problems did I? I just used that example of the hard line he's taken on tackling crime so far, and I think it's the way forward to get everyone into line. This is what has made him popular in the first place, he's listening to the majority of the people's concern, and promising to tackle youth yob behaviour etc. The fact the french voted Le Pen into the second round in the last elections shows how fed up people are of the left's soft approach to immigrants and criminals.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and find why the problem is occuring in the first place. But how exactly do you suggest we do that? Do you think Royal would ever send in tanks to sort out the mess? It's highly highly unlikely! So at the moment there would still be parts of France with no police to instill law and order, while sociologists try and find why these thugs are robbing old ladies, killing each other, theiving etc. At least now there is some sort of order, while people discuss about why people are committing crimes etc in the first place.

I'd be interested in hearing how you suggest they find out what is the cause in the first place, and then how they go about solving that? Sometimes people ignore the obvious - people will always push the boundaries, so if you scare people from pushing the boundaries they won't. If they know they won't get away with it, they won't do it. I know that if I would get caught discussing this during work hours, I wouldn't do it, but I know the chances are I never will, so I do.

This reminds me of the Iraq discussion. All those people who were saying the troops should pull out because the war was wrong etc - they are correct it was wrong, but I must have asked 3 or 4 times - ok, so who would replace the coalitian troops, who would keep law and order there?! No one had an answer, and no one even attempted to either.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying we shouldn't try and find why the problem is occuring in the first place.

Er... yes, you did.


I'm not saying we shouldn't try and find why the problem is occuring in the first place. But how exactly do you suggest we do that? Do you think Royal would ever send in tanks to sort out the mess? It's highly highly unlikely! So at the moment there would still be parts of France with no police to instill law and order, while sociologists try and find why these thugs are robbing old ladies, killing each other, theiving etc. At least now there is some sort of order, while people discuss about why people are committing crimes etc in the first place.

I'd be interested in hearing how you suggest they find out what is the cause in the first place, and then how they go about solving that?

People far more expert than I in this field would have to go about it. I would imagine that there are issues relating to education, the economic circumstances of families, living conditions and many other factors, all of which can be tackled and have to be if successive generations are not to experience the same problems over and over again.

[raphael123]

People far more expert than I in this field would have to go about it. I would imagine that there are issues relating to education, the economic circumstances of families, living conditions and many other factors, all of which can be tackled and have to be if successive generations are not to experience the same problems over and over again.

Tackling all these problems, so we live in a perfect world is completely unrealistic. I'm sure if all 60m had perfect living condition, a perfect education, lived in a cereal packet family, had the same economic background, then no one would feel the need to commit crimes. But that's not possible.

It's all well trying to aim for perfection, but we're so far away from that, you got to tackle these problems with ways which shall make a difference. Just trying to find out why these thugs are mugging and killing each other isn't really going to make too much of a difference, especially when all you'll find out is it's impossible to solve it.

I think France need a realist, not an idealist. Someone who will sort these people out even if it's through scare tactics. It's not like these are people are innocent, if scare tactics have to be used, and reasonable force - so be it. It'll be the innocent law abiding citizens who profit!

[BDunnell]

Tackling all these problems, so we live in a perfect world is completely unrealistic. I'm sure if all 60m had perfect living condition, a perfect education, lived in a cereal packet family, had the same economic background, then no one would feel the need to commit crimes. But that's not possible.

It's all well trying to aim for perfection, but we're so far away from that, you got to tackle these problems with ways which shall make a difference. Just trying to find out why these thugs are mugging and killing each other isn't really going to make too much of a difference, especially when all you'll find out is it's impossible to solve it.

I think France need a realist, not an idealist. Someone who will sort these people out even if it's through scare tactics. It's not like these are people are innocent, if scare tactics have to be used, and reasonable force - so be it. It'll be the innocent law abiding citizens who profit!

It is possible to be a realist and still tackle the underlying problems. There is no reason to give up on doing so. I feel it is far more important. Still, I am aware from previous discussions that you view things along simple lines of good and bad and that anything beyond that isn't worth thinking about, so I'm not surprised by your opinion.

[raphael123]

It is possible to be a realist and still tackle the underlying problems. There is no reason to give up on doing so. I feel it is far more important. Still, I am aware from previous discussions that you view things along simple lines of good and bad and that anything beyond that isn't worth thinking about, so I'm not surprised by your opinion.

I actually agree with that - 'It is possible to be a realist and still tackle the underlying problems. There is no reason to give up on doing so'.

And if I thought Royal would be a realist, and at the same time tackle the underlying problems as she says she would, I would support her. However from what I gather, she wouldn't be as tough as Sarkozy is proposing, and would concentrate most on finding the causes, while in the mean time the law abiders suffer.

I would rather someone who came in, and even if their main emphasis wasn't on finding out the causes of why these people are comitting crimes (which would be almost impossible to solve anyway - or take 100 and 1000 of years!), tackled the criminals head on. So far, in regions where Sarkozy has used this approach, the situation has been improving.

I don't think that's me seeing things in black and white. I appreciate the grey area's. I think our opinions simply differ on how France's crime and order problems should be tackled. Sometimes we just have to accept people have different opinions on how these things should be tackled. It doesn't necessarily mean one of us is being simplistic in the way we are thinking about it. I think it's even slightly arrogant for someone to assume that someone who has a different opinion must not be looking at the full picture.

I guess we'll soon find out which way the French think is the best. I hope Sarkozy is given his chance, but I agree with you that Royal will probably come out victorious.

[BDunnell]

I actually agree with that - 'It is possible to be a realist and still tackle the underlying problems. There is no reason to give up on doing so'.

And if I thought Royal would be a realist, and at the same time tackle the underlying problems as she says she would, I would support her. However from what I gather, she wouldn't be as tough as Sarkozy is proposing, and would concentrate most on finding the causes, while in the mean time the law abiders suffer.

I would rather someone who came in, and even if their main emphasis wasn't on finding out the causes of why these people are comitting crimes (which would be almost impossible to solve anyway - or take 100 and 1000 of years!), tackled the criminals head on. So far, in regions where Sarkozy has used this approach, the situation has been improving.

I don't think that's me seeing things in black and white. I appreciate the grey area's. I think our opinions simply differ on how France's crime and order problems should be tackled. Sometimes we just have to accept people have different opinions on how these things should be tackled. It doesn't necessarily mean one of us is being simplistic in the way we are thinking about it. I think it's even slightly arrogant for someone to assume that someone who has a different opinion must not be looking at the full picture.

I guess we'll soon find out which way the French think is the best. I hope Sarkozy is given his chance, but I agree with you that Royal will probably come out victorious.

Fair enough. :up:

[raphael123]

Good result. BDunnell and I were wrong to predict Royal. I really did expect Royal to surge ahead in the 2nd round, thinking the voters of Bayrou (and there was 6m of them!) would go for Royal over Sarkozy.

I think the french public have voted correctly though definately! :up:

[BDunnell]

I think the french public have voted correctly though definately! :up:

I disagree, but what's done is done. Hopefully Sarkozy will realise that he has to be a unifying figure, otherwise many of the problems could only get worse. Being a hard-liner can only get him so far.

[raphael123]

I think he has credibility and you can trust him, in that he doesn't change his opinion all the time in the way Royal does. And his policies encouraging people to take responsibility for their own lifes is a good thing I think. His views on law and order, and his reputation for being a hard-case was definately a factor in his victory. People want someone to control these thugs and 'racaille' as he put it, and he's only the candidate who has offered to do so.

Being a softie like Royal definately isn't what France needed.

[Roamy]

Viva le France

[Gannex]

All you have talked about in this thread is Sarkozy's tough stance on law and order. But Sarkozy's approach to law and order is only a small part of what he stands for. He is for dismantling, as far as possible, the restrictive rules of economic life in France, the requirement that no one may work more than 35 hours, the right to strike without a ballot, and indefinitely, the generous unemployment payments that are given to people who have repeatedly refused offers of jobs -- these anti-competitive strands of the French way of doing things are what he intends to reverse.

This French way of doing things has severely limited France's progress in the last two decades. Other freer nations, like Britain, have surged ahead. So, in my view, Sarkozy is in France's best interests, regardless of whether or not he will be tough on law and order issues. The fact is that if the economy improves as a result of Sarkozy's right-of-centre economic policies, the lot of the underclass, and the unemployment rate will also improve. You won't need to be tough on law and order if the people in the poorest neighbourhoods start getting jobs and decent prospects.

There is one policy of Sarkozy's, however, that I cannot accept, and that is his insistence that Turkey's application to join the EU be rejected permanently. That is, to my mind, utter madness. Here is a Muslim country that, as a matter of national policy, rejects extremist Islam and political Islam, and emphatically embraces the moderate, peaceful version of the religion, the version of the religion that we, in the West, claim to want to bolster and strengthen, and Sarkozy says "Non!". Utter madness. It just gives credence to the belief that Muslims will never be accepted by the West, even if they do reject extremism -- the mere fact that they are Muslim makes them unacceptable. It gives credence, in other words, to the claim that the West is indeed determined to crush Islam.

But apart from that huge policy mistake, I support Sarkozy!!!

[Tomi]

There is one policy of Sarkozy's, however, that I cannot accept, and that is his insistence that Turkey's application to join the EU be rejected permanently. That is, to my mind, utter madness. Here is a Muslim country that, as a matter of national policy, rejects extremist Islam and political Islam, and emphatically embraces the moderate, peaceful version of the religion, the version of the religion that we, in the West, claim to want to bolster and strengthen, and Sarkozy says "Non!". Utter madness. It just gives credence to the belief that Muslims will never be accepted by the West, even if they do reject extremism -- the mere fact that they are Muslim makes them unacceptable. It gives credence, in other words, to the claim that the West is indeed determined to crush Islam.

But apart from that huge policy mistake, I support Sarkozy!!!

Well I'm not so sure that he is against Turkeys membership, but it's a good way to lick the extreme right to get votes, it's easy to say you are against something if you actually will not be around to deside about the issue when it counts.
It will take atleast 10-12 years until Turkey can meet the standards needed to become a member, by then Sarkozy is the past already.

[BDunnell]

The fact is that if the economy improves as a result of Sarkozy's right-of-centre economic policies, the lot of the underclass, and the unemployment rate will also improve. You won't need to be tough on law and order if the people in the poorest neighbourhoods start getting jobs and decent prospects.

Of course, but if he turns out to be a 'French Thatcher', as he has been described, the poorest neighbourhoods won't benefit much.

[Gannex]

Of course, but if he turns out to be a 'French Thatcher', as he has been described, the poorest neighbourhoods won't benefit much.

Au contraire, my friend. When Thatcher came to power, the unions dominated the British economy, bullied the British working classes, ensured that their members were well taken care of, though it meant that the rest of the country, the non-unionised especially, lived a pauper's life.

Thatcher, however, destroyed the power of the unions, lifted the burden of feather-bedding union members from the shoulders of the rest of the nation, enabled council-house tenants to become homeowners, eliminated the burden of subsidising the nationalised industries, and presided over an explosion of productivity and wealth in the United Kingdom.

Before Thatcher, the average working Briton struggled to make ends meet; now, the average man and woman in this country takes one or two holidays a year to sunny climes, owns a car, a home, one or two colour televisions, a computer, and a host of other gadgets and gizmos that pre-Thatcherite Britons could only dream of owning.

To say that Thatcher was not good for the poor is to fly in the face of the fact that today, as a result of her unshackling of the British economy, the British working class is far, far richer than it ever was in the time before Thatcher's reign.

It is to be hoped that Sarkozy can do for the French, what Thatcher did for the British.


Well I'm not so sure that he is against Turkeys membership. . .
He has stated categorically that he will do all in his power to prevent Turkey from ever gaining admission to the EU.

[SOD]

Sarky sparked the riots in 2005. so much for law & order.

the media was heavily biased, they made Sarky out to look presidential.

you get what you vote for.

that being said, don't expect the French Foreign Legion to enter baghdad anytime soon.

[BrentJackson]

That election is one that will make a difference in Europe. What sort of difference that makes will depend on Sarkozy's resolve.

Royal versus Sarkozy is certainly a difference of ideas. Sarkozy is an avowed socialist, Sarkozy believes more vin capitalism doing its work but is not a harder capitalist like say, Margaret Thatcher. Sarkozy has to figure out what Thatcher did and how to do it - chop the big, slow bureaucracy down to size and make it easier for both the employers and the workforce. Can he do it? I sure hope so.

The issue over national identity is one where Royal could have used more as a weapon. It's not well known, but Segolene Royal IS an African - born and raised for part of her life in Senegal. Sarkozy has read a bit too much from Le Pen's playbook - the "proud to be French" line that Le Pen plays so much off of is a slogan that could be used as a unifier, but Le Pen is a racist and of course limits "French" to whites, and has openly said millions of French citizens should be deported. Sarkozy isn't going to go anywhere near that far, but he has to figure out the problems faced by immigrants to France, and preferably without the chicken little BS that many Europeans believe in, especially concerning Muslims.

On that topic, if Muslims in the West want a secure future their gonna have rat out the s**t-disturbers. Europe is already getting Islamophobic rather quickly, and that problem has obviously made it was to Australia - witness the Cronulla riots - and will get to North America eventually. I don't believe for a second that Muslims are in the West to cause a ruckus, but some of them are and those guys either got gotta get beaten down or they may all pay for it. Every 7/7 makes the hands of people like Le Pen and Nick Griffin that much stronger.

The debate over Turkey joining the EU is an area where Sarkozy might want to change his tune, but that goes towards the issue I just mentioned about Islamophobia. Turkey right now is having a rough time because its current leadership candidates were once Islamists and their opponents say that Turkey's secularism is part of their identity. I am one who is very glad they are rejecting political Islam, and the West should do absolutely everything they possibly can to encourage other nations to follow Turkey's example. And admitting them to the European Union would be a big carrot, especially if they are ble to meet the criteria, and truth be told, they have been trying to emulate Europe since Ataturk post-WWI.

Good luck Nicolas, go make your mark.

Sego, you got a golden opportunity here to show you can work with him. You would be advised to take it, and being an African yourself, would also be smart to be a bridge-builder between the immigrants and France. Good luck to you too.

[janvanvurpa]

Before Thatcher, the average working Briton struggled to make ends meet; now, the average man and woman in this country takes one or two holidays a year to sunny climes, owns a car, a home, one or two colour televisions, a computer, and a host of other gadgets and gizmos that pre-Thatcherite Britons could only dream of owning.

And from what I read in your papers, they are doing all that on barrowed money. Britian, like USA, lives on debt averaging about 5% annual income.

[Mark]

Before Thatcher, the average working Briton struggled to make ends meet; now, the average man and woman in this country takes one or two holidays a year to sunny climes, owns a car, a home, one or two colour televisions, a computer, and a host of other gadgets and gizmos that pre-Thatcherite Britons could only dream of owning.


As they do in France too, without Thatchers help. All countries have progressed since the 1970's.

[Daniel]

As they do in France too, without Thatchers help. All countries have progressed since the 1970's.
I should mention that it was also the same in Australia in the 70's.

[SOD]

That election is one that will make a difference in Europe. What sort of difference that makes will depend on Sarkozy's resolve.

Royal versus Sarkozy is certainly a difference of ideas. Sarkozy is an avowed socialist, Sarkozy believes more vin capitalism doing its work but is not a harder capitalist like say, Margaret Thatcher. Sarkozy has to figure out what Thatcher did and how to do it - chop the big, slow bureaucracy down to size and make it easier for both the employers and the workforce. Can he do it? I sure hope so.

The professor of recent history take a bow. How many of the Steel, automotive industries that Thatcher took on are still around in th UK today?

Thatcher killed off manufacturing and replaced the jobs with finance jobs.

[BrentJackson]

I should mention that it was also the same in Australia in the 70's.

Canada too. Britain had Harold Wilson, Australia had Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, we had Pierre Trudeau. Not exactly the best leaders in the world in this pack, huh?

[BrentJackson]

The professor of recent history take a bow. How many of the Steel, automotive industries that Thatcher took on are still around in th UK today?

Thatcher killed off manufacturing and replaced the jobs with finance jobs.

Manufacturing just about everywhere in the Western World is falling apart. I'm one who lost my job as a result of that.

Part of the reason the British Auto industry fell apart was crap cars. Let's be honest here, some of the stuff BL built in the 1970s was total and complete garbage.

[SOD]

Manufacturing just about everywhere in the Western World is falling apart. I'm one who lost my job as a result of that.

Part of the reason the British Auto industry fell apart was crap cars. Let's be honest here, some of the stuff BL built in the 1970s was total and complete garbage.

At BL:

one day a manager was asleep when a VIP had arrived to meet him.

"sorry you cannot meet the manager until he wakes up"

the intercompany rivary didn't help either.

[Gannex]

How many of the Steel, automotive industries that Thatcher took on are still around in th UK today?

Thatcher killed off manufacturing and replaced the jobs with finance jobs.

No. It was the industrial development of the Far East that killed off manufacturing in Europe. It is fortunate that the British economy, whose loss of manufacturing was inevitable (who could possibly compete with Chinese production costs?), was led away from manufacturing by Thatcher, toward a knowledge-based economy. Britain now lives off its brains, not its muscle, and that's the way it should be.


Part of the reason the British Auto industry fell apart was crap cars. Let's be honest here, some of the stuff BL built in the 1970s was total and complete garbage.
Agreed. They built the kind of product that only a nationalised or heavily subsidised industry could get away with.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

No. It was the industrial development of the Far East that killed off manufacturing in Europe. It is fortunate that the British economy, whose loss of manufacturing was inevitable (who could possibly compete with Chinese production costs?), was led away from manufacturing by Thatcher, toward a knowledge-based economy. Britain now lives off its brains, not its muscle, and that's the way it should be.


.

Agreed :up: Thatcher also changed the type of person who went to university. Before Thatcher the children used to do the same job as their father and only the rich went to Uni. After Thatcher more people aspired to make a career in other jobs such finance etc.. Manufacturing was less desirable.

[BDunnell]

As they do in France too, without Thatchers help. All countries have progressed since the 1970's.

A very good point. :up:

There is too much revisionist history going on in general. This goes for the left about the closure of the pits, though the reasons for there being so much ongoing resentment about what happened are all too justified given the level of police brutality. And I do believe that failing companies do not deserve to be propped up. But what has been missing too often from right-wing governments is any appreciation of the social cost. This was true of Thatcher (any politician who believes that those who use public transport are failures deserves to be reviled) and I fear it will be true of Sarkozy, though I think he is probably slightly more enlightened.

[BDunnell]

Agreed :up: Thatcher also changed the type of person who went to university. Before Thatcher the children used to do the same job as their father and only the rich went to Uni. After Thatcher more people aspired to make a career in other jobs such finance etc.. Manufacturing was less desirable.

And now far too many people go to university and the whole thing has been devalued. This isn't how I think of a 'knowledge-based economy'.

[raphael123]

any politician who believes that those who use public transport are failures deserves to be reviled) and I fear it will be true of Sarkozy

What has Sarkozy said to make you think in this way?

I agree, these days everyone goes to University. I wouldn't discourage people going to uni. I think educating yourself is a good thing, and university is a life changing experience, which if possible, every young adult should experience, however I think the point of going to uni simply to get a degree isn't worth what it use to be, but I'd still encourage everyone to go if they can.

[BDunnell]

What has Sarkozy said to make you think in this way?

Yoiu have quoted me very selectively there. I went on to say that I think he's probably more enlightened than Thatcher. However, I am suspicious of things he has said about rioters in urban areas that suggest that he is simply hard-line without any recognition of the underlying social issues. It's all very well calling people thugs and sending in the police, but that doesn't make things better on its own.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And now far too many people go to university and the whole thing has been devalued. This isn't how I think of a 'knowledge-based economy'.

That's because too many people do 'mickey mouse' subjects.