French Election

[TIGHTCHOKE]

How well are the FAR RIGHT National Rally Party under Marine Le Pen doing?

 

I thought there were moves to stop them?

 

It appears from the exit polls that they have indeed been stopped from winning and forming a government, France is now in a state of flux.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/france-elections-latest-far-right-national-rally-hoping-to-win-majority-as-second-round-vote-sees-huge-rise-in-turnout-13173764

Edited July 8 by TIGHTCHOKE

[islandgun]

Indeed I think there will be a lot of Le misersable French men and women from the right, looks like trouble ahead. Service the water cannon's monsieur policeman 

[ditchman]

58 minutes ago, islandgun said:

Indeed I think there will be a lot of Le misersable French men and women from the right, looks like trouble ahead. Service the water cannon's monsieur policeman 

in the 60's the police drew their pistols and shot them in their legs

ahhhh the good ole days  eh ?

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

France is now in a state of flux.

We were 'warned' last week that France was just about to swing sharply to the 'hard' right (just was we were going left). 

What has actually happened is that the 'hard' left (Jean-Luc Melenchon) have the largest number of seats with the right party (Marine LePen) in 3rd place.

Jean-Luc Melenchon is apparently a man who is compared to a French version of  Jeremy Corbyn's style of beliefs - some of his policies;

• promised to increase public spending by at least €150billion within the next five years, which will be financed by increasing taxes. 
• said he would raise the minimum wage by 14 per cent
• introduce a ban on price increases of essential goods
• reduce the state pension age from 64 to just 60.

How will all this be paid for?  He has also been accused of being anti Semitic in his support of middle eastern factions.

In fact, as they have a multi party system, it is likely that no agreement will be reached on most matters and France will endure a period of 'no real government and political turmoil.

 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

In fact, as they have a multi party system, it is likely that no agreement will be reached on most matters and France will endure a period of 'no real government and political turmoil.

In essence , France would prefer a chaotic government , than a populist right wing one.
What is it about right wing politics that scares them so much ?

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

In essence , France would prefer a chaotic government , than a populist right wing one.
What is it about right wing politics that scares them so much ?

because they are all champangne commies

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

In essence , France would prefer a chaotic government , than a populist right wing one.
What is it about right wing politics that scares them so much ?

I don't think it's as much about right wing politics and more about parties coming into power that want to make dramatic changes. Changes that would limit the influence of very powerful individuals and interests that currently benefit a very privileged few. One only needs to look to the USA to understand why Trump is hated by the deep state, yet they can't really specifically say what exactly is so bad about him. 

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think it's as much about right wing politics and more about parties coming into power that want to make dramatic changes. Changes that would limit the influence of very powerful individuals and interests that currently benefit a very privileged few. One only needs to look to the USA to understand why Trump is hated by the deep state, yet they can't really specifically say what exactly is so bad about him. 

The problem with right wing politics is that it seeks to empower the individuals within society, it rewards hard work, espouses traditional values within a capitalist framework.
The thinking is that when the people prosper , the nation prospers.
The globalists and the left would rather you rely on the state, smooth out the wealth within the chattering masses, proclaiming a more 'equal' society as the result.
This they believe will not only make the state prosper, but the entire world.
Yet in both scenarios, the elites still sit at the top.
The fact that there are elites on both ends of the spectrum is not arguable, but in one respect, its easier to climb the ladder within capitalist/right wing societies than socialist/left wing ones.
Look at any communist/ultra socialist state and its clear to see the divide is almost impossible to cross.

If we use the US as the prime example of capitalism, where the individual on the lowest rung of the ladder COULD, climb to a far greater height through hard work and innovation, and maybe a little luck, and compare that with China and Russia 40 years ago, where if you were in the dirt, you were staying in the dirt.
Both these socialist states once they started failing, changed their aspects to a quasi capitalist state, and prospered, because hard work was rewarded.

The socialism 'lite' that we are seeing these days in many EU states, and the dems in the US , rewards you with a living allowance whatever you do, yet they dont really appreciate where that money comes from, and resources are finite.
When we end up unable to pay for those that dont strive to achieve anything in their lives, because they dont NEED to, we end up with authoritarian communism, poverty and social collapse.
Its been played out many times within communist states, and again, is an inescapable fact of that left leaning ideology.

This is why I dont understand why the left are so scared of the right, there are no successful  left/communist countries, and there are a multitude of highly successful right/capitalist countries.
Would you rather be poor and unemployed in the UK, or poor and unemployed in Cuba ?

The left constantly fire accusations of racism, fascism ect at right wing policies, but the immigration debate isnt seated in xenophobia , its seated in making sure that the workforce already here, is actually working.
If you have millions of people unemployed, and millions of jobs available, why do you need to import workers to do those jobs ?
The leftists will tell you we need those migrants, but do we ?
Some of them yes, but how many Deliveroo drivers, care home workers and car washers do we really need ?
The fact that the indigenous non workers are often better off on state handouts is part of the issue, but all we are doing is delaying the problem for later.

Is it all part of a broader globalist plan ?
Because the plans put forward by the WEF ect, dont make a great deal of sense ?

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

 

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

The problem with right wing politics is that it seeks to empower the individuals within society, it rewards hard work, espouses traditional values within a capitalist framework.
The thinking is that when the people prosper , the nation prospers.
The globalists and the left would rather you rely on the state, smooth out the wealth within the chattering masses, proclaiming a more 'equal' society as the result.
This they believe will not only make the state prosper, but the entire world.
Yet in both scenarios, the elites still sit at the top.
The fact that there are elites on both ends of the spectrum is not arguable, but in one respect, its easier to climb the ladder within capitalist/right wing societies than socialist/left wing ones.
Look at any communist/ultra socialist state and its clear to see the divide is almost impossible to cross.

If we use the US as the prime example of capitalism, where the individual on the lowest rung of the ladder COULD, climb to a far greater height through hard work and innovation, and maybe a little luck, and compare that with China and Russia 40 years ago, where if you were in the dirt, you were staying in the dirt.
Both these socialist states once they started failing, changed their aspects to a quasi capitalist state, and prospered, because hard work was rewarded.

The socialism 'lite' that we are seeing these days in many EU states, and the dems in the US , rewards you with a living allowance whatever you do, yet they dont really appreciate where that money comes from, and resources are finite.
When we end up unable to pay for those that dont strive to achieve anything in their lives, because they dont NEED to, we end up with authoritarian communism, poverty and social collapse.
Its been played out many times within communist states, and again, is an inescapable fact of that left leaning ideology.

This is why I dont understand why the left are so scared of the right, there are no successful  left/communist countries, and there are a multitude of highly successful right/capitalist countries.
Would you rather be poor and unemployed in the UK, or poor and unemployed in Cuba ?

The left constantly fire accusations of racism, fascism ect at right wing policies, but the immigration debate isnt seated in xenophobia , its seated in making sure that the workforce already here, is actually working.
If you have millions of people unemployed, and millions of jobs available, why do you need to import workers to do those jobs ?
The leftists will tell you we need those migrants, but do we ?
Some of them yes, but how many Deliveroo drivers, care home workers and car washers do we really need ?
The fact that the indigenous non workers are often better off on state handouts is part of the issue, but all we are doing is delaying the problem for later.

Is it all part of a broader globalist plan ?
Because the plans put forward by the WEF ect, dont make a great deal of sense ?

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

 

Thank you for your detailed thoughts, very interesting views, although I'm still not convinced it's strictly about left and right per se, I feel in fact it has never been a less important issue and is more of a deflection to ensure the people are divided and continue to vote down partisan lines. 

[ditchman]

the French are revolting...........they eat slimy snails......munch garlic.....their breath stinks....and poo in dirty holes in thye ground

 

no change there

Edited July 8 by ditchman

[Rewulf]

30 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Thank you for your detailed thoughts, very interesting views, although I'm still not convinced it's strictly about left and right per se, I feel in fact it has never been a less important issue and is more of a deflection to ensure the people are divided and continue to vote down partisan lines. 

Thats exactly what its about.
No one really fits exactly into the mould of left or right, but guess who comes along to make sure you do ..?

Think about it , there must be a huge amount of people who just voted labour who think immigration is too high, its the same in France or the US.
Or the other side of the coin , there must be people who vote conservative/ republican, who dont think immigration is a problem, but vote for them for other reasons, like religion or gun rights ect.
Not everyone who votes for LePen or Trump thinks like them, or agrees with everything with  the left /right parties , yet theyve been pigeon holed into left and right camps.
France , where everything left of centre/centrist has formed a bloc to counter the 'far right threat' has resulted in a basically undemocratic result for which there may well be more trouble ahead than a NR government would have made.

[oowee]

Le Penn strings together the populist soundbites underpinned with with the economics of a magician. Exactly the same as Trump. They have no foundation in truth. 

How can the vote be anything other than democratic? Parties, fairly voted working together is the very essence of democracy. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

How can the vote be anything other than democratic? Parties, fairly voted working together is the very essence of democracy

Don't be silly , the only thing they're working together on is keeping Le Pen out.

If they had enough common ground they would have formed a larger party before the election.

They've sold their soul to beat the devil, but it's still going to send them to hell.

[oowee]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Don't be silly , the only thing they're working together on is keeping Le Pen out.

If they had enough common ground they would have formed a larger party before the election.

They've sold their soul to beat the devil, but it's still going to send them to hell.

Yep that's democracy for you. Independent thought in action. The common ground is rejection of anarchy. 

[Raja Clavata]

All the French colleagues and friends I’ve discussed this with are in the anyone but Le Penn camp which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

All the French colleagues and friends I’ve discussed this with are in the anyone but Le Penn camp which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I can understand why. It's not so much her current stated policys for me, many of them sound reasonable. But her farther and original political party, I know people can change and you shouldn't judge someone by their fathers standards, but rightly or wrongly I'm very suspicious of her true motivations. 

[old man]

13 hours ago, oowee said:

Le Penn strings together the populist soundbites underpinned with with the economics of a magician. Exactly the same as Trump. They have no foundation in truth. 

How can the vote be anything other than democratic? Parties, fairly voted working together is the very essence of democracy. 

Possibly best not to allow the concept of truth anywhere near politicians?

[johnphilip]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

I can understand why. It's not so much her current stated policys for me, many of them sound reasonable. But her farther and original political party, I know people can change and you shouldn't judge someone by their fathers standards, but rightly or wrongly I'm very suspicious of her true motivations. 

Will just leave this wee video for you to watch , what else is going on in French politics 

https://youtu.be/qid30PaEyQ8?si=aSDJoXrhtWvKLnUE

[Rewulf]

12 hours ago, oowee said:

The common ground is rejection of anarchy

It's strange how the ones rioting are the leftists though , isn't it ?

 

[oowee]

52 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It's strange how the ones rioting are the leftists though , isn't it ?

 

Absolutely great opportunity for le Penn to stay out of it and appeal to the moderates whilst supporting the opposite view. 

You know my view on far right and far left politics they are two sides of the same coin. Pursuing an agenda of anti establishment whilst refusing to put forward an alternative agenda beyond the sound bites. 

 

[Rem260]

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It's strange how the ones rioting are the leftists though , isn't it ?

 

Shouldn't the headline read.

"Riot Police Clash With FAR LEFT demonstrators."

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

Absolutely great opportunity for le Penn to stay out of it and appeal to the moderates whilst supporting the opposite view. 

You know my view on far right and far left politics they are two sides of the same coin. Pursuing an agenda of anti establishment whilst refusing to put forward an alternative agenda beyond the sound bites. 

 

Is that not what you have been doing ?

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Shouldn't the headline read.

"Riot Police Clash With FAR LEFT demonstrators."

Is that not what you have been doing ?

? 

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Shouldn't the headline read.

"Riot Police Clash With FAR LEFT demonstrators

If you read between the lines, it pretty much does.

At least they didn't use the 'mostly peaceful' description.

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

Absolutely great opportunity for le Penn to stay out of it and appeal to the moderates whilst supporting the opposite view

Maybe she has, but the media won't report that.

The important thing is, IF  the far right are rioting , they aren't reporting that either, and you would think they would ?

[Rem260]

30 minutes ago, oowee said:

? 

This is in context to your constant running down of the last government. When asked for what you would do instead you either didn't reply or repeated your sound bites. I just thought your use of the phrase was ironic.

Pursuing an agenda of anti establishment whilst refusing to put forward an alternative agenda beyond the sound bites. 

 

[amateur]

18 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

This is in context to your constant running down of the last government. When asked for what you would do instead you either didn't reply or repeated your sound bites. I just thought your use of the phrase was ironic.

Pursuing an agenda of anti establishment whilst refusing to put forward an alternative agenda beyond the sound bites. 

 

Spot on 👍🏻