|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 07 2017 21:30 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 21:04 Spaylz wrote:On May 07 2017 20:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 07 2017 20:15 SoSexy wrote:
It's almost impossible but good luck Marine. Aye, good luck to her but my guess is Macron 57-43. I seriously hope she doesn't get more than 40%. 40% would be bad enough as it is. why?
It is important not to forget what the FN represents, and where its roots lie. It was funded by Vichy partisans and Nazi sympathizers. Marine has done a great, great job sweetening the image of the party, and its top level politicians take great care to behave and act accordingly. But you need only dig a little to see that the FN is still riddled with antisemitism and xenophobia.
I don't blame the people who vote Le Pen out of desperation. They don't rally behind the values of Le Pen, they do it as a cry for help because their situation is often desperate. Regardless of all that, like I said, it's important to always keep in mind where the FN comes from. It's far too relevant to ever be put aside.
And that is why I would prefer for the FN to fade back into nothingness; but that is unlikely to happen unless some real changes are done. I suspect this presidency will be a turning point and will define the years to come.
|
On May 07 2017 22:34 warding wrote:
It seems like many EU countries are reaching a turning point in history. Unlike the US, there is a solid majority agreement on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, as well as in the role of the government in providing healthcare, education and social security. Meanwhile, government size increase isn't feasible, nor are decreases in taxes.
The only issues that could still divide the moderate left vs moderate right would be regulatory issues like labour law. However, what we've seen is many center-left governments succumb to economics and actually steer away from rhetoric - Macron is a neoliberal coming from left-field, Schröder's agenda 2010, even in Portugal the PS (Socialist Party) finance minister is an independent liberal economist.
It's an awkward time for center-left parties - the choice seems to be between steering left and losing out to legit radical leftists (Hamon) or alienating most of the moderate electorate (Corbyn?), OR trying to solidify the center which means they're now neoliberal - against decades of political rhetoric. Meanwhile, party establishments don't always control the direction, depending on the system they use to elect leaders. The more democratic/primary-like it is, the more likely they are to go the leftist route.
Hamon, a radical leftist, haha... Reminds me of this wonderfully true image:
+ Show Spoiler +
Hamon's friend in Germany is Martin Schulz. Should say enough. Hamon is at best left-wing of the social-democracy. Social-democrats talk left during the campaign or when they're in the opposition, then act right when governing; either because they're insincere/opportunist, or because they refuse to change the structures which would allow them to govern a bit more to the left, so they're forced to drop their promises.
Is the new axis neoliberals vs populists/isolationists?
Populism means nothing. A rough divide would be socialism vs liberalism + Show Spoiler + with or without various degrees of social/cultural conservatism with or without fascist filiation/traits
|
On May 07 2017 22:34 warding wrote:It seems like many EU countries are reaching a turning point in history. Unlike the US, there is a solid majority agreement on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, as well as in the role of the government in providing healthcare, education and social security. Meanwhile, government size increase isn't feasible, nor are decreases in taxes. The only issues that could still divide the moderate left vs moderate right would be regulatory issues like labour law. However, what we've seen is many center-left governments succumb to economics and actually steer away from rhetoric - Macron is a neoliberal coming from left-field, Schröder's agenda 2010, even in Portugal the PS (Socialist Party) finance minister is an independent liberal economist. It's an awkward time for center-left parties - the choice seems to be between steering left and losing out to legit radical leftists (Hamon) or alienating most of the moderate electorate (Corbyn?), OR trying to solidify the center which means they're now neoliberal - against decades of political rhetoric. Meanwhile, party establishments don't always control the direction, depending on the system they use to elect leaders. The more democratic/primary-like it is, the more likely they are to go the leftist route. Is the new axis neoliberals vs populists/isolationists? Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 21:47 SoSexy wrote:
When things like this happen, I believe that intellectuals need to take a step back and ask questions. I.e., concerning Le Pen there are two possibilities:
1) 40% of french people became racist and unable to understand 'basic' concepts
2) 40% of french people are worried about legitimate issues that are not being tackled by other parties
3) Most people are actually woefully ignorant of politics and civic knowledge and the collective memory of the dangers of populism and authoritarianism are fading away.
The problem the modern leftists in Europe have is that they would have to question the nation state. Isolationsim in a globalized/Europeanized economy is stupid. So there is only one way: grab the power in the economic zone, not of some meaningless nation state construct that has nto go with the flow.
That being said, many of the populists are neoliberals. FPÖ, Wilders, ANO, AfD. Afaik they all want a Europe of borders for people, but economically meaningless states in competition with each other. In Austria the FPÖ has suggested different tax levels for the 9 different countries, to create a downwards tax competition.
Basically nationalistic prisions for the working people, privileges and low taxes for the rich. Neoliberalism without that pesky concept of people being able to move where the jobs are.
|
TheDwf you misunderstood, I didn't mean to say Hamon was a radical leftist, I meant to say that when the center-left steers left they tend to lose out to actual radical leftists, which in this case would be Melenchon.
I don't see the socialism vs liberalism - actual socialists represent at most 20% of the electorate in western Europe and I don't see htat changing anytime soon. There is nothing new in their approach and ideas. Meanwhile, liberals are actually a part of the social state status quo - meaning that they agree with the state guaranteeing health, education and social security. You see many liberals - myself included - favoring experiments with basic income.
Good point Big J. I'm not as familiar with populists with a liberal tinge because they don't exist where I'm from. Thinking of it though it makes sense. "Internet libertarians" were a big part of the internet counterculture and recently there's been some big shifts, with part of the group joining the mainstream (people like me used to prefer republicans vs democrats in the US, nowadays I abhor the republican party), whereas the others shifted and are now part of the alt-right. What 4chan has become pretty much illustrates this. Were it the gamersgate and sjw culture wars that did it?
|
I still find it hard to understand what is so bad about Marcon so that people feel the need to stand so firmly against him. Le Pen seems just not reasonable enough to have any appeal as a country leader but " is not Marcon". I don't get the details of French politics, but to me, Marcon seems to represent mostly "more of the same", which is in general a good thing.
|
On May 07 2017 23:47 opisska wrote:
I still find it hard to understand what is so bad about Marcon so that people feel the need to stand so firmly against him. Le Pen seems just not reasonable enough to have any appeal as a country leader but " is not Marcon". I don't get the details of French politics, but to me, Marcon seems to represent mostly "more of the same", which is in general a good thing.
Same reasons as why people voted for Trump over Hillary.
Some people genuinely like Le Pen's message and others think that burning things down with the chance of it becoming better after is worth it.
|
On May 07 2017 23:47 opisska wrote:
I still find it hard to understand what is so bad about Marcon so that people feel the need to stand so firmly against him. Le Pen seems just not reasonable enough to have any appeal as a country leader but " is not Marcon". I don't get the details of French politics, but to me, Marcon seems to represent mostly "more of the same", which is in general a good thing.
The ruling class, the upper classes and the wealthy pensioners of the post-WWII generation can stand “more of the same”. The millions of jobless people, the 9 millions of poor, those who live in precarity and struggle daily to find a few hours of work per week, the peasants who hang in the solitude of their barn because they win less than 300€ per month and are massively indebted, the nurses who commit suicide at work because of inhuman management in the public hospital, small pensioners living in misery, workers who see their burden of work rise because the company won't hire, entire territories in recession for years, workers who will lose their jobs because Macron will make it easier to lay off people or “it's globalization, we can't do anything” or shareholder greed, people who need better wages to live decently but won't have them because competitivenessflexibilitymodernityglobalizationconcurrence, the 2000 people who die in the street every year, the 4 millions of people who have mild to severe housing problems (from the 140k homeless people to those who have to pay a significant part of their wage to live in tiny shitty flats), etc., etc., they cannot stand “more of the same”.
There are clear winners and losers in our societies. It's easy to call for patience and claim there's nothing wrong with statu quo when you don't belong to the second category.
|
65.3% participation rate at 17:00, down from 69.42% in the first round (71.96% in the second round in 2012). Ipsos claims abstention could be 26%, which would be the highest in the second round since 1969. With the addition of the few millions of white/null ballots, no-vote could be over 30%.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I'm sure that we on this forum disproportionately belong to the "benefit from the status quo" group so it's hard to see where things are going badly unless you look well beyond your own experience. If I were looking at only my own situation I too would assert that everyone of the "other group" is just idiots who don't "get it" at all, and in a rather aggressive manner too.
As for this election, it's not particularly interesting because the result is already pretty much known. I can certainly say that I personally don't approve of most of what Le Pen stands for, and the fascist connections aren't lost on any of us (even though I wouldn't say that she herself looks like a fascist). But she does stand against the EU in a rather principled manner, which I can certainly respect and support even if everything else is at least a little troubling. In a time when most politicians seem to deviate pretty strongly from the spirit of what they promise while campaigning (even if, on an atomic level, you could compare campaign points to reality and find that it's not "that" off, the shift is much more significant), it's important to try to find someone who will be committed to a Eurosceptic message even as they become more aware of the realities of how difficult making the right decision will be.
Oh well. In reality Macron will probably do more damage to the EU's future than Le Pen ever could. We're not quite at the point of when it's going to come apart so the best way to ensure that happens is to continue on the path it has currently carved for itself.
|
On May 07 2017 21:47 SoSexy wrote:When things like this happen, I believe that intellectuals need to take a step back and ask questions. I.e., concerning Le Pen there are two possibilities: 1) 40% of french people became racist and unable to understand 'basic' concepts 2) 40% of french people are worried about legitimate issues that are not being tackled by other parties In my experience, in every election I have witnessed where left parties lost, the rhetoric was that of number 1). Then, when they win, suddenly 'people have understood what's good for the country'. I found it ridicolous how in Italy left parties were calling Berlusconi voters 'sheeps, corrupted by his tv programs' then whey they won the election few years later they were celebrating how people were so good in their choices. Surely they must have changed a lot in those years  What I find WAY more probable is that people voted Berlusconi because he was tackling certain issues, not because they were sheeps. Then, when he was unable to resolve them, people voted an alternative. I don't like the rhetoric of the 'sheep masses' too much.
I'm boiling the "problem" down quite a bit here but in the simplest terms the situation for the traditional parties is almost unsolvable in the current climate. Many countries in Europe need harsh reforms quite badly on different levels (Austria e.g. has the highest budget we have ever had, but so much of it is miss-used or disappears in in-efficient programs that only benefit a select few) but as soon as you start with even the tiniest of reforms (if you actually have the will to start) a number of populist parties immediately scream "thats not how to solve this why don't they just do X". X being the "simple" solution of choice, be that "build a wall" "make the banks pay for it" "bring back 2m jobs" etc.
It doesn't matter that the proposed solution X is either flat out impossible or stupid beyond words, because they will never have to implement it. The only thing they (that being the populists) have to do is promise something that sounds great.
Now the serious politicians have to answer in some way. They can either ignore them completely (that is what Austria tried during the Haider years didn't work out tbh) they can try to reason with them or they can go down on a comparable simple level and promise something they know they cannot deliver.
How exactly do you think anyone can win an election in france if your basic message needs to be something along the lines of "to reasonably take care of our economy and young people the first step is that pension age rises to 70 years or older and all the people that already get their pensions loose about 30%". That is what france needs in a nutshell (and yes obviously that is vast oversimplification I am well aware of that).
Look what Le Pen promises instead, go back to pensions at 60 years. We can't afford that? Who cares, by the time the bill is due i'll be out of office for 10 years.
I'd love to have a solid discourse about leftist vs. conservative reforms what they want to do and what it would do for or to our countries. Instead we have a poisoned discussion about very complex systems that reads like a twitter feed in our newspapers and have to make our decisions based on that...
|
On May 08 2017 00:11 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2017 23:47 opisska wrote:
I still find it hard to understand what is so bad about Marcon so that people feel the need to stand so firmly against him. Le Pen seems just not reasonable enough to have any appeal as a country leader but " is not Marcon". I don't get the details of French politics, but to me, Marcon seems to represent mostly "more of the same", which is in general a good thing. The ruling class, the upper classes and the wealthy pensioners of the post-WWII generation can stand “more of the same”. The millions of jobless people, the 9 millions of poor, those who live in precarity and struggle daily to find a few hours of work per week, the peasants who hang in the solitude of their barn because they win less than 300€ per month and are massively indebted, the nurses who commit suicide at work because of inhuman management in the public hospital, small pensioners living in misery, workers who see their burden of work rise because the company won't hire, entire territories in recession for years, workers who will lose their jobs because Macron will make it easier to lay off people or “it's globalization, we can't do anything” or shareholder greed, people who need better wages to live decently but won't have them because competitivenessflexibilitymodernityglobalizationconcurrence, the 2000 people who die in the street every year, the 4 millions of people who have mild to severe housing problems (from the 140k homeless people to those who have to pay a significant part of their wage to live in tiny shitty flats), etc., etc., they cannot stand “more of the same”. There are clear winners and losers in our societies. It's easy to call for patience and claim there's nothing wrong with statu quo when you don't belong to the second category.
France is a big country, so the absolute numbers are impressive, but in percentage it's not really outstandingly bad compared to the rest of Europe, also neither poverty nor unemployment are rising dramatically. At any rate, since you have a majority election, there is no reason to be upset about the "more of the same" winning, because there is no reason for a majority of the population to be dramatically discontent.
I am not saying there are no problems, but you seem to have fallen into the populist trap of "everything is terrible, we need a silver bullet". Nowhere ever that helped anyone, so why do people still believe it? The solution isn't to burn the house down, but to continue building it.
Also there is still the issue that from the available to me public expressions, Le Pen seems not very coherent and adept at governance. I would rather prefer to have skilled politicians with slightly different policies to my personal set than well- intentioned idiots. Just look at Trump for evidence how incapable of running a country a populist can be.
|
France12886 Posts
On May 07 2017 23:47 opisska wrote:
I still find it hard to understand what is so bad about Marcon so that people feel the need to stand so firmly against him. Le Pen seems just not reasonable enough to have any appeal as a country leader but " is not Marcon". I don't get the details of French politics, but to me, Marcon seems to represent mostly "more of the same", which is in general a good thing.
Because most people want to blame others instead of themselves, as can be seen in many esport games.
edit: "At any rate, since you have a majority election, there is no reason to be upset about the "more of the same" winning, because there is no reason for a majority of the population to be dramatically discontent."
Wow I'm not the only one thinking in these terms, impressive!
|
I'm sure that we on this forum disproportionately belong to the "benefit from the status quo" group so it's hard to see where things are going badly unless you look well beyond your own experience.
That's pretty much it. Most of them are praised a guy who will encourage a system who puts millions of people jobless/ in precarious situation.
I didn't vote but their hypocrisy is almost unbearable.
|
I'm in the top third earners in my country and I have no clue how the fuck I'm a benefitter of the system when buying a flat for 2 in vienna takes 30 years of work for me. Our whole generation is fucked in a distribution situation that makes it impossible to buy property if you are not born rich, that has to carry a pension system that is simply not sustainable and has long time collapsed, and an ecological situation that does already cost us insane sums and state debt situation that we are being taken hostage for by financial elites, although non of us did cause or ask for it.
Hey, if you make an actual neoliberal system I'm all for it. But as long as I have to guarantee for property rights and copyrights given for longer time spans than 3 years I will vote for anything that gives unsustainable rights to the people who don't benefit from these sorts of birth privileges.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 08 2017 01:33 Big J wrote:
I'm in the top third earners in my country and I have no clue how the fuck I'm a benefitter of the system when buying a flat for 2 in vienna takes 30 years of work for me.
Living in big cities is problematic, yea. But compared to most, that's "first world problems" even if it isn't trivial.
Big city life is shitty in a lot of ways. But being a disenfranchised working class is much worse. Being able to afford owning a home is the least of your problems in that situation.
|
Also buying property in Vienna is pretty high up the luxury list. Home ownership isn't that great of an asset any more anyway, renting and having the flexibility to move is preferable. Home ownership rate in Austria, Switzerland and Germany is very low but it has prevented quite a lot of trouble that countries like Italy and Spain have had.
|
Flats in capitals being expensive is not a matter of the system, but of geometry. The price is probably good at preventing the city from collapsing. The obsession with everyone owning a house is also unfounded in any rational grounds, there is nothing inherently wrong with rental.
I find that many people who are dissatisfied with the system just want too much, even though the generation of our parents had much less. A lot of it is basic jealousy seeing how other people have stuff. I am not disputing genuine poverty, nor I think there isn't room for improvement regarding inequality and class mobility, but the situation is much less bad tham people and media make it seem.
Me and my wife we both earn about the average wage in our respective countries (I think i make slightly below in Czech and she makes maybe slightly above in Poland) and we live a very nice life financially. We rent, we have an old car, but we also travel a lot and enjoy varioua thinga. For me its much more important that I had access to high quality education for free and that I get good healthcare for free and good public transport than just having a bit more cash. I benefit from the system a lot and thus am against any big disruptions. I would prefer some changes, but compared to the bug picture, they are mostly cosmetics. Eventually I'd like to see a move away from human labour, but that's still a long shot.
|
On May 08 2017 00:36 LegalLord wrote:
I'm sure that we on this forum disproportionately belong to the "benefit from the status quo" group so it's hard to see where things are going badly unless you look well beyond your own experience. If I were looking at only my own situation I too would assert that everyone of the "other group" is just idiots who don't "get it" at all, and in a rather aggressive manner too.
As for this election, it's not particularly interesting because the result is already pretty much known. I can certainly say that I personally don't approve of most of what Le Pen stands for, and the fascist connections aren't lost on any of us (even though I wouldn't say that she herself looks like a fascist). But she does stand against the EU in a rather principled manner, which I can certainly respect and support even if everything else is at least a little troubling. In a time when most politicians seem to deviate pretty strongly from the spirit of what they promise while campaigning (even if, on an atomic level, you could compare campaign points to reality and find that it's not "that" off, the shift is much more significant), it's important to try to find someone who will be committed to a Eurosceptic message even as they become more aware of the realities of how difficult making the right decision will be.
Oh well. In reality Macron will probably do more damage to the EU's future than Le Pen ever could. We're not quite at the point of when it's going to come apart so the best way to ensure that happens is to continue on the path it has currently carved for itself.
I assume most of us are millenials and our generation hardly benefited much from the status quo. We're the first generation in forever which isn't making more money than their parents at the same age,unemployment for the young is double that of the average, they're stuck with massive student debt in some countries, can barely afford to move out of our parents home, has to bear the massive amount of future liabilities caused by the way our welfare states work etc. I can continue for a while but you get the point.
|
There should be more “no-vote” than Le Pen ballots. Fascists so bad they manage to end up third in a duel
|
Estimations:
Macron 65,1
Le Pen 34,9
Participation rate 74,7%
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0NqGOD2.jpg)
