Image courtesy of THE ECONOMIST
THE ECONOMIST: NO FRENCH presidential election in 50 years has looked as unpredictable as this year's, the first round of which takes place on April 22nd. This is so even though the leader in every opinion poll so far has been Nicolas Sarkozy, the candidate of the ruling centre-right UMP party. His support may be overestimated, just as that of the far-right Jean-Marie Le Pen may be underestimated. The rise of the centrist François Bayrou, who at one point almost overtook the Socialist Ségolène Royal, has muddied the electoral arithmetic. And with only ten days to go, more than two in five voters are undecided.
This election matters. France is the euro zone's second-biggest member and home to ten of Europe's 50 biggest companies. But it is deeply troubled. It has the slowest-growing large economy in Europe, a state that soaks up half of GDP, the fastest-rising public debt in western Europe over the past ten years and, above all, entrenched high unemployment. Over the past 25 years French GDP per person has declined from seventh-highest in the world to 17th. The smouldering mood of the suburbs (banlieues), home to many jobless youths from ethnic minorities, blazed into riots in 2005 and lay behind new trouble that flared recently at a Paris railway station. The disenchantment of voters is reflected not only in opinion polls but also in their rejection of the European Union constitution in 2005. Tellingly, they have not re-elected an incumbent government for a quarter-century. France’s chance (Cont’d)
BBC: French voter's viewpoint
Le Figaro: The Economist vote Nicholas Sarkozy
Mark Alexander
7 comments:
I've always had a sneaking regard for Napoleon. He was a formidable individual. Wouldn't we be really proud of him if he'd been British?
He wouldn't have put up with what's happening in France these days.
Does this make me a traitor? Am I alone in my regard for him?
If you are a traitor, then so am I, since I, too, have always admired Napoleon! Napoleon led France in France's finest hours. He would have made a fine leader of Great Britain, too. He had some admirable qualities. When I studied history, I always loved that period in the history of France. Quite 'romantic'!
One cannot but admire his many accomplishments. He was engaged in 62 battles and managed to win most of them, there aren't many names I can think of from the pages of history that come anywhere even close to that. He unified a nation in a time of great chaos and anarchy. Yes there was much to admire, for he was the supreme man of action, a fearless lion: history doesn't make too many of those. As they say, history is written by the victors. Though it must be admitted, those under the heel of the French jackboot, didn't appreciate it any more than those under the heel of the German one.
Or, Richard, Alexander's heel, or the Roman heel. This doesn't detract from the formidable nature of e.g. Julius Ceasar or Alexander. And I'll bet the French, including Boney, didn't much appreciate Wellington. You can still admire them for their accomplishments whilst acknowledging that many suffered for their actions.
Quite agree with you Sir Henry. The plain truth of the matter is that such formidable characters often bring order in their wake, and as often as not, their rise is due to disorder or even chaos. Though in Caesar's case it should be noted that the order he imposed, wrecked a republic and imposed an imperial tyranny in its stead, though if one reads Sallust, the republic was highly fractured by the time old Julius appeared on the stage: has a little bit of a familiar ring to it doesn't it.
These characters are an anathema to cultural Marxism, as the Marxist views them as leaders of men, but in the wrong direction, away from the blessings of a Marxist paradise, where all men are virtuous and DO AS THEY ARE TOLD, by the pious lords who know best. It's funny how the systems have such a familiar ring to them: Politburo and proletariat, Lords and serfs, Masters and peasants, Equestrians and plebeians.
His rise in the polls is as a consequence of his borrowing some of the Le Penn policy ideas.
His rise in the polls is as a consequence of his borrowing some of the Le Penn policy ideas. - Avantepelotin
That may very well be, but politicians do that sort of thing. Blair stole much from Thatcher, I believe.
I like Sarkozy's view on Turkey's bid to join the EU. Our foolish government are all for Turkey's entry. As is Bush. But we can see what Blair and Bush's judgement is like with their escapades in Iraq!
Post a Comment