Bo-4
04-24-2017, 09:37 AM
She's always been the brain in the family - international law expert. Pretty cool observations, so thought i'd share. My initial brief email to her at bottom ;-)
=====
You're safe ----no need to disown me! We don't have a vote in France, not being French citizens, but if we had, we would definitely never have voted Le Pen.
She is in fact a good deal like Geert Wilders in NL: someone who has been around for quite a while (her father, as you know, formerly led her political party, so she is second generation) but never really got support outside the core movement. There seems in many countries to be a permanent constituency for the far right that always polls somewhere in the range of 15%, give or take a few percentage points either way. Unless these groups can somehow attract support from other groups of voters, they will remain a permanent, vocal but politically ineffective presence.
This is why people who say, 'But Wilders added five seats' are missing the point. Last time he had 13% of the vote; this time it went up to 15%. This is within the normal range for his party, and is not the breakthrough he was seeking.
It's the same with Le Pen. With 21.7% of the votes, she gained 2% over last time, but is still polling at more or less the same level as always---and this in spite of an environment (terrorism, immigration) that ought to have created the most favourable setting possible for her. But no breakthrough here either, and it is regarded as extremely unlikely that she will be able to beat Macron in the runoff election in two weeks time.
The French parliamentary elections in the autumn will be important because Macron (assuming he wins the runoff) has no parliamentary party of his own, and will have to build one. In fact the most striking aspect of the French elections is that for the first time since 1958 neither of the traditional parties is in power. (This would also be true if Le Pen were to win the runoff, but I don't think she will.)
You can draw a couple of conclusions from this. First, these contentious elections (certainly ini the UK, and also now in France) reflect a protest from those parts of the country that have been left out of the prosperity that the 'commercial' regions have enjoyed. So England outside London largely voted for Brexit; and if you look at a map of the French election results here:
http://www.20minutes.fr/elections/resultats/
you will see that it is the old heavy-industry areas of the northeast, and the Mediterranean cost (which feels the impact of immigration), that voted for Le Pen. These are issues ----how to revitalise these old areas, and develop new forms of work and income for people, and what to do about immigration----are part of the ongoing challenges of globalisation and digitalisation that nobody knows yet how to crack. But trying to turn the clock back by sixty years is never going to be a realistic solution.
I think one can also conclude that at the moment all the major European governments are, if anything, more centrist and more pro-EU than their predecessors. We don't know the outcome of the German elections, of course, but the only serious challenger to Merkel is Schultz, who is even more pro-EU than she is (and probably will not be able to beat her anyway). This doesn't mean easy times ahead, since the questions about what to do next with Europe (wider? deeper? more financial transfers? more financial discipline?) will continue to be fought out. But it does mean that the continental countries recognise that if they are to have any real influence in the world they need to act together.
And that of course has ramifications for Brexit, because it means May will be confronted by an EU which is more determined than ever to stick together and to defend both its values and its value. Compromise on its basic principles will not be on offer. I don't blame May for calling an election now: she is probably at the zenith of her popularity at this moment, since she can freely make promises without the costs yet having become apparent, and the Labour party is completely ineffectual under Jeremy Corbyn (an anachronistic idealist) so she has no real opposition. But if she wins an enhanced majority and views it as a mandate to be intractable, then I think there is a very definite risk that the UK will crash out of the EU with no forward-looking agreement. This would be bad for everyone, but worst of all for the UK; so perhaps she will use an enhanced mandate as a ground for making unpalatable but necessary concessions in the Brexit negotiations. We will have to wait and see.
It's all very interesting, but---- no Le Pen, I think!
xxx
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:35:16 -0600, I wrote:
Hi TK - Please tell me you voted for ANYONE besides Le Pen.
Just what France needs right? .. a female version of Donald Trump ;-)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/329969-shame-on-trump-if-he-supports-extremist-le-pen-for
=====
You're safe ----no need to disown me! We don't have a vote in France, not being French citizens, but if we had, we would definitely never have voted Le Pen.
She is in fact a good deal like Geert Wilders in NL: someone who has been around for quite a while (her father, as you know, formerly led her political party, so she is second generation) but never really got support outside the core movement. There seems in many countries to be a permanent constituency for the far right that always polls somewhere in the range of 15%, give or take a few percentage points either way. Unless these groups can somehow attract support from other groups of voters, they will remain a permanent, vocal but politically ineffective presence.
This is why people who say, 'But Wilders added five seats' are missing the point. Last time he had 13% of the vote; this time it went up to 15%. This is within the normal range for his party, and is not the breakthrough he was seeking.
It's the same with Le Pen. With 21.7% of the votes, she gained 2% over last time, but is still polling at more or less the same level as always---and this in spite of an environment (terrorism, immigration) that ought to have created the most favourable setting possible for her. But no breakthrough here either, and it is regarded as extremely unlikely that she will be able to beat Macron in the runoff election in two weeks time.
The French parliamentary elections in the autumn will be important because Macron (assuming he wins the runoff) has no parliamentary party of his own, and will have to build one. In fact the most striking aspect of the French elections is that for the first time since 1958 neither of the traditional parties is in power. (This would also be true if Le Pen were to win the runoff, but I don't think she will.)
You can draw a couple of conclusions from this. First, these contentious elections (certainly ini the UK, and also now in France) reflect a protest from those parts of the country that have been left out of the prosperity that the 'commercial' regions have enjoyed. So England outside London largely voted for Brexit; and if you look at a map of the French election results here:
http://www.20minutes.fr/elections/resultats/
you will see that it is the old heavy-industry areas of the northeast, and the Mediterranean cost (which feels the impact of immigration), that voted for Le Pen. These are issues ----how to revitalise these old areas, and develop new forms of work and income for people, and what to do about immigration----are part of the ongoing challenges of globalisation and digitalisation that nobody knows yet how to crack. But trying to turn the clock back by sixty years is never going to be a realistic solution.
I think one can also conclude that at the moment all the major European governments are, if anything, more centrist and more pro-EU than their predecessors. We don't know the outcome of the German elections, of course, but the only serious challenger to Merkel is Schultz, who is even more pro-EU than she is (and probably will not be able to beat her anyway). This doesn't mean easy times ahead, since the questions about what to do next with Europe (wider? deeper? more financial transfers? more financial discipline?) will continue to be fought out. But it does mean that the continental countries recognise that if they are to have any real influence in the world they need to act together.
And that of course has ramifications for Brexit, because it means May will be confronted by an EU which is more determined than ever to stick together and to defend both its values and its value. Compromise on its basic principles will not be on offer. I don't blame May for calling an election now: she is probably at the zenith of her popularity at this moment, since she can freely make promises without the costs yet having become apparent, and the Labour party is completely ineffectual under Jeremy Corbyn (an anachronistic idealist) so she has no real opposition. But if she wins an enhanced majority and views it as a mandate to be intractable, then I think there is a very definite risk that the UK will crash out of the EU with no forward-looking agreement. This would be bad for everyone, but worst of all for the UK; so perhaps she will use an enhanced mandate as a ground for making unpalatable but necessary concessions in the Brexit negotiations. We will have to wait and see.
It's all very interesting, but---- no Le Pen, I think!
xxx
On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:35:16 -0600, I wrote:
Hi TK - Please tell me you voted for ANYONE besides Le Pen.
Just what France needs right? .. a female version of Donald Trump ;-)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/329969-shame-on-trump-if-he-supports-extremist-le-pen-for