French U-Turn?

[Spiffor]

The Socialist Party (which is social-democrat) has been dismayed by their failure in the presidential election of April 2002 : Jospin didn't make it to fight Chirac in the 2nd round, because Le Pen had more votes than him in the first round.
This was a complete shock for the socialists, including their leader Jospin, who quit his political career on the spot.
The following perliamentary elections (renewing the Assemblée Nationale right after the president) gave a huge majority of seats to Chirac's party, because of the parliamentary electoral system (the right still had a clear majority of voices, but not that much).

Since then, the Socialist Party is in crisis, and tries to understand why it got less than Le Pen, a historical failure. Two main gangs emerged, one saying the party accepted free-market too much, the other one saying quite the opposite. However, the current "leader" of the socialist party tries to push a compromise between these factions to stay united. The recent changes in the electoral code, which outstandingly favors big parties, might help the socialists remaining united too, time will tell.
These two gangs should split in the upcoming party congress in May, IIRC. Please note I'm not a memeber of the socialist party, so some of this info might be inaccurate.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Spiffor

some of this info might be inaccurate.

Who cares? we know that you loose not only accuracy but also objectivity when you describe internal politics.

Example : Jospin did not fail the presidential election because of Lepen, but simply because socialists and communists voters were totally disgusted by their parties and leaders.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
They've been against an offensive war because they don't believe that Saddam has WoMD. If they're wrong, they will, of course, support you.

I fail to see this 'U-turn' you're talking about. People of the United States, what kind of crap they are broadcasting to you?

But consider de Villepin's statement of a few weeks ago that inspections had "largely slowed if not halted Iraq's weapons programs". Doesn't this imply that
1. The French knew Saddam had WOMD, and
2. The inspections have not been completely effective

[RGBVideo]

largely slowed if not halted Iraq's weapons programs

Which of these two rules is correct:
Weapons ~ WoMD = Weapons of Mass Destruction
or
Weapons = WoMD ~ Weapons of Mass Destruction
...

...or am I off the context now? I haven't heard about this statement.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Wow.

The French really need a new leader, this guy is a joke.

I don't think you'd like the alternatives.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And as if UK and US alternatives are any better?


P.S - they have something in common - they are all lying bast*rds

[Az]

I really was confused that every 5th person voted for Le Pen. It's not that it was "Idiot's Choice". There was that populist, the one who quit the government or something.

[KrazyHorse]

UK: possibly not
US: definitely

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I guess that Jospin IIRC would be much better alternative to Chirac, but he was beaten by Le Pen... so they could have gone for a third choice if they wanted to... unlike US you pretty much have only two... and in UK I would vote Lib Dems... but still it remains to be seen what would they be like after 5-6 years in power - would they become little tories wannabees as labour has become.

Ian Duncan Smith has the problem that he is in the opposition but in fact his opponent in government - namely the Prime Minster has stolen all traditional tory values and made them his own... so unfortunatley Tories are quite confused and do not know what to do to get attention and as crazy as it seems the main support for labour govenment are Tory MP's... Actually the best way for them to take over the government would be for Tony and co to change membership cards....

[KrazyHorse]

The point is that Le Pen was not a serious contender. The runoff system simply produced an odd election. Jospin was the real opponent of Chirac, and I wonder if Shi would really have preferred a socialist to a conservative.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Example : Jospin did not fail the presidential election because of Lepen, but simply because socialists and communists voters were totally disgusted by their parties and leaders.

Where did I say Jospin lost because of Le Pen ? AFAIK, I've said "Jospin didn't make it to fight Chirac in the 2nd round, because Le Pen had more votes than him in the first round."
Being a disgruntled communist, I think you are spot on on this one. However, it is true Jospin had less votes than Le Pen, and hence didn't make it to the runoff.

Edit : to Az and others. Le Pen hadn't so many more votes than usual. He used to have 14% 15 years ago, and had ca. 17% in 2002. The far right is making progress in France, but it is a slow process. Had Jospin made it to the runoff, there wouldn't have been such a fuss about Le Pen, and the election wouldn't have been banana-republic like (82% for Chirac).
Many short-term factors explained why Jospin didn't gather enough votes to outrun Le Pen, the most important being the huge number of semi-significant left-wing parties : many voted for the greens, the leftists, the anti-European left-winged politican to protest against Jospin while imagining voting for him at the runoff, in which it was believed obvious he'd participate. Another factor was the media's obsession on domestic security shortly before the election (media coverage of insecurity raised by 128% between Feb. and Apr. 2002 IIRC), a question in which Le Pen is believed to have more expertise than other candidates.
A Socialist friend explained me -the evening of the defeat- they didn't understand the stake until only 3 days before the election.

The crisis the socialist party is experiencing comes from the deeper problems within the party. At its core, the socialist party is the only inflent social-democrat party, and always hesistates to the extent of social-democracy that must be made. Several factions exist from the beginning within the party, one more left-winged, the other more right-winged (economically) : the "right-wingers" are much more in favor of free market, deemed a necessary evil and sometimes even considered as good, whereas the left-winged have a much more ambitious social-democratic agenda. Add personality struggles now that the leader is gone, and you have a clear rift.
The Jospin government featured many of the "right-wingers", who had a free-market perspective except on some key issues like the 35 workhours week. This hasn't been liked by the traditional voters of the Socialist Party, and didn't attract new voters. However, Jospin had a chance of winning at the runoff, because almost all the left-wing was in serious opposition with Chirac, and Jospin's "not-socialist" public agenda could have swayed votes from the center, incl. the center-right.
We'll never know.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I don't like Hussein but that is academic - the west doesn't care about how bloody a dictator is as long as they can do the right kind of business with him - under their terms...

No. What we care about (at least the US) is when some chicken**** dictator agrees to a conditional surrender, then that dictator better damn-hell live by that surrender. Those are our terms, the terms of his surrender.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Frogger
The point is that Le Pen was not a serious contender. The runoff system simply produced an odd election. Jospin was the real opponent of Chirac, and I wonder if Shi would really have preferred a socialist to a conservative.

I definitely would not want to see someone like Le Pen take power anywhere. As for a socialist- well Blar's party is socialist supposedly, and I have gained a tremendous amount of respect for him. POland has a leftist government in power right now IIRC, though I could be mistaken. But Chirac is just someone who I really don't have any respect for and who I think is a jerk. And I really don't see any French leader acting just like Chirac did, unless that leader had some determination to be the new De Gaulle incarnate.

[KrazyHorse]

Labour isn't socialist any more.

They're some watered-down "third way" type of crap.

Just like the Conservatives there aren't what they were in 1930.

[KrazyHorse]

Labour is similar in outlook to the Liberal party here, which is most definitely not socialist.

The NDP, on the other hand is still quite social-democratic...