• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elections 2012! Tomorrow!

Hollande wins first round by 3 points. Looks as if he's heading for the Élysée. I was hoping Mélenchon would have grabbed third spot, but there are a lot of nationalists in France, just hopefully not enough to give Sarkozy a second round victory.

France elections

I don't really know much about the details of the respective candidates and their platforms, but based on the basics I read, I'd probably have voted for Bayrou in the 1st round, if I was French. ( I didn't read much about him this year, but I remember I had a good impression of him in 2007.)

But I would have no idea who to vote for in two weeks. Sarkozy with his clownish lapses and attemps to appease the far right appears similarly annoying to me as Hollande with his stone-age socialism which would economically cripple France and probably pull the rest of Europe into the abyss with it. Looks like the choice between pestilence and cholera. (No need to lose words on Le Pen, she's sickening scum. And I don't really know much about Mélenchon, but if he's only remotely similar to the German socialist Left Party, he's not eligible.)

Maybe I'm wrong about Hollande, though. Maybe his demands to raise the tax to 75% and to end austerity in the EU were just rhetorics to attract far-left voters and he's actually rather sensitive. I suspect that's the case. So probably he's the lesser evil (by a very small margin) compared to Sarkozy.
 
Last edited:
I don't really know much about the details of the respective candidates and their platforms, but based on the basics I read, I'd probably have voted for Bayrou in the 1st round, if I was French. ( I didn't read much about him this year, but I remember I had a good impression of him in 2007.)

But I would have no idea who to vote for in two weeks. Sarkozy with his clownish lapses and attemps to appease the far right appears similarly annoying to me as Hollande with his stone-age socialism which would economically cripple France and probably pull the rest of Europe into the abyss with it. Looks like the choice between pestilence and cholera. (No need to lose words on Le Pen, she's sickening scum. And I don't really know much about Mélenchon, but if he's only remotely similar to the German socialist Left Party, he's not eligible.)

Maybe I'm wrong about Hollande, though. Maybe his demands to raise the tax to 75% and to end austerity in the EU were just rhetorics to attract far-left voters and he's actually rather sensitive. I suspect that's the case. So probably he's the lesser evil (by a very small margin) compared to Sarkozy.

Do you believe austerity has worked so far (or ever)?
 
I know you are a socialist, so I understand why you support Hollande, but I don't get why nonsocialists are voting for Hollande.

He wants to increase taxes on the rich from 40% to 75%, and this is in addition to the 13.5% social contribution tax, wealth taxes of 1-2%, GST and local taxes. I wonder how many rich people are going to stay in France. ;) He wants to reduce the retirement age to 60. I think he is quite soft on immigration and Islam. He wants adopt rent control, a failed policy from America. He wants to spend more on education and public housing, but somehow is going to balance the budget.

His policies sound like the socialist party of Norway, and that party got 5% last election. Here in Auckland, only a small violent minority support that kind of policies. Are French that radical, or do they just hate Sarkozy.

This is a good article on it.

BBC News - Nicolas Sarkozy: Why is the French president so disliked?
 
Hollande with his stone-age socialism which would economically cripple France and probably pull the rest of Europe into the abyss with it.
Well, to a LOT of us it feels like we are already in that abyss, perhaps you hadn't heard. And it wasn't the socialists who put us here.
 
Hollande wins first round by 3 points. Looks as if he's heading for the Élysée. I was hoping Mélenchon would have grabbed third spot, but there are a lot of nationalists in France, just hopefully not enough to give Sarkozy a second round victory.

France elections

The record voting numbers for the radical right and left is something to note.. follows the patterns across the western world.
 
Well, to a LOT of us it feels like we are already in that abyss, perhaps you hadn't heard. And it wasn't the socialists who put us here.
Really? You think Europe has hit bottom? There is a long way to go.

BTW: Many countries were ruled by left wing candidates or candidates who would have been left wing in other countries.
 
Really? You think Europe has hit bottom? There is a long way to go.

BTW: Many countries were ruled by left wing candidates or candidates who would have been left wing in other countries.

Name them.
 
Ruled by the left and crashed
Spain
United Kingdom
Portugal
Of course this pre-supposes that the responsability lies entirely with governments, whereas the bulk of the blame shold be shouldered by the private, criminally irresponsible, global financial sector. I'd also question whether you could describe the UK's New Labour Party under Blair and Brown as remotely 'left wing'.

Ruled by quasi right wing parties
France
Greece

What do you mean "quasi right wing"? Either they are conservative or they're not. There's nothing 'quasi' about Sarkozy.

You seem to have forgotten about Italy and Ireland.
 
Ruled by the left and crashed
Spain

Well, considering the left took over in 2004 and the crash happened in 2007, and the bubble was already well under way thanks to policies put in place by the right wing government from before 2004 (and the corruption that fuelled the bubble), then on this one you have to give it a 60% for the right and 40% for the left. A large part of the corruption scandals in Spain involve right wing politicians and their backers (building companies), although the left also too a piece of the pie. Marbella, the biggest corruption scandal in history (monetary wise) was mostly right wingers (in "local parties") and cost billions.

United Kingdom

New labour was right wing on economics and left on social issues. In the end, New Labour followed Reaganomics more than anything else and the difference in economic policy between Blair and Thatcher was not that big.


Correct, but if you knew anything about Portugal the problems there are structural and both the left and right wing have done nothing since the end of the dictatorship to deal with it.

Ruled by quasi right wing parties
France

LOL Sarkozy and Chirac before him were right wing. Just because they were not "right wing enough" does not mean the were right of centre on the political sphere. It is typical of the right (especially in the US) to distance themselves from people who they dont feel are right wing enough.. rather pathetic if you ask me.


Again, the colour of the political party does not matter.. it is structural. You can easily argue that it was the right who started the lying and the left called them on it and brought down the country, but ultimately the Greek problem is a tax collecting problem based on structural problems that neither side have had the political balls to deal with and when they finally tried (the left) then the markets (the right) gang banged the country into a near death.

But that is 5 countries where 1 was actually right wing, so 4 countries... and then of those 4, 1 was economically right wing (UK). So it was 3 out of 27... so much for many.

Most of the remaining 27 countries in the EU and around Europe in general were..... right wing governments and have been for over a decade.

Face it, it has been right wing economic policies based on Anglo-American economic theory promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, that has been the root cause of the economic problems we are all in now. Of course the right denies this and continues to push for the very same policies, and claim that the left are to blame for the crisis because they did not implement the policies correctly despite not being in power...

Fact is, core Europe will turn to the left starting with France, followed most likely by Germany and then Italy and so on and the only right wing governments that will remain will be the 3 that have switched lately... the UK, Spain and Portugal and maybe Greece (big mess there).
 
You seem to have forgotten about Italy and Ireland.

Damn so did I.. need more cafine I think.

Italy and Ireland were both right wing.. well one was fascist but hey.
 
Of course this pre-supposes that the responsability lies entirely with governments, whereas the bulk of the blame shold be shouldered by the private, criminally irresponsible, global financial sector. I'd also question whether you could describe the UK's New Labour Party under Blair and Brown as remotely 'left wing'.



What do you mean "quasi right wing"? Either they are conservative or they're not. There's nothing 'quasi' about Sarkozy.

You seem to have forgotten about Italy and Ireland.

Fianna Fail were "right-wing"?


The infamous Croke Park Agreement:

Despite a background of layoffs and pay cuts in the private sector, the government agreed not to impose public sector layoffs or further public sector pay cuts [SUP][2][/SUP].


Thanks to this agreement, it's the unemployed and people in the private sector suffering under austerity due to their actions.

They were populists, unbeholden to any political creed as is the case with most mainstream parties in Europe. They formed coalitions with the Green Party and the libertarian Progressive Democrats, it didn't matter who. They were as right-wing as can be expected in crony capitalism but funded a bloated public sector we're stuck with also. Surprise, surprise their opposition (now in power) supported it because they didn't want to scare away the public sector voters.
 
Of course this pre-supposes that the responsability lies entirely with governments, whereas the bulk of the blame shold be shouldered by the private, criminally irresponsible, global financial sector. I'd also question whether you could describe the UK's New Labour Party under Blair and Brown as remotely 'left wing'.
No, the responsibility lies in bad governance. Countries who fail to prepare for the future. Spain had way too rigid labour laws, and had a government who promoted malinvestment, so they could get more tax revenue. United Kingdom had a government who were spending like a drunken sailor. Portugal and italy did no reforms what so ever and was running large deficits. Ireland and Iceland let their financial markets go out of control, to get extra short term growth. Greece spent like a drunken sailor, run massive deficits, especially in trade, massively increased salarues, lied about it and did not increase taxes, which you should do if you increase spending. They did no reforms what so ever in other areas, and then when the left took over, they did not even try to fix the situation. Just keep spending.

As you can see, there is nothing left wing or right wing about crisis. Crisis happen due to mismanagement. Countries who tries to inflate their GDP.

What do you mean "quasi right wing"? Either they are conservative or they're not. There's nothing 'quasi' about Sarkozy.
I am talking about people who are not conservative, or do not do anything conservative. The Greek New Democracy did not do anything remotely conservative in their period. For French leaders, take a look at the BBC article on last page.

You seem to have forgotten about Italy and Ireland.
I was only talking about countries that were left wing before the crisis. You forgot another country, Iceland.
 
Last edited:
Fianna Fail were "right-wing"?

Economically they were. They ate the anglo-American Reaganomics theories with extra cool-aid. The whole Celtic Tiger thing was built on debt and more debt.
 
No, the responsibility lies in bad governance. Countries who fail to prepare for the future. Spain had way too rigid labour laws, and had a government who promoted malinvestment, so they could get more tax revenue. United Kingdom had a government who were spending like a drunken sailor. Portugal and italy did no reforms what so ever and was running large deficits. Ireland and Iceland let their financial markets go out of control, to get extra short term growth. Greece spent like a drunken sailor, run massive deficits, especially in trade, massively increased salarues, lied about it and did not increase taxes, which you should do if you increase spending. They did no reforms what so ever in other areas, and then when the left took over, they did not even try to fix the situation. Just keep spending.

As you can see, there is nothing left wing or right wing about crisis. Crisis happen due to mismanagement. Countries who tries to inflate their GDP.


I am talking about people who are not conservative, or do not do anything conservative. The Greek New Democracy did not do anything remotely conservative in their period. For French leaders, take a look at the BBC article on last page.


I was only talking about countries that were left wing before the crisis. You forgot another country, Iceland.

This is fairly typical right-wing rhetoric, making it all about poor governance which, while it has been a major factor, gives a pass to the criminally irresponsible global financial institutions who brought about the 2008 market crash which triggered the entire crisis.
 
Economically they were. They ate the anglo-American Reaganomics theories with extra cool-aid. The whole Celtic Tiger thing was built on debt and more debt.

I thought one of the theoretical pillars of Reagonomics was to reduce government spending.
 
I thought one of the theoretical pillars of Reagonomics was to reduce government spending.

HAHAH who told you that? One thing is theory, wishful thinking and an attempt to rewrite history... another is actual fact and reality.
 
HAHAH who told you that? One thing is theory, wishful thinking and an attempt to rewrite history... another is actual fact and reality.

Which is why I said theory. Reagan "claimed" he was going to reduce spending. Fianna Fail made no such claim, belying the idea they were right wing as opposed to populist centrists.
 
Well, considering the left took over in 2004 and the crash happened in 2007, and the bubble was already well under way thanks to policies put in place by the right wing government from before 2004 (and the corruption that fuelled the bubble), then on this one you have to give it a 60% for the right and 40% for the left. A large part of the corruption scandals in Spain involve right wing politicians and their backers (building companies), although the left also too a piece of the pie. Marbella, the biggest corruption scandal in history (monetary wise) was mostly right wingers (in "local parties") and cost billions.
I have argued many times before that the left could have solved the problems in Spain, but they decided to do nothing. It was in fact Bill Clinton who created the problems in America, but I am still blaming Bush, because he had time to solve it.

New labour was right wing on economics and left on social issues. In the end, New Labour followed Reaganomics more than anything else and the difference in economic policy between Blair and Thatcher was not that big.
Increasing spending and reducing economic freedom is not being right on economic issues.

Correct, but if you knew anything about Portugal the problems there are structural and both the left and right wing have done nothing since the end of the dictatorship to deal with it.
So when it is the right who does it, then it is policy, but when the left does it, then it is structural. Structural problems are policy problems. They could have improved the situation, but they chose to do nothing.

LOL Sarkozy and Chirac before him were right wing. Just because they were not "right wing enough" does not mean the were right of centre on the political sphere. It is typical of the right (especially in the US) to distance themselves from people who they dont feel are right wing enough.. rather pathetic if you ask me.
Maybe on social issues, but economically I just hear two guys fighting about who hates the rich and bankers the most. Sarkozy increased taxes and wants to increase taxes again, on income and on finance. He even wants an exit tax to trap people inside the country.

Again, the colour of the political party does not matter.. it is structural. You can easily argue that it was the right who started the lying and the left called them on it and brought down the country, but ultimately the Greek problem is a tax collecting problem based on structural problems that neither side have had the political balls to deal with and when they finally tried (the left) then the markets (the right) gang banged the country into a near death.
Oh... come on. Tax collection is not that difficult. The reason PASOK failed is because they have terrible policies. Don't blame it one the markets.

But that is 5 countries where 1 was actually right wing, so 4 countries... and then of those 4, 1 was economically right wing (UK). So it was 3 out of 27... so much for many.
Except, 27 countries did not collapse. Of the countries I mentioned, we can exclude France because they didn't collapse, and it is not fair to blame Greece on the left or the right. Hence

Left
Portugal
United Kingdom
Spain

Right
Iceland
Ireland
Italy

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand for many on the left. Mismanagement causes crisis. No, bankers do not cause crisis. Mismanagement causes crisis. The crisis were not caused by the left or the right. Both left wing and right wing governments cause crisis, because mismanagement causes crisis.

Face it, it has been right wing economic policies based on Anglo-American economic theory promoted by Reagan and Thatcher, that has been the root cause of the economic problems we are all in now. Of course the right denies this and continues to push for the very same policies, and claim that the left are to blame for the crisis because they did not implement the policies correctly despite not being in power...
What policies? America has left most of the policies from Reagan a long time ago, and so has UK. France has always opposed it, and look at what is happening to France. Germany is much more free market, and look at them.

The problem lies in America. Left wing policies is what people generally wants. Hey, rich people. Share some of that wealth. America has always been a beacon of hope for many conservatives around the world, and irritation from the left, but now the GOP has turned corrupt and ideological. Now, the US is not free or equal, and left wing populism is getting popular. US could have had a more equal society, but also a more free society if they pursued different polices.

Without America as a counterweight, with declining incomes, then the people are heading left. And they are blaming right wing politics, because America is no longer a role model. Funny enough, conservative countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland does better than left wing countries, and have less problems during the crisis. But that doesn't help when you don't have America.
 
This is fairly typical right-wing rhetoric, making it all about poor governance which, while it has been a major factor, gives a pass to the criminally irresponsible global financial institutions who brought about the 2008 market crash which triggered the entire crisis.
No one is forced to open their markets to these institution's.

And plenty of countries did just fine during the crisis. Yes, it is about mismanagement.
 
I have argued many times before that the left could have solved the problems in Spain, but they decided to do nothing.

That is simply not true. Not only did the left attempt to solve the problems, but they actually succeed in many areas like consolidation in the banking sector. Did they go far enough? No they did not, but stuff like this does not happen over night, which is what the markets want. Personally I would have loved to see them nationalise some of the big building companies and their unsold homes and make them into social housing since ironically there is a housing shortage in Spain for Spaniards.

It was in fact Bill Clinton who created the problems in America, but I am still blaming Bush, because he had time to solve it.

It was in fact a right wing congress that created the basis for the bubble and Clinton who signed it into law. Bush did nothing to solve the problem that is correct.. but a tad hard since his government was packed with the very people who created the basis for the crisis under Clinton..

Increasing spending and reducing economic freedom is not being right on economic issues.

Reducing what economic freedom? They let the banks run wild lol.

So when it is the right who does it, then it is policy, but when the left does it, then it is structural. Structural problems are policy problems. They could have improved the situation, but they chose to do nothing.

Er no. Portugal has always been structural from the days of the dictatorship. Both sides did nothing.

Maybe on social issues, but economically I just hear two guys fighting about who hates the rich and bankers the most. Sarkozy increased taxes and wants to increase taxes again, on income and on finance. He even wants an exit tax to trap people inside the country.

Sarkozy wants to get elected, and if you have not noticed the population dont like the rich tax dodgers and the bankers who created the crisis... he is a populist. That is why even the conservatives in the UK have to hit down .. at least on the face of it.. on bankers bonuses.

Oh... come on. Tax collection is not that difficult. The reason PASOK failed is because they have terrible policies. Don't blame it one the markets.

Actually it is very difficult if you dont have the structural parts in place. If you knew anything of Greek history, collecting taxes or the lack of that, goes back many many decades and even centuries.. when the Ottomans ruled Greece, it was seen as a national duty to resist the Turkish tax collectors. This idea has been passed down generation after generation..

Except, 27 countries did not collapse. Of the countries I mentioned, we can exclude France because they didn't collapse, and it is not fair to blame Greece on the left or the right.

Spain, Italy and the UK have not collapsed...And why have you left out the countries in eastern Europe who followed the American right wing economic model including Flat Tax, that all have collapsed or been in serious trouble?

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand for many on the left. Mismanagement causes crisis.

It is not hard to understand and I agree... but the blame has to be put in the correct place.

No, bankers do not cause crisis.

Hog wash. Bankers DID cause the sub-prime mortgage crisis, by first lobbying the GOP and Dems to allow the dergulation that made it possible to go greed nuts, and then demanding to be bailed out when their gambles failed horribly..

Mismanagement causes crisis. The crisis were not caused by the left or the right. Both left wing and right wing governments cause crisis, because mismanagement causes crisis.

In other words you just flipflopped. It is now not the fault of the left like most conservatives claim but now because of miss-management. Regardless... the governments in place in most countries that "miss-managed" according to you.. were pretty much all right wing governments going on right wing economic principles.. hell even the left wing governments were using right wing economic principles.

What policies? America has left most of the policies from Reagan a long time ago, and so has UK. France has always opposed it, and look at what is happening to France. Germany is much more free market, and look at them.

and you continue to amaze me. US economic policies along with the UK have not changed since Reagan. It has been deregulation with more spending and lowering taxes and running constant large deficits. Even New Labour did this. As for Germany what of them? That they make a ton of stuff, the new rich in China and middle east want? Is it some sort of a shocker that their economy might be better off?

The problem lies in America. Left wing policies is what people generally wants. Hey, rich people. Share some of that wealth. America has always been a beacon of hope for many conservatives around the world, and irritation from the left, but now the GOP has turned corrupt and ideological. Now, the US is not free or equal, and left wing populism is getting popular. US could have had a more equal society, but also a more free society if they pursued different polices.

Without America as a counterweight, with declining incomes, then the people are heading left. And they are blaming right wing politics, because America is no longer a role model. Funny enough, conservative countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland does better than left wing countries, and have less problems during the crisis. But that doesn't help when you don't have America.

LOL Ireland is a freaking mess. Australia is sitting on a gold mine of natural resource it is sucking up like no tomorrow to fuel its economy. Singapore is the greed capital of the world, so no wonder they are doing good.. you could sell your mother there for a profit I bet. The Swiss are not doing as well as you might think. Their economy is faltering because of the high currency and their banking industry is being forced open in the battle against tax dodgers. As for New Zealand, well.. does not come up on the radar much.. unless it has something to do with sheep.... but like Australia, it was isolated nicely from the crisis.

No what is happening is that we have the Internet, and people are realizing that myths we have been spoon fed for generations about the all so mighty, free and fair US are actually a load of crap. And it all started in 2000 when Bush won the contested election.. when the world saw how pathetic an election system that the US actually had. Ever since then, more and more myths have been killed off... especially the myths about freedom, and fairness.. and that means we are scrambling to find a new thing we can aspire too.... after all aspiring to become like the US is not exactly good any more.

I remember as a child hearing from my parents on how great the US was, how free and fair, and how horrible Denmark was and so on. Now days it is the exact opposite and people are amazed that you for example dont have 4+ internet providers in most areas of the US.. and that cost is so large.
 
Last edited:
No one is forced to open their markets to these institution's.

Actually you are. You need a damn good reason not to allow banks and such into a country, especially if you are in the EU.
 
His policies sound like the socialist party of Norway, and that party got 5% last election. Here in Auckland, only a small violent minority support that kind of policies. Are French that radical, or do they just hate Sarkozy.

I think the French are that radical. Remember JFK's assassination, or Breivik's link to Jacques de Molay. France encourages terrorism. Have you ever heard of the Sainte Genevieve Squads? The IRA is a direct result of their connections with James Joyce.

Tiocfaidh ár lá !!!
 
Last edited:
Do you believe austerity has worked so far (or ever)?

Well, you can only spend so much as you can afford to, right? And what's the alternative? Just printing money? Sure, moderate inflation probably isn't as bad as many seem to believe, but when it's too much, it becomes poisonous for any economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom