Ideological blinders

blah, blah, blah cappy. You are such a fool. Here is your comment rewritten with truth and facts.

These guys better hope that Royal wins. The French have become an integral part of the European union, and they know it. The country is vital as a representative of social democracy that opposes the American crony capitalist model. That said the French are economic colonialists in third world countries who are easily as rapacious as the Americans.

I've read many stories on this election, and far from apathy there is a participation rate of well over 80%, which puts North American elections to shame.

Bureaucratic sclerosis is a problem, and it makes gainful employment in well paying jobs difficult to find. But going the American route by replacing good work with McJobs and Wal-Mart simply lowers standards of living and turns everyone into wage slaves. Though, if you see pictures of France nowadays, it looks as beautiful as it ever has, especially compared to the strip-mall architecture we get over most of North America.

The French are CLEARLY doing something right here. But the corporate press are steadfastly against it. Sarkozy wants to sell the country to its elites at bargain prices, and ride a wave or racism to blame everyone who isn't of lily white French ancestry for the nations problems. A bad idea, if you ask me.... (but clearly not to cappy).

The Smart Money's on Sarko

Last week you could get 3/1 on Segolene Royal but now you can get 7/1. That's not good for her. If she does upset the pundits and win it will be interesting. She has said she'll open work-camps for repeat criminals. It would be good if work-camps were bought it by a Socialist. Others might then take note.

The Big Story?

Not such a big story here, but i hope Royal wins.

We need as many countries/ people as possible not to be buying into the "liberalized" economies propaganda.

BTW Cappy....been to France and it is not looking "shabby'. Not anymore than B.C....depends where you are.

Let them eat cake

southdeltawalker

Sounds like Royal promoting the status quo while chatting to the 29% unemployed in the devastated suburbs.

Germany agrees...

...that a strong partner is needed in France to get things back on track. The last twelve years of vacillation under Chirac has not produced the strong Europe needed for even-handed growth and attention to the social diseases that still afflict much of Europe - racism, social inequity and appropriate remodelling of the social contract. Globalization has been ineptly handled, with the result that some sectors of the economy are being stripped, yielding neither profit for the country, nor freedom from the daily costs of running those sectors.

The Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung points out that Royal favours reconciliation, both internally and in Europe, although it favours Sarkozy slightly for his "go-getter attitude", as a business paper would. It does not consider Royal's vision a failure, merely less popular.

Die Tageszietung is a little harsher, pointing out that both are appealing to a return to authority and morality, in a political movement to the right. But while Royal's guide is Blairite England, Sarkozy's idol goes back further, to Thatcher. Not a recipe for stunning success, unless you call business reform a success when several millions are driven into poverty and suicide.

Bonne chance, Jean!

Unemployment depends on the calculation

and these numbers can be bigger lies than the cliched statistics. If every country reported on the percent of population employed, which is known with extreme accuracy, we would be able to get better numbers for comparison.

For example, last year in a report on Smart Growth in Vancouver I saw figures that showed only half of the lower mainland was employed, only half, so what's our real rate of unemployment here.

I hope that the French are able to hang on to their shorter work week, better worker benefits, higher quality of life, and greater abundance of social capital. All of those things will still be worth something once the gobal currency has gone the way of the Weimar mark, which should happen within the next year or two.

Some would like to work more.

Nicolas Duport, 29, jewellery worker-Paris

"Being able to work more to earn more is a good thing. Too many people take advantage of the system and live on benefits.

"I don't mind working more - when I used to work in a restaurant I did 70-hour weeks!

"Sarkozy will shake things up.

"In the small company I work for we are limited to the legal 35-hour week. If Sarkozy is elected we will be able to work an extra 4 hours, and there will be no tax on overtime."

OV- here are the figures from Stats Canada, April 2007:

So that's a total of 67.7% of the population, leaving 32.3% comprising children, retired seniors and some who just don't want to work.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Labour/LFS/lfs-en.htm

Just confirms what I said

on the one hand we have only half the lower mainland employed, and then we have another set of satistics that say that unemployment rates are at an all time low. I still say that a more accurate number would be to quote the percentage that are employed.

When it comes to employment we need to redefine what "work" actually is, the differences between social and economic capital, how much "work" our society actually requires, at what point are we better off subsidizing people not to work, etc, etc.

One example: are people that are getting paid tax payers dollars to disassemble on the Tyee working harder than the people that spend the same amount of time (on their own dime) digging up information that the government and media should be providing but aren't?

The Figure for BC is there, ov

"The March employment rate, at 63.8%, was the highest in three decades."

Not sure what this has to with France

However, perhaps few people are capable of being anything but selfishly narcissistic these days.

However, statistics tend to wilt into meaninglessness unless they're put into some kind of analytical framework, like this:
http://policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2007/The_Rich_and_the_Rest_of_Us.pdf

Which clearly puts the lie to the old things are better than ever refrain.

Folks ought to remember, as well, that women only got the vote in France in 1944. Although the son of a Hungarian immigrant may well be the next President it seems quite likely that the French, in their wisdom, will balance his nominal racism with a much more centrist or even left-wing Assembly and the Republic will continue to provide a shining example to much of the rest of the world.

If we in Canada would only pay attention then the conclusions of Armine Yalnizyan's next report might be a little less negative.

Not Much, yet

ov bought up Smart Growth BC with a rhetorical question.

This Policy Alternatives study seems to be a favourite of yours West. You keep bringing it up. All it tells us is that the income gap in Canada is presently widening, as Canada's manufactured products loose markets due to international competition and high labour and corporate taxes. It also tells us that just about everyone in Canada is also better off than they ever have been.

Let's hope Canadians do take note of the French election result.

It is excellent research and you simply can't refute it

Your own friends and associates are suffering, by your own admission, from the problems the report describes.

As for France, I think this sounds pretty accurate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/weekinreview/06smith.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Also accurate

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070505.COFRANCE05/TPStory/?query=timothy+smith

By the way...

I don't refute the Alternative's study, it just shows that we are all better off than ever with a growing gap between the bottom tier and the top. So?

I profoundly disagree.

I don't think that's what the study says at all. Even your own friends are, according to your own admission, suffering from the attendant malaise.

In a democracy that prides itself on equality of opportunity, such a situation is bad in the short run and a disaster in the medium and long run.

That's why.

And we're getting very close to the breaking point.

Obviously you could care less.

But that's your problem. Not mine. You go ahead and worship the Gord.

I'll pass.

I actually care about your so-called friend's problems.

You, apparently, worship the system that created them.

As you say...

this is a democracy of equal opportunity and although I believe in helping the most in need I don't worship at the alter of massive wealth redistribution. I'm for incentives for individuals via lower taxes. I'm for incentives for corporations to invest in infrastructure and technologies and become international successes, thereby employing Canadians in value-added products for the world market. I consider this to be the long-sighted view that is best for all in our society.

53-47

Sarko takes it.
18:40GMT

this is a democracy of equal opportunity

No it's not.

IN fact, it is quite the opposite. It's a kleptocracy of unequal opportunity, purblind to official corruption and special deals for your friends and a place where corporate governance and an absurd tax system have created an atmosphere where even the reputed builders of our society are nothing more than sell-outs.

If you don't see that you are part of the problem than has been sapping the vitality of this nation for the past 35 - 40 years.

As I posted above, in my view not much will change in France despite Sarkozy. It is a much fairer and better place than Canada and the people have the sense to keep it that way. They will balance Sarko with a very different National Assembly and what is good about France (much of it detailed in the New York Times piece I posted above) will remain good.

Alas, it will continue to be much better than the structures of greed, theft, corporate and government malfeasance we live with in both Canada and British Columbia.

Sadly. Some people never learn until it's too late. And here it is nearly too late. Deficient a really independent press we are stumbling and giving up our inheritance and the future of our children and grandchildren, again, as I said, sadly.

I don't believe you by the way R/man. I don't think that's what your posts and comments indicate at all. When intelligent people like you are satisfied with lies and obfuscations we are in real trouble.

But then, I suspect you're just a bitter former Brit pining for Maggie Thatcher and a bit more discipline.

no surprise

Sarkozy wins as the polls predicted.

It is interesting to note the difference in trends between between northern and southern hemisphere nations. As the majority of the populations of northern, traditionally European or anglo wealthy nations are seeing their standards of living erode, they look to those who blame immigrants, outsiders, the poor and government bureaucracy for solutions. While the southern, typically formerly colonially ruled and exploited nations, populated largely by the very poor, look to solutions from those who blame neoliberalism, and who seek to redistribute wealth, instead of allowing it to continue to flow to their tiny elites who have for so long corruptly ruled those nations.

Champagne all round!

France agrees that modernization includes lower taxes, more incentives to work and less left-leaning ideology.

Cheers!

Guess you didn't read THIS, eh - Typical

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/weekinreview/06smith.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Thanks for the article GWest

Yup, I think that if a neo-liberal theft of the commons, like what is happening right now in BC, were to be attempted in France that there would be so many people rioting in the streets that it wouldn't have a chance of getting off the ground.

Some more analysis from France

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/europe/07cnd-france.html?hp

The parameters of Sarko's victory over Royal are interesting, from a demographic point of view.

Yes they are.

Interesting that a majority of women did not vote for Segolene Royal. Two women at dinner last night were saddened that she had lost but it seems that those that studied her policies were not convinced to vote for her even if they too had strong sympathies for a woman president. Fortunately, it seems that logic ruled over emotion here. Yet, perhaps emotion ruled over logic when more men voted for Sarkozy. Difficult to guage that one.

Doesn't bode well for Hillary since maybe even Democrat women might not vote for her in the primaries if they consider another candidate superior. The sentimental factor may not kick in.

Interesting comment from Boston,

The CAC-40 was flat. Maintaining its historic high and strong rise since dipping badly in late February.

I think you're stretching R/Man

There are plenty of reasons, mostly covered in Nick Kristof's column in the New York Times this morning why people (men or women) shouldn't vote for Hillary that have nothing whatever to do with her sex.

Unfortunately it's behind subscription so there's no point in posting a link for you.

Increasing the pool of wealth will be no more successful as an expedient for providing a more equitable society in France than it has been in either America or Canada - in fact, based upon neo-liberal principles it will simply make things worse - exactly what it's doing here. And from which your own young friends and neighbours are suffering.

Wealth creation isn't the problem - distribution and equality of opportunity is. Trickle down doesn’t work. Never has, never will, in my view. The fact that such a discredited expedient has captured Sarkozy’s fancy at this late stage does say a lot about his powers of discrimination and economic analysis.

The French are far to astute for that, in my view and will ensure - either through the ballot box in the upcoming parliamentary elections or by other means - that Sarkozy does not destroy the character of the French state as Harper and Bush have done and are doing in North America.

I hope you noticed how the age demographic split as well, btw.

France Moves On

GWest

A few weeks later and;

"The Socialists are expected to reap a mere 60 to 185 seats in the 577-member Parliament, with between 380-500 for Mr Sarkozy’s UMP. The leftwing party that was forged in the 1960s by the late François Mitterrand now faces the possibility of its biggest defeat since he led it to power in 1981.

Among 111 MPs who won election outright on Sunday, 110 are from the UMP and only one is a Socialist."

We're all wrong at sometime West but you take a big bite of cake on this one. If you put any money on your prediction West it's going down the tubes buddy.