The Next President of France will be...

johnp001

The LR primaries for the French presidential election are also detailed here on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republicans_(France)_presidential_primary,_2016

CelticRambler

captainspeed wrote: »

Another big problem is the internet, you only have to look at how easily manipulated people are.

People have always been easily manipulated (as you said) and the internet hasn't really changed the business of propaganda. Just think of how many "brave young men" were persuaded to sign up as cannon fodder for two wars in the space of twenty-five years. Plenty of time for the "truth" to come out after the first one, but that didn't change anything for the second.

What makes France's election different to the Brexit and Trump votes (and predictions) is that the French have always taken their politics very seriously, and are ready to debate it with only the slightest provocation. I've been at gatherings where there's been an explicit "no talking politics" ban in force because otherwise calm and gentle folk would start screaming at each other! :eek:

For this reason, they're not as likely to hide their voting intentions when asked in a poll, and French people simply don't use the internet like the "Anglo Saxon" world, so whatever effect it might have is mitigated by their much more important real-world conversations and connections.

Marine Le Pen will almost certainly make it through to the second round, but that's as far as she'll go. There's still a lot of hate for the FN. It's support is mainly amongst the young and in two geographical areas (the North and Provence). The youth vote here is unreliable - they talk the talk, but then do nothing about it, and the old folks (the most racist and xenophobic) who will vote are those most opposed to the FN.

In the end, the next president will probably be chosen by the left. Round 2 will (probably) be MlP vs. LR. As long as the LR candidate isn't Sarkozy, the Left will support the moderate Juppé/Fillon, as will the LR core vote and the centrists. In the unlikely event of it being MlP vs. PS (Macron/Valls) the business-friendly moderate LR's will choose a "progressive" PS candidate over the isolationist MlP; so will the centrists.

The only circumstances that would lead to MlP's election that I can see would be if Sarkozy "FN lite" gets through. In that case, I can imagine a huge level of abstention or spoilt votes from the Left (and some Centre) and some of the harder-core Right will think they might as well vote for the "real thing" than someone who failed to live up to his promises when he had the chance.

CelticRambler

Nice bit of strategising yesterday and today! Macron's hat is officially in the ring. Meanwhile, LePen is having trouble keeping the family together.

The latest polls now say Fillon is the best candidate for the Right, and Valls will be the figurehead of the Left but won't be able to shake off the stain of bad government, even if it's not his fault.

So we'll see how things unfold in the next month, but I'm inclined to think that it'll be Le Pen vs. Fillon or Macron in the second round. It's a real shame there can't be three candidates ... but if the second/third place votes are really really close, I would imagine the count being challenged and the second round possibly delayed. That'd be interesting!

Bob24

Macron will fall flat IMO. He is a smart politician but has no party behind him (i.e. no well-oiled campaigning machine), no historical core support base, his target electorate (libertarian/liberal) is shrinking in all Western counties, and he will have to share some of his potential voters with the socialist party candidate (those who find him a bit too economically liberal) and the with LR candidate (those who find him a bit too socially liberal).

One man to watch is Mélanchon. He won't make it to the second round but he has potential to get a higher score than the socialist party in the first round, which could make him the new dominant leader of the left.

Fillon's rise is quite impressive and if he can make it to the second round of the primary he will be the most likely next president of France (in a one to one match he would beat either Juppé or Sarkozy in the second round, and then have the greatest potential for the actual presidential election).

Rjd2

Looks very likely Fillon will run off v Juppe next week. Bye bye Sarko.:P

Le Pen won't be happy, Sarko was the only one of the three I thought she had a chance against.

https://www.rt.com/news/367581-sarkozy-lose-france-primary/

CelticRambler

Very sour grapes from one of Sarko's young campaign managers a few minutes ago. He was blaming voters from the Left for turning out in massive numbers to influence the result.

Well, yeah, they did - but I think that's what's called democracy in the Western world!

Even if Fillon doesn't walk away with an outright win tonight, with that much of a lead and even if some of it can be attributed to an anti-Sarkozy vote by the Left, he'll be hard to beat next week. Yet more food for thought for Hollande: how can he possibly run against the New World Order of LePen-Fillon-Macron?

KingBrian2

Juppe is doing really well in popularity scale thus far so provided he is not derailed by personal troubles or media mischaracterization his chances of becoming the next French President are very good.

CelticRambler

Juppé is finished. Sarkozy's just said that he's voting Fillon and encouraged his supporters to do the same.

RobertKK

Good to see Sarkozy gone, another politician who helped to destroy Libya.

Richard Hillman

I reckon the secret Le Pen vote is on an entire different level to the Shy Tory, Shy Trump vote.

Same with AfD.

CelticRambler

The French aren't shy about their intentions.

All tonight's candidates have set out their stall now, with Juppé putting it most elegantly: forget the notion that France can turn back the clock and live in some nostalgic bubble from the past (à la Brexit )

Marine is going to have a lot of explaining to do when four of the five principal candidates are saying that France's future depends on intelligent modernisation, not isolationism.

Rjd2

CelticRambler wrote: »

Very sour grapes from one of Sarko's young campaign managers a few minutes ago. He was blaming voters from the Left for turning out in massive numbers to influence the result.

Not sure Le Pen should be happy about that either.In a perfect world she needs them to say "they are both as bad as each other" ala those who did not vote for Clinton and are now protesting:pac: and basically stay at home.

Rjd2

Also might be an idea to add Fillon to the poll as he is the fav now.:o

CelticRambler

Interesting map showing just how widespread is Fillon's support:


Sarkozy came top only in Corsica and La Réunion!

Bob24

CelticRambler wrote: »

Marine is going to have a lot of explaining to do when four of the five principal candidates are saying that France's future depends on intelligent modernisation, not isolationism.

I would put a caveat on Fillon: he is economically very liberal but he is not a globalist and has clearly expressed that he strongly believes national sovereignty should come before international agreements if they go against the country's national interest (one example amongst others: he has clearly expressed that leaving the ECHR would be on the table if it was to prevent the enforcement of parts of his manifesto). If a British comparison helps, he would probably be more a Theresa May than a David Cameron (and while is is meant to be right wing, Juppé would more be some kind of Tony Blair).


Having said that, I don't think Le Pen is too worried about being the only one sayings something while all the others are saying the contrary. I actually think it is quite the opposite , saying "they are all the same and we are the only alternative" is exactly how she has increased her support rate and if you look at her political strategy there is no reason for her to stop doing that.

KingBrian2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Not sure Le Pen should be happy about that either.In a perfect world she needs them to say "they are both as bad as each other" ala those who did not vote for Clinton and are now protesting:pac: and basically stay at home.

Gives the French public a clear choice of a politician who rejects the € and wants to leave the EU like Britain. Interesting to see PM Theresa May in Britain and Chancellor Merkel holding the centre ground in Europe as they take on Le Pen of France displaying a strong and independent French position. I can see the Frenchpeople buy into that prospect

Rjd2

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/juppe-fillon-le-pen-will-define-french-right/

Interesting. Le Pen's mob in good spirits today, Sarkho demise for them a sign the ultimate establishment politician is not exactly en vogue these days.

Fillon they are already getting their digs in against and the fact that Marine was doing less worse v him than Juppe will give them confidence.

I doubt she will win, but its going to be a fascinating few months.

ambro25

Rjd2 wrote: »

I doubt she will win, but its going to be a fascinating few months.

It will certainly be interesting to observe the result of next week end's second round in the primaries, and the make up of the respective electorate for Fillon and Jupp .
In particular, I'm wondering how many (forward-thinking) left-minded voters, knowing that any flavour the left hasn't really got a prayer come 2017 and intent on keeping Le Pen out, are going to bother getting up and voting for Jupp to avoid Fillon's more conservative political flavour (and reciprocally, how many Le Pen supporters are going to do the opposite for Fillon, thinking that the centre ground might not vote as much for him as much for Jupp in the 2nd round of 2017).
Tactics, tea leaves, and interesting times fully within the meaning of that ancient Chinese curse

KingBrian2

Rjd2 wrote: »

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/juppe-fillon-le-pen-will-define-french-right/

Interesting. Le Pen's mob in good spirits today, Sarkho demise for them a sign the ultimate establishment politician is not exactly en vogue these days.

Fillon they are already getting their digs in against and the fact that Marine was doing less worse v him than Juppe will give them confidence.

I doubt she will win, but its going to be a fascinating few months.

What would be a worry is low turnout. Voters not interested in their countries politicians might allow Le Pen come in through the back door whereas with Sarko he had style and substance even if you didn't like the flavour.

Bob24

Looks like Juppé is cornering himself more an more. He has been vilifying Fillon in a not so honest manner and trying to play his card of being the candidate which can attract left wing voters because he is progressive, but this is now pushing him in an uncomfortable position whereby his only way to win is to bring more left wing voters to the ring wing primary him and doing that involves alienating right wing voters (which understandably don't like seeing someone trashing their most likely presidential candidate and promoting what are seen as left wing policies).

These 2 rounds primary elections open to all voters in a French system which already offers a two rounds presidential election don't make much sense to me to be honest. They are trying to copy the American system but it doesn't work as the French institutions and electoral system are quite different.

GreenFolder2

Well, they're just party candidate selection rounds. Calling them primaries or elections is a bit ridiculous. They're just a public running of what happens at party conferences.

Bob24

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well, they're just party candidate selection rounds. Calling them primaries or elections is a bit ridiculous. They're just a public running of what happens at party conferences.

That is not political tradition in France though. Things shortly moved from each party having a natural leader (elected or not by its members) which was automatically the candidate of that party, to asking the whole French electorate what candidate they prefer.

KingBrian2

Bob24 wrote: »

That is not political tradition in France though. Things shortly moved from each party having a natural leader (elected or not by its members) which was automatically the candidate of that party, to asking the whole French electorate what candidate they prefer.

It certainly sounds better the later option you described.

CelticRambler

Bob24 wrote: »

These 2 rounds primary elections open to all voters in a French system which already offers a two rounds presidential election don't make much sense to me to be honest.

I'm not sure whose idea it was to open the primaries to all and sundry, but it does make sense, especially in the context of the two-round system. When that consistently saw the predetermined mainstream Left and Right candidates progress to the second round, the first round was pretty much irrelevant. Now, however, the electorate is so disillusioned with mainstream candidates that two lucky chancers scrape into round two on the basis of nonsensical percentages. For all the flaws and potential for rigging, these primaries do at least allow voters to eliminate the "no way!" candidates sooner rather than later.

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm wondering how many ... left-minded voters ... are going to bother getting up and voting for Jupp to avoid Fillon's more conservative political flavour (and reciprocally, how many Le Pen supporters are going to do the opposite for Fillon, thinking that the centre ground might not vote as much for him as much for Jupp in the 2nd round of 2017).

Or, alternatively, how many Le Pen supporters will join the Left and vote for Juppé thinking it'd be better for Marine to have "clear blue water" between her and the mainstream Right candidate? From what I'm hearing, though, the objective of the Left last week was to get rid of Sarkozy. Mission accomplished; there'll be no need to (rig/influence the) vote on Sunday. We'll know soon enough. The organisers are counting on another 4m voters to help fill their campaign coffers! :pac:

Bob24 wrote: »

Having said that, I don't think Le Pen is too worried about being the only one sayings something while all the others are saying the contrary. I actually think it is quite the opposite , saying "they are all the same and we are the only alternative" is exactly how she has increased her support rate and if you look at her political strategy there is no reason for her to stop doing that.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Gives the French public a clear choice of a politician who rejects the € and wants to leave the EU like Britain. ... I can see the Frenchpeople buy into that prospect

No, for all their posturing, the French aren't as isolationist as the British/English.

I wonder if Le Pen has peaked too soon. At this stage everyone knows that all she's got to offer is a hard-right, hard "Frexit" attitude, and her core support hasn't really changed in over a year. The other candidates have the Brexit and Trump experiences to learn from, and will no doubt package their campaign promises to target Le Pen's less fervent supporters. Up to now, she's been the only choice as a protest candidate, but with Mélenchon, Macron and Fillon on the cards now, there's a lot more choice than before. I wouldn't be surprised if the "shock result" of 2017-round1 is that le Pen doesn't make the cut. :eek:

Bob24

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm not sure whose idea it was to open the primaries to all and sundry, but it does make sense, especially in the context of the two-round system. When that consistently saw the predetermined mainstream Left and Right candidates progress to the second round, the first round was pretty much irrelevant. Now, however, the electorate is so disillusioned with mainstream candidates that two lucky chancers scrape into round two on the basis of nonsensical percentages. For all the flaws and potential for rigging, these primaries do at least allow voters to eliminate the "no way!" candidates sooner rather than later.

2 rounds for primaries and another 2 rounds for the election doens't really make sense.

The US have primary elections to apply a first filter and the actual election becomes a binary choice. The French system already offered a first round to apply the filter and a second round to offer a binary choice.

Also it clearly isn't left wing voter's business to pick the candidate or the left, not the other way around. Those people can vote for their own candidate in the first round.

Those you define as "lucky chancers" could still have a card to play without primary elections. See for example Macron and Mélanchon which will be candidates without taking part of the left wing primary.

Bob24

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, for all their posturing, the French aren't as isolationist as the British/English.

I wonder if Le Pen has peaked too soon. At this stage everyone knows that all she's got to offer is a hard-right, hard "Frexit" attitude, and her core support hasn't really changed in over a year. The other candidates have the Brexit and Trump experiences to learn from, and will no doubt package their campaign promises to target Le Pen's less fervent supporters. Up to now, she's been the only choice as a protest candidate, but with Mélenchon, Macron and Fillon on the cards now, there's a lot more choice than before. I wouldn't be surprised if the "shock result" of 2017-round1 is that le Pen doesn't make the cut. :eek:

Le Pen will alter her manifesto if she needs to (she has already done so about exiting the eurozone), but she will never move away from her strategy that she is the only alternative to "UMPS". So saying something which goes against what other candidates are saying is a blessing rather that a curse as far as she is concerned.

recedite

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

One would hope that French voters, even if they were tempted by the lure of populism...

Is there any difference between the two concepts; populism and democracy?

Chips Lovell

No, they're no identical. A non-populist party would select policies on the base of some sort of ideological framework, even a very lose one and then try to convince the electorate that's the best way forward for the country. Populists work in reverse, choosing policies they know to be popular in the hope of getting elected.

Just as not every democratic party is populist, not every populist is a democrat and there's been a good few examples of dictatorships with a strong populist streak.

Bob24

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No, they're no identical. A non-populist party would select policies on the base of some sort of ideological framework, even a very lose one and then try to convince the electorate that's the best way forward for the country. Populists work in reverse, choosing policies they know to be popular in the hope of getting elected.

There is a increasing tendency to confuse populism and demagogy though.

In the strict sense what you are describing is more demagogy. Populist has recently been tuned into a negative word but its original meaning simply is to express/represent the interest of the common people (which in itself is a rather respectable thing to do, and the lack of this happening is why Western democracies are in turmoil).

Chips Lovell

That's true and a lot of what we've been seeing in recent years is more demagogy than benign populism

CelticRambler

Bob24 wrote: »

2 rounds for primaries and another 2 rounds for the election doens't really make sense.

The two-round system is the default protocol for all French elections, even when picking class representatives in secondary school! When discussing whether or not there was any point in this Sunday's vote, seeing as Fillon was so far ahead of Juppé/so close to an overall majority, one of the reasons given was "because elections are always in two rounds!" (more relevant was the fact if Juppé had withdrawn, it would theoretically have allowed Sarkozy to claim the newly liberated second place).

Bob24 wrote: »

The US have primary elections to apply a first filter and the actual election becomes a binary choice. The French system already offered a first round to apply the filter and a second round to offer a binary choice.

On paper, yes, but in practice no. The "actual election" has always been considered a binary choice between one or other version of the PS and UMP (now LR), to be decided in round two. As a result, voters haven't been using the first round to filter good/bad candidates, but to make a statement, confident that it didn't really matter because the majority would vote for the usual establishment candidates. That's how Le Pen senior unexpectedly found himself in the second round.

With the breakdown of trust/confidence in mainstream parties, the two-round system is no longer fit for purpose. Sarkozy was the first example, Hollande is the second, both being unable to secure a second term. In both cases the eventual president was not the first choice of 75% of voters, but the electorate had no opportunity to make a legitimate second choice, only to choose between the two least-worst candidates. In that sense, the strikes, protests and political stagnation that plagued both candidates' terms in office were really no different to the anti-Trump "not my president" movement.

Bob24

CelticRambler wrote: »

The two-round system is the default protocol for all French elections, even when picking class representatives in secondary school!

Yes, 2 rounds and not 4 ;-) (the primaries and the final vote are the same election to select a president).

CelticRambler wrote: »

On paper, yes, but in practice no. The "actual election" has always been considered a binary choice between one or other version of the PS and UMP (now LR), to be decided in round two. As a result, voters haven't been using the first round to filter good/bad candidates, but to make a statement, confident that it didn't really matter because the majority would vote for the usual establishment candidates. That's how Le Pen senior unexpectedly found himself in the second round.

They are filtering in my opinion. Until now the filter has - most of the time - been to select the candidates of the 2 "mainstream" parties, but it looks like it will be different next year with the FN probably going in. Also it has to be mentioned that 2 other candidates which are not part of those to parties (Macron and Mélanchon) have potential to get a fairly high score outside the main 2 parties and didn't need more primary election for that than Le Pen does.

CelticRambler wrote: »

With the breakdown of trust/confidence in mainstream parties, the two-round system is no longer fit for purpose. Sarkozy was the first example, Hollande is the second, both being unable to secure a second term. In both cases the eventual president was not the first choice of 75% of voters, but the electorate had no opportunity to make a legitimate second choice, only to choose between the two least-worst candidates. In that sense, the strikes, protests and political stagnation that plagued both candidates' terms in office were really no different to the anti-Trump "not my president" movement.

I wouldn't agree the 2 rounds system isn't fit for purpose any-more (in my view the problem is more the politicians than the selection process), but even assuming it is, how is that primary election going to change anything beside confusing things even more? As opposed to what some commenters seem to think, voters didn't exactly go for unexpected candidates and drifted away from old party politics: all of the top 3 choices are former prime ministers or presidents, all have either led the party before or been a contender for leadership, and they are almost the 3 oldest candidates which were on offer (all with a 30+ years career in the same party). So whoever wins on Sunday the primary election will not bring something on offer which is much different than what the previous selection process would have been (Fillon, Juppé, or Sarkozy were all very close from being the "natural" candidate of the party at some point in the past 2 years).

recedite

Bob24 wrote: »

There is a increasing tendency to confuse populism and demagogy though.

In the strict sense what you are describing is more demagogy. Populist has recently been tuned into a negative word but its original meaning simply is to express/represent the interest of the common people (which in itself is a rather respectable thing to do, and the lack of this happening is why Western democracies are in turmoil).

You are exactly right.
"Populist" is a label used by a particular ideology, what we might call "the left-leaning liberal", to describe a democratic outcome when the vote goes the wrong way from their own perspective.

CelticRambler

Well, by definition, those in the same right-wing party will tend to be quite similar to each other, and not really all that different to the more-right parties either. What this primary has done is give all French voters the chance to decide on the person and policies of the mainstream candidate for the Right, as well as eliminating someone who could have been foisted on them by internal manoeuvring, potentially leaving them with an impossible choice in 2017 round 2.

As it is (i.e. as of last night) we have Fillon polling at 71% with the promise of an unashamedly more Catholic France (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-surrogate mothers), 500000 civil service job losses and a renewed Franco-German-led European project. That is the kind of France most French want - e.g. freedom to put up a Christmas crib in the town hall, to keep Pentecost as a holiday weekend, to work and travel freely across the continent, and to see less of their taxes gobbled up by layers of bureaucracy. What has M lePen got to offer over and above that? Ummmmmmm. Not a lot ...

The Left can obviously emphasise all the wonderful things they're going to do to safeguard workers' rights, but here on the ground (in PS territory) even the hardest core left-wingers realise that there's those rights are pointless if there's no job on offer, and as more young people try to escape from unemployment by creating their own business, they're beginning to see that le patron, is in fact someone just like them, not the evil bogey man portrayed by the old-school, union-reared socialists.

Bob24

recedite wrote: »

You are exactly right.
"Populist" is a label used by a particular ideology, what we might call "the left-leaning liberal", to describe a democratic outcome when the vote goes the wrong way from their own perspective.

Yes - even though I am far myself from supporting the policies of all the so-called populists (there are many kinds and some are indeed very bad and demagogic), there is a tendency to do what you are saying especially from the group you have mentioned, although not exclusively.

I think the semantic mistake is far from being random, but more part of a gradual and partly unconscious ideological move to equal addressing the working class to being a demagogue (and all across the Western world the liberal left has recently been finding out the hard way that it needs to reconquer that electorate that it took for granted and had been looking down at for the past 2 or 3 decades).

oscarBravo

Bob24 wrote: »

...a gradual and partly unconscious ideological move to equal addressing the working class to being a demagogue...

And yet, I don't recall Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Jeremy Corbyn being described as demagogues.

I suspect you've simplified the question beyond the point where it makes any sense.

Bob24

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, I don't recall Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Jeremy Corbyn being described as demagogues.

I suspect you've simplified the question beyond the point where it makes any sense.

Have a look at the previous posts again. What we have been saying is that nowadays in the mouth of many people populist means exactly the same thing as demagogue ... and yes the politicians you mentioned are definitely being called populists.

Also, I will add that today's electoral reality is that for the better or the worse the fact is the working class votes in majority for Farage and Trump, not Corbyn and Sanders (who's supporters are mostly young educated "progressives").

And since we are on a French election topic you can mention the same thing about France: sure Mélanchon is getting some of the middle class vote the socialist party has been losing, but a vast majority has been going to Le Pen.

Chips Lovell

In fairness, it was the kind of demagogy that Bob24 mentions that I meant in my original post, such as Trumpism etc. than populism as he understands it "addressing the working class" etc.

oscarBravo

Bob24 wrote: »

Have a look at the previous posts again. What we have been saying is that nowadays in the mouth of many people populist means exactly the same thing as demagogue ... and yes the politicians you mentioned are definitely being called populists.

But that's not what you said, and not what I took issue with. You don't get to make a claim, and then when I argue with it, tell me I'm wrong because you claimed something else.

Addressing the working class isn't demagoguery. Populism isn't demagoguery. Contrary to the attempts to collapse things into simplistic little boxes so they can be hand-waved away with a snarky remark, there's a spectrum from democracy to populism to demagoguery.

K-9

recedite wrote: »

You are exactly right.
"Populist" is a label used by a particular ideology, what we might call "the left-leaning liberal", to describe a democratic outcome when the vote goes the wrong way from their own perspective.

You might very well think that...

Seriously, SF would be seen as populist.

The best example was FF under Bertie!

Bob24

oscarBravo wrote: »

But that's not what you said, and not what I took issue with. You don't get to make a claim, and then when I argue with it, tell me I'm wrong because you claimed something else.

Addressing the working class isn't demagoguery. Populism isn't demagoguery. Contrary to the attempts to collapse things into simplistic little boxes so they can be hand-waved away with a snarky remark, there's a spectrum from democracy to populism to demagoguery.

Not what I said?

Bob24 wrote: »

There is a increasing tendency to confuse populism and demagogy though.

In the strict sense what you are describing is more demagogy. Populist has recently been tuned into a negative word but its original meaning simply is to express/represent the interest of the common people (which in itself is a rather respectable thing to do, and the lack of this happening is why Western democracies are in turmoil).

You said you never heard some politicians being called demagogues but what I am saying is that calling them populists is pretty much the same (as per my quote below) and this has been done. Not sure what you are are taking offense with then?

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

You might very well think that...

Seriously, SF would be seen as populist.

The best example was FF under Bertie!

To me Bertie is a serious demagogue but not really a populist. SF, probably a bit of both.

K-9

Bob24 wrote: »

To me Bertie is a serious demagogue but not really a populist. SF, probably a bit of both.

There's probably some truth in that but Bertie could change positions as the mood of the electorate moved and do it rather seamlessly.

He did it by trying to please all of the people, all of the time and didn't do a bad job of it. FF became transfer friendly for probably the only time in their history under him, and nearly got the impossible overall majority on one occasion because of that.

Now the above ignores the long term consequences of trying to please everybody, it often doesn't work out well.

With SF you've the whole Nationalistic viewpoint which is populist, the oldest trick in the book politically.

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

There's probably some truth in that but Bertie could change positions as the mood of the electorate moved and do it rather seamlessly.

He did it by trying to please all of the people, all of the time and didn't do a bad job of it. FF became transfer friendly for probably the only time in their history under him, and nearly got the impossible overall majority on one occasion because of that.

Now the above ignores the long term consequences of trying to please everybody, it often doesn't work out well.

With SF you've the whole Nationalistic viewpoint which is populist, the oldest trick in the book politically.

Yes and to explicit what I meant a bit more, for me Bertie was only a demagogue because he was making promises based on immediate electoral prospects and handing out sweeteners across the board (as you said, often short-sighted) to be elected, but he was not a populist because he was not especially interested in the "common people" (though I know that term in itself has a bit of a foggy meaning).

SF is different as there is also some demagogy in their promisses but to me what makes them populists is that they are clearly looking at society as a power struggle between different social classes and are making it clear their objective is to represent the interest of the lower to middle classes (I am not judging whether they are doing it well here, just saying this is what makes them populists and is not intrinsically good or bad - whereas to me demagogy is always bad in the long term).

recedite

K-9 wrote: »

There's probably some truth in that but Bertie could change positions as the mood of the electorate moved and do it rather seamlessly.

But surely that is the essence of representative democracy?

K-9 wrote: »

With SF you've the whole Nationalistic viewpoint which is populist, the oldest trick in the book politically.

Again, if the electorate are nationalist minded, then to represent that is democracy.

Bob24 wrote: »

SF is different as there is also some demagogy in their promisses but to me what makes them populists is that they are clearly looking at society as a power struggle between different social classes and are making it clear their objective is to represent the interest of the lower to middle classes .

The definition of populism you are working with is a slightly older and more classical one. It assumes that society is divided roughly into two groups; the educated elite who know whats best, and the uneducated "lower orders" of people who are stupid, excitable and easily misled. Back in the day, 100 years ago, they didn't get a vote for those reasons. Not being property owners, it was thought they had no real stake in the stability of society, and therefore they were prone to backing revolutions.
And perhaps more importantly, because they might vote for a redistribution of wealth and property

This classic view holds that society is better off when the elite hold onto power. Therefore democracy is the enemy. Oligarchy or monarchy are the favoured outcomes.

Modern society is structured differently. Nearly everybody is middle class and educated.
The word populist has been revived, but nowadays it is taking on a very subjective meaning. It refers to those who vote the wrong way, and therefore by using the term, you imply they aren't really fit to vote at all, because their input leads to an undesirable outcome (from your own perspective).
Maybe this view has some merit, but I'm just saying its not a very democratic view.

yo soy carlos

How the Irish elites love to pour scorn on the ignorant pack West of the big Apple but fawn over everything French.Well let's get ready for the repeal of the thirty fifth not the eight.Manif pour tout needs to open an Irish office but in Irlande profunde not Dublin to begin the oh so needed overthrow of the liberal elite.As usual we are so behind the times but the leprechauns days in the Aras are numbered and Varadkar is every day more in need of Indas quick fall.Michalineen better return to FF profunde quick if he wants to survive.Ahhh oui The times are a changing.

Rjd2

So a beatdown for Juppe last night, crazy when you consider how only a few weeks ago he was strong favourite with pollsters, bookies and experts (having a bad year;)).

So now the focus must turn to Hollande, the harshest thing I can say about him running next year, it would be gift from the Gods for Le Pen and Fillon as it would ensure the socialists would be a complete non factor.

His approval ratings is down at 5% ffs.

Valls talking about running also, some may call him a traitor etc, but if I were a socialist in France I would be very much in the anyone but Hollande camp.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38129375

Chips Lovell

At this stage, I'd be surprised if Valls didn't run.

Can't see Hollande making it past the Socialist primaries.

Bob24

Valls will only take part in the primaries if Hollande decides not to run (which is still unclear). No matter what he says he has missed the boat and if he wanted to compete against Hollande he should have resigned at least a few months ago.

Also many left wing voters have something against Valls because they find him too close to the right (Juppé had the exact symmetrical problem being rejected by right wing voters because he was trying to appeal to the left).

So while I wouldn't rule him out - I'd say the probability for Valls to be the candidate of the socialist party is well below 50%.

Chips Lovell

Bob24 wrote: »

Valls will only take part in the primaries if Hollande decides not to run (which is still unclear).

He appears to be backing out of that undertaking, according to today's papers:

Mr Hollande was reportedly infurated by Mr Valls’s interview with the Journal du Dimanche in which he implied he would stand in the socialist primary, even if Mr Hollande is a candidate. “I am preparing,” Mr Valls said.

Mr Valls has used the publication of A President Shouldn’t Say That ..., a book filled with presidential indiscretions, as a pretext for breaking his vow of loyalty to Mr Hollande.