Nicholas Sarkozy seeks far right votes

[gunner]

There is a difference between conservation, and environmentalism.

I disagree. It is one of the same thing. At most, you may be able to suggest a Conservationist is passive and an environmentalist is active.

Right wing parties, apart from America tends to in favour of conservation and responsible development.

Not the case in the UK, by any stretch. One simple example would be the introduction of the 'localism bill' The Localism Act - Local government - Department for Communities and Local Government. A euphemism for more uncontrolled building with much less emphasis on regulation and procedural checks.

However, the more radical form of environmentalism is supported by the left, because it is not a right wing ideology. Right wingers are supposed to believe in individualism, and radical environmentalism is collectivism. Right wingers are supposed to believe in the free market, and that the free market can solve many of our problems. If you believe radical action is needed to save the environment, then you don't really believe in free markets, do you?

To simplistic. Placing many of the above in some form of dichotomous relationship over generalizes, at best.

Paul

 

[Camlon]

I disagree. It is one of the same thing. At most, you may be able to suggest a Conservationist is passive and an environmentalist is active.

No, its not. The difference is your attitude. Radical Enviromentalists believe we should reduce our standard of living to save the enviroment. Conservationist believe we should act sustainable to not hurt the further generations. The enviromentalist focus is on the enviroment, the conservationist focus is on humans.

Not the case in the UK, by any stretch. One simple example would be the introduction of the 'localism bill' The Localism Act - Local government - Department for Communities and Local Government. A euphemism for more uncontrolled building with much less emphasis on regulation and procedural checks.

That has nothing to do with the enviroment. That is a bill who gives local communties the power of regulating construction. The local communities know what is needed, not the federal government.

I think this illustrates the difference between enviromentalism and conservationism. You probably oppose it, because it could lead to deregulation in some communties, and they might destroy some wildlife. However, the conservationist will think. Our focus should be on how to improve living standard for humans, not to save every single bird in the world. Deregulation will lead to better communities, lower prices and more investment.

To simplistic. Placing many of the above in some form of dichotomous relationship over generalizes, at best

Not everything have to be complicated. First off, enviromentalism is certianly collectivism, because you take collective action to save the enviroment. The left believes in more collective action, while conservatives believe in individual action, with exceptions.

But more importantly, if you believe radical action is needed to save the enviroment, then you don't really believe in free markets. If you believe the market fails so badly, then you are likely to not support the market in other situations.

Yes I am repeating myself, but you didn't really respond.

 

[Ben K.]

But more importantly, if you believe radical action is needed to save the enviroment, then you don't really believe in free markets. If you believe the market fails so badly, then you are likely to not support the market in other situations.

Yes I am repeating myself, but you didn't really respond.

I'd have to part ways with you on that notion. A free market has no real way to deal with foreign aggression like a Nazi-type threat, or a bug pandemic, or an environmental catastrophe. You had a caveat for where the free market solves most problems initially. I'd argue the environment is one of those things it's not built to deal with.


Bacteria given sustenance will multiply to great success in an environment before they destroy it and themselves. That's the essentials of a free market, enjoy the success of multiplication and success but be weary of those blind forces. Things like that shouldn't be left/right issues.

 

[Camlon]

I'd have to part ways with you on that notion. A free market has no real way to deal with foreign aggression like a Nazi-type threat, or a bug pandemic, or an environmental catastrophe. You had a caveat for where the free market solves most problems initially. I'd argue the environment is one of those things it's not built to deal with.

Bacteria given sustenance will multiply to great success in an environment before they destroy it and themselves. That's the essentials of a free market, enjoy the success of multiplication and success but be weary of those blind forces. Things like that shouldn't be left/right issues.

Well, then you are like me. Probably not a libeterian. But the question is, how much do the free market fail. I believe we should put up some sensible regulations, have a carbon tax that will be used to invest in new green technology or oil subtitutes. My focus is on sustainable development, and not just on the enviroment. I don't think we need to massively reduce living standards now, and I think the ones who do want to reduce living standards, do not really believe in free markets on any level. There is a difference between believing in externalities, and having a distrust for markets.

That has been my point all along. I don't see any arguments against that point. You are just stating that the market is imperfect, hence you are not a liberterian. But the question is, how imperfect do you think the market is. And that is the difference between the left and the right. Thats also why radical enviromentalists who believe government should force massive change, are on the left.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Question is, are these hard core far right minded voters or people simply disaffected by the mainstream right in France?

Marine le Pen apparently polled 18% in the presidential rounds (higher than her father ever managed) and she is going to be around to contest the next 3-4 Presidential elections if the pattern of leadership stability remains as it did with her father.

Will we also see France drifting politically ever rightwards and slowly to the extreme in the next generation?

Here's something from Sarkozy that reassures me -

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ruled out doing any election deal with the far-right National Front

--snip--

"There will be no agreement with the National Front, and no [National Front] ministers," Mr Sarkozy told France Info radio."We need to speak to the 18% who voted for Marine Le Pen," he said.
"I don't regard this 18% as people with extreme-right ideas... but I don't want ministers from the National Front. I've never wanted that."

I'd still be interested in seeing just how large the core French National Front voting population is and whether Marine le Pen's approach (as different to her father's more thuggish leadership) is growing numbers of supporters on the Far Right.

 

[gunner]

No, its not. The difference is your attitude. Radical Enviromentalists believe we should reduce our standard of living to save the enviroment. Conservationist believe we should act sustainable to not hurt the further generations. The enviromentalist focus is on the enviroment, the conservationist focus is on humans.

In order to 'conserve' our already depleted finite resources of course we have to curtail our excesses. That point should be unifying or what's left to conserve? You simply cannot introduce a disconnect between the human and the surrounding environment. Look at Bruno Latours work(s) for deep insight into nature/human exsistence being one. Sorry I cant find the necessary parts but a flavour of his concepts are here, Politics of Nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a hypothetical example is it acceptable to allow 'the 30st American pull into the Ponderosa car park with his gas guzzling 4x4 devouring plate after plate of food, on a daily basis'? If you can't see the connection between our behaviour and the surrounding environment then we truly are in trouble.

That has nothing to do with the enviroment. That is a bill who gives local communties the power of regulating construction. The local communities know what is needed, not the federal government.

I think this illustrates the difference between enviromentalism and conservationism. You probably oppose it, because it could lead to deregulation in some communties, and they might destroy some wildlife. However, the conservationist will think. Our focus should be on how to improve living standard for humans, not to save every single bird in the world. Deregulation will lead to better communities, lower prices and more investment.

Once again deregulation allows for 'more' build projects having less than rigorous standards applied. Why is all new builds not having to make use of Solar panel technology? and other green technology's. Simply, cost to developer. On a social community front it is not 'average Joe' who is able to take advantage of such laxness of regulation it is those with the capital and financial clout. A good example of developers constantly aggrieved, and contesting the amount, at having to build affordable housing within their developments why? profit ahead of societal needs. A over exuberance of the market....or lack of firm regulation?

Not everything have to be complicated. First off, enviromentalism is certianly collectivism, because you take collective action to save the enviroment. The left believes in more collective action, while conservatives believe in individual action, with exceptions.

Does the right not collectively abstain? If we are to go down the road of Pigeonholing people.

But more importantly, if you believe radical action is needed to save the enviroment, then you don't really believe in free markets. If you believe the market fails so badly, then you are likely to not support the market in other situations.

To believe or not to believe? that's some question..

I think we have managed to veer way of topic.

Paul

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- I think we have managed to veer way of topic.

Paul

Agreed, however it was an interesting read.

Meanwhile, back on topic - le Pen has promised to submit a blank vote slip and offers no guidance to those who voted for her other than "vote with their conscience." And it was interesting to read Hollande also courting voters who voted for the National Front.

Some of the papers see that Sarkozy's final chance is tomorrow night's "head-to-head" debate with Hollande, apparently Sarkozy wiped the floor with Segolene Royal in 2005 and there are hopes he can repeat his feat.

 

[Camlon]

In order to 'conserve' our already depleted finite resources of course we have to curtail our excesses. That point should be unifying or what's left to conserve? You simply cannot introduce a disconnect between the human and the surrounding environment.

You just confirmed my point. You just said there is no disconnect between humans and the surrounding environment. That is the enviromentalist aproach.

I and many others (especially on the right) believe there is. That is the conservationist approach. We believe there is some connection, but not a direct one. Hence, your example makes no sense.

Once again deregulation allows for 'more' build projects having less than rigorous standards applied. Why is all new builds not having to make use of Solar panel technology? and other green technology's. Simply, cost to developer. On a social community front it is not 'average Joe' who is able to take advantage of such laxness of regulation it is those with the capital and financial clout. A good example of developers constantly aggrieved, and contesting the amount, at having to build affordable housing within their developments why? profit ahead of societal needs. A over exuberance of the market....or lack of firm regulation?

Do you think all regulation is good?

I don't think so. And by removing unnecessary regulation that give little or nothing in return we can reduce housing prices. That is actually putting societal needs in front of left wing ideology. I believe local communities are much better at making appropriate regulation for a community. For instance locals should decide if tall buildings should be allowed to develop, not the federal government.

But again this is about moderate and right wing ideology against left wing ideology. It has nothing about the environmental awareness of conservatives in Britain.

Does the right not collectively abstain? If we are to go down the road of Pigeonholing people.

No, there are many on the right who works to help the environment. Yes, it would be collectivism if the right want to force everyone to pollute.