French election results - Macron vs Le Pen

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

So something like 93% of the votes in the French first-round election are counted and it looks like Macron and Le Pen are headed to a runoff in two week's time.

Macron is sitting at ~23% of the vote and Le Pen is sitting at ~21%. Melenchon and Fillon both got about ~19%. Hamon, the mainstream Socialist Party's candidate, got only 6% of the vote.

What's all that mean? The results are a fairly damning rejection of the two traditional French political parties, the PS and the Republicans. Those two parties have shared power for decades, but their candidates (Fillon and Hamon) are both out of the running.

In early May, Macron and Le Pen will run against each other in the second round to determine who gets to be President. Every other candidate has been knocked out, but the fact that the results for the four main candidates were all so close means that whoever wins will be far from having a popular mandate.

Macron is a former investment banker who served as a civil servant and economic minister before leaving the PS to form an independent party and run for President under a centrist platform, mixing free-market economic policies with a liberal approach to immigration and religious freedoms. Le Pen is the daughter of the infamous Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has inherited leadership of the far-right National Front party and more-or-less successfully cleaned up its image in the eyes of the voters.

What's likely to happen in two weeks? People are saying Macron will win - and he is ahead by a few percentage points - but it ultimately all depends on what happens to the voting base of candidates like Fillon, Melenchon, and Hamon. If Fillon's voters go to Le Pen and Melenchon and Hamon's voters don't go to Macron, then Le Pen will win. If Melenchon and Hamon's voters join together and back Macron, then Macron will win comfortably. To win, Le Pen has to both lure in enough of Fillon's voters to get a lead on Macron and then make sure that the Melenchon/Hamon voters stay home.

So currently, Macron has the advantage, but I said that about Clinton as well, so who knows?

bastardofmelbourne:
What's likely to happen in two weeks? People are saying Macron will win - and he is ahead by a few percentage points - but it ultimately all depends on what happens to the voting base of candidates like Fillon, Melenchon, and Hamon. If Fillon's voters go to Le Pen and Melenchon and Hamon's voters don't go to Macron, then Le Pen will win. If Melenchon and Hamon's voters join together and back Macron, then Macron will win comfortably. To win, Le Pen has to both lure in enough of Fillon's voters to get a lead on Macron and then make sure that the Melenchon/Hamon voters stay home.

So currently, Macron has the advantage, but I said that about Clinton as well, so who knows?

Macron has a massive lead in the previous hypothetical second round polls, he's not leading by a few points.

Fillon's voters aren't going Le Pen either, Fillon specifically called for them to vote for Macron, who could actually said to be more to the right of Le Pen economically (which is what most of the Republican voters care for).

People comparing this matchup to Clinton/Trump are missing the point, Clinton was not up by round 20 points like Macron is, and the American electoral college works in specific ways that allow you to take the presidency without winning the popular vote. Trump always had a chance of winning, and I harshly criticized people that claimed he was done for. But Le Pen seriously has no possible route to winning the presidency this election, she's way too far behind and the system is specifically meant to prevent people like her to get into power.

What you need to look out for are the legislatives that'll come after the elections, where Macron will be truly put to the test. More than likely, he won't be able to form a coherent party or coalition to lead France, will probably give premiership to Bayrou (who is rather unpredictable), and will have trouble making up a popular and competent cabinet, which means his quinquenat will likely know obstructionism and austerity while more or less pursuing Hollande's work.

To be honest, right now, you should more scared of what happens in five years than in two weeks, youth makes up massive swathes of the FN's electorate, and with each election they are more and more detoxified. Pray for a civil war within the party, and if the party survives it, for Marion Marechal Le Pen to come out on top, if you don't want them to come back in force next elections. I fear Philippot at the head of the party would be even scarier for France than Marine was.

Investment banker ... Stock brokers, lawyers, accountants maybe ... but investment banker?
Political philosophy sounds like it lines up with mine, but why the fuck is it considered 'centrist'? Market liberalism. Yeah, market liberalism requires easier access to your marketplace.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Investment banker ... Stock brokers, lawyers, accountants maybe ... but investment banker?
Political philosophy sounds like it lines up with mine, but why the fuck is it considered 'centrist'? Market liberalism. Yeah, market liberalism requires easier access to your marketplace.

He's "centrist" because while he's right wing economically, he's not socially conservative, unlike the Republicains which are both.

I think it's kind of dumb too, they should just call him a liberal right-winger and be done with it. Social liberal or neoliberal would also be acceptable labels for him.

I hope and pray that Emmanuel Macron wins. We need to stop the rising tide of this nasty Alt-Right movement. France seems more level headed then the USA and Britain, but with all the Terrorist attacks in their country, I worry...

Well, national polls had Clinton winning by about three million votes, and Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million, so polling seems accurate, and considering France goes by popular vote, I'm confident.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Investment banker ... Stock brokers, lawyers, accountants maybe ... but investment banker?
Political philosophy sounds like it lines up with mine, but why the fuck is it considered 'centrist'? Market liberalism. Yeah, market liberalism requires easier access to your marketplace.

He is essentially a free-market liberal or neoliberal. That's a bad thing to a lot of people, but if I'm to be frank, it's a hell of a lot better than Le Pen.

Sonmi:
I think it's kind of dumb too, they should just call him a liberal right-winger and be done with it. Social liberal or neoliberal would also be acceptable labels for him.

Calling him right-wing would be a mistake. Right-wing implies a whole host of socially conservative positions that he does not ascribe to. Neoliberal is a better term.

What the French and US elections tell me is that the left/right divide is becoming less and less useful as a political descriptor. You can't really call Macron right-wing for campaigning in favour of the EU and free trade any more than you can call Trump left-wing for campaigning on promises of universal healthcare and a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

altnameJag:
Well, national polls had Clinton winning by about three million votes, and Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million, so polling seems accurate, and considering France goes by popular vote, I'm confident.

It's worth noting that the French left-wing went through their Trump Moment way back in 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen (the father of Marine Le Pen) made it to the runoff against Jacques Chirac due to an unexpectedly poor performance from the PS candidate.

The choice the French left had to face was to either vote for Jacques Chirac the infamous conservative, or face the prospect of having an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier as their President. The result was that Chirac got over 80% of the popular vote, because the French are not completely insane.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
He's right wing ... market liberal, libertarian minded, wants smaller government and reduced government interference in the lives of its people and reducing the individual responsibilities a person has to their fellows in so doing. Right wing. He sounds solidly right wing to me. Liberal right-wing ... nothing wrong with that either.

What you are describing is called neoliberalism and has been for some time. Since at least the 80s, by my estimate. It has been championed by both "right-wing" (Thatcher, Reagan) and "left-wing" (Keating, Clinton) politicians.

This really kind of demonstrates what I was saying, actually. The binary nomenclature is getting less and less useful as time goes on.

In a sign of actual sanity in a nation's political scene, France's right and left wings have backed Macron over Le Pen.

It's rather sad that having competing politicians back the centrist candidate over the crazy one instead of just sitting it all out is news.

bastardofmelbourne:

What you are describing is called neoliberalism and has been for some time. Since at least the 80s, by my estimate. It has been championed by both "right-wing" (Thatcher, Reagan) and "left-wing" (Keating, Clinton) politicians.

This really kind of demonstrates what I was saying, actually. The binary nomenclature is getting less and less useful as time goes on.

Liberal sounds about right, nothing really neoliberal about his position as far as I can tell. And no, the Left-Right dichotomy is still useful, it's just that idiots keep mangling what "the Left" is, and Clinton is most certainly not left wing. Clinton, both Clintons, are neoliberals. It's not that the terms are wrong, or they are of reduced importance ... it's a phenomena of language softening. The irony being that having tried and truedefinitions of left and right avoid false polemics.

Trans equality is not leftist, nor is the centrist position pretending as if something needs to be sacrificed for it, for instance.

There was nothing leftist about either Clinton, or Keating for that matter. Rich got richer, poor got poorer, welfare was cut, and Wall St got greater deregulation under him, and there was more "opportunity" for the working class to get a dead end job and call it 'progress'.

Ditto in Australian politics ... there is no real leftist party. Gillard wasn't interested in equality of opportunity, Rudd cut homeless welfare programs in half. HALF ... Keating floated the dollar and deregulated banks ... Hawke broke the power of the unions. 27 years of either right wingers or conservative right wingers.

And this false polemic of 'left' and 'right' that damages the credibility of the discussion.

So it's between mister "new guy no one knows about" and miss "frexit". Can't say I didn't see it coming given the sheer impossibility of the Republicans and Socialists to make themselves seem likeable given their response to the continued issue of terrorism and the illegal immigration that spawns it.

Zontar:
Can't say I didn't see it coming given the sheer impossibility of the Republicans and Socialists to make themselves seem likeable given their response to the continued issue of terrorism and the illegal immigration that spawns it.

Yes, which goes to show how little you know.

Fillon (representing the mainstream right) was well on track to get through to the second round - until it turned out he had been shunting lots of taxpayer money to his wife. That's when Macron was gifted his chance.

The Socialists were never in contention, carrying the burden of Hollande's failure to achieve... virtually anything at all, but mostly failing to get France's stagnant economy going. (Hollande's approval rating, incidentally, increased every time there was a terrorist attack, as is not uncommon.)

And a huge majority all the terrorist attacks across most of the west - France included - have been carried out by perfectly legitimate citizens of those countries, or legal immigrants.

If you were really worried about terrorism, I'd expect you would know some even rudimentary facts about it, because how else would you be able to work out what policies to support to stop it? Still, I guess if you throw enough rocks totally blind and smash everything in the vicinity, eventually you'll hit the target you do want by sheer chance.

Agema:

And a huge majority all the terrorist attacks across most of the west - France included - have been carried out by perfectly legitimate citizens of those countries, or legal immigrants.

Last time I checked most of the terrorist attacks over the past two years in France and Europe as a whole stem from those who came in as part of the migrant crisis, which only cold be painted as legal immigration through the retroactive legalisation of illegal entry.

And even if it was mostly coming from legal immigrants (which would instead be an argument for putting an end to that, one most Europeans seem to agree with given the polls on Islamic immigration showing most want it to stop completely) the illegals are still a massive issue. Just look at Germany, where they've just revealed that 9% of all crime last year involved one of the illegal migrants doing it (compared to the 2 or 3% of the population they make up)

If you were really worried about terrorism, I'd expect you would know some even rudimentary facts about it, because how else would you be able to work out what policies to support to stop it? Still, I guess if you throw enough rocks totally blind and smash everything in the vicinity, eventually you'll hit the target you do want by sheer chance.

Hey, even with that objectively incorrect assessment of things that's still a better means of doing things then the Republicans "we have to deal with this shit now, fuck you for wanting it solved" attitude.

I have to say that I'm not really surprised by the outcome BUT after all that I've heard I'm quite surprised that Filet-o-Fish still managed to get nearly 20% of votes.

It's depressing to see how far gone french society is when there's a chance a fascist party is gonna win the presidential election. If european governments had their shit together they'd see it as the wake-up call it is an pursue a policy of strict antifascism unless they want to end up like France. Of course the're probably gonna continue their hopeless attempts of appeasement like they did for the last few years until its too late.

At this point I genuinely wonder if they don't even know what they're doing. If they're still assuming all of this is just gonna blow over. The far right extremists that are rising to power have made it quite clear that they not only view the left but also the moderate right as their enemy. Hell, Angela Merkel, a conservative is almost as hated by them as any left wing politician. We need to be tougher on the right if we want to preserve our values. Right now I'm wondering if Merkel is gonna be the last democratically elected chancellor Germany's gonna see for a long time. Ain't that a depressing thought. As of now all I hope is that I can get outta here before shit hits the fan. And I hope the same for anyone else threatened by neofascist ideology. I imagine the next few decades are gonna be though for homosexuals, muslims, leftists and anyone not sufficiently white in Europe. I wish there was more that I could do.

PsychedelicDiamond:
It's depressing to see how far gone french society is when there's a chance a fascist party is gonna win the presidential election. If european governments had their shit together they'd see it as the wake-up call it is an pursue a policy of strict antifascism unless they want to end up like France. Of course the're probably gonna continue their hopeless attempts of appeasement like they did for the last few years until its too late.

Or maybe they could actually fix the problems with the EU and Europe as a whole that are causing this right shift instead? I mean hell, Germany's current attempts at opposing fascism with legislation are inarguably a march towards it, so it's not as if the idea that simply legislating the problem away will work when 1) that's as far from being productive as one could get in most of these cases, and 2) it only makes the people want to do it more because the problem is intentionally being ignored.

At this point I genuinely wonder if they don't even know what they're doing. The far right extremists that are rising to power have made it quite clear that they not oy view the left but also the moderate right as their enemy. Hell, Angela Merkel, a conservative is almost as hated by them as any left wing politicians. We need to be tougher on the right if we want to preserve our values. Right now I'm wondering if Merkel is gonna be the last democratically elected chancellor Germany's gonna see for a long time. Aint that a depressing thought. As of now all I hope is that I can get outta here before shit hits the fan. And I hope the same for anyone else threatened by neofascist ideology. I imagine the next few decades are gonna be though for homosexuals, muslims, leftists and anyone not sufficiently white in Europe. I wish there was more that I could do.

Well that's what happens when the working class is abandoned by the political elites and both the left and the mainstream right intentionally go out of their way to ignore the problems that are plaguing society. Can't complain about the inability or unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, the disproportionate level of violent crime, the two class system of law where locals are held to a far more strict standard then immigrants, or point out that the communities they form are irreconcilably at odds with western liberal democracy, because while factually correct that's also "Islamophobic" (a term created by actual fascists so that useful idiots could shut down any conversation about issues regarding islam, ironically). Can't complain about the EU being given greater and greater power over the sovereignty of its members without the consent of the people, because that makes you a dirty nationalist (even though no one ever voted on the EU becoming any more then a trade bloc). Can't complain about youth unemployment or the fact immigration is objectively making it harder for the working class because wages are being depreciated by at least 2% annually (likely more) for people living right on the edge as it is, because that's "racist".

Europe is reaping what it sowed, this is what decades of incompetent globalist leadership results in, and I have no tears for one of the only three possible outcomes one could expect to happen becoming reality (the other being a far left dictatorship, and the third being a democratic dismantlement of the EU. I'm not holding my breath for the latter).

All I can say it good luck to you Europeans, and I hope we don't make the mistake of allowing ourselves to fall to far left authoritarians for long enough to have to deal with that and the far right rising in response as you do.

Zontar:

PsychedelicDiamond:
It's depressing to see how far gone french society is when there's a chance a fascist party is gonna win the presidential election. If european governments had their shit together they'd see it as the wake-up call it is an pursue a policy of strict antifascism unless they want to end up like France. Of course the're probably gonna continue their hopeless attempts of appeasement like they did for the last few years until its too late.

Or maybe they could actually fix the problems with the EU and Europe as a whole that are causing this right shift instead? I mean hell, Germany's current attempts at opposing fascism with legislation are inarguably a march towards it, so it's not as if the idea that simply legislating the problem away will work when 1) that's as far from being productive as one could get in most of these cases, and 2) it only makes the people want to do it more because the problem is intentionally being ignored.

At this point I genuinely wonder if they don't even know what they're doing. The far right extremists that are rising to power have made it quite clear that they not oy view the left but also the moderate right as their enemy. Hell, Angela Merkel, a conservative is almost as hated by them as any left wing politicians. We need to be tougher on the right if we want to preserve our values. Right now I'm wondering if Merkel is gonna be the last democratically elected chancellor Germany's gonna see for a long time. Aint that a depressing thought. As of now all I hope is that I can get outta here before shit hits the fan. And I hope the same for anyone else threatened by neofascist ideology. I imagine the next few decades are gonna be though for homosexuals, muslims, leftists and anyone not sufficiently white in Europe. I wish there was more that I could do.

Well that's what happens when the working class is abandoned by the political elites and both the left and the mainstream right intentionally go out of their way to ignore the problems that are plaguing society. Can't complain about the inability or unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, the disproportionate level of violent crime, the two class system of law where locals are held to a far more strict standard then immigrants, or point out that the communities they form are irreconcilably at odds with western liberal democracy, because while factually correct that's also "Islamophobic" (a term created by actual fascists so that useful idiots could shut down any conversation about issues regarding islam, ironically). Can't complain about the EU being given greater and greater power over the sovereignty of its members without the consent of the people, because that makes you a dirty nationalist (even though no one ever voted on the EU becoming any more then a trade bloc). Can't complain about youth unemployment or the fact immigration is objectively making it harder for the working class because wages are being depreciated by at least 2% annually (likely more) for people living right on the edge as it is, because that's "racist".

Europe is reaping what it sowed, this is what decades of incompetent globalist leadership results in, and I have no tears for one of the only three possible outcomes one could expect to happen becoming reality (the other being a far left dictatorship, and the third being a democratic dismantlement of the EU. I'm not holding my breath for the latter).

All I can say it good luck to you Europeans, and I hope we don't make the mistake of allowing ourselves to fall to far left authoritarians for long enough to have to deal with that and the far right rising in response as you do.

You mistake which side is the bad guy.

Zontar:

PsychedelicDiamond:
It's depressing to see how far gone french society is when there's a chance a fascist party is gonna win the presidential election. If european governments had their shit together they'd see it as the wake-up call it is an pursue a policy of strict antifascism unless they want to end up like France. Of course the're probably gonna continue their hopeless attempts of appeasement like they did for the last few years until its too late.

Or maybe they could actually fix the problems with the EU and Europe as a whole that are causing this right shift instead? I mean hell, Germany's current attempts at opposing fascism with legislation are inarguably a march towards it, so it's not as if the idea that simply legislating the problem away will work when 1) that's as far from being productive as one could get in most of these cases, and 2) it only makes the people want to do it more because the problem is intentionally being ignored.

At this point I genuinely wonder if they don't even know what they're doing. The far right extremists that are rising to power have made it quite clear that they not oy view the left but also the moderate right as their enemy. Hell, Angela Merkel, a conservative is almost as hated by them as any left wing politicians. We need to be tougher on the right if we want to preserve our values. Right now I'm wondering if Merkel is gonna be the last democratically elected chancellor Germany's gonna see for a long time. Aint that a depressing thought. As of now all I hope is that I can get outta here before shit hits the fan. And I hope the same for anyone else threatened by neofascist ideology. I imagine the next few decades are gonna be though for homosexuals, muslims, leftists and anyone not sufficiently white in Europe. I wish there was more that I could do.

Well that's what happens when the working class is abandoned by the political elites and both the left and the mainstream right intentionally go out of their way to ignore the problems that are plaguing society. Can't complain about the inability or unwillingness of Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, the disproportionate level of violent crime, the two class system of law where locals are held to a far more strict standard then immigrants, or point out that the communities they form are irreconcilably at odds with western liberal democracy, because while factually correct that's also "Islamophobic" (a term created by actual fascists so that useful idiots could shut down any conversation about issues regarding islam, ironically). Can't complain about the EU being given greater and greater power over the sovereignty of its members without the consent of the people, because that makes you a dirty nationalist (even though no one ever voted on the EU becoming any more then a trade bloc). Can't complain about youth unemployment or the fact immigration is objectively making it harder for the working class because wages are being depreciated by at least 2% annually (likely more) for people living right on the edge as it is, because that's "racist".

Europe is reaping what it sowed, this is what decades of incompetent globalist leadership results in, and I have no tears for one of the only three possible outcomes one could expect to happen becoming reality (the other being a far left dictatorship, and the third being a democratic dismantlement of the EU. I'm not holding my breath for the latter).

All I can say it good luck to you Europeans, and I hope we don't make the mistake of allowing ourselves to fall to far left authoritarians for long enough to have to deal with that and the far right rising in response as you do.

1: Do you really expect us to take 4chan, perticularly a sub thereof that is so blatantly filled with people who use blatantly racist derogatory terms in the very thread you post? I don't know about you but, people doing silly stuff scares me significantly less than people believing that one racial group is inherrantly superrior and should wipe out/subjugate all other groups.

2: While immigration systems in europe have problems, immigrantss are also an all-purpose boogeyman for politicians and corporations to distract people from their own mistakes. Trump is the living embodiment of this. If he is such a champion of the working class, why was trump towers built by illegal immigrants working without a lisence. Companies can choose not to employ illegal immigrants, yet they don't because it is cheaper. Specific countries would not be going over capacity with refugees if there was a treaty to actually effectively divide quotas. Instead countries like england and france contributed to treaties that would see all the regfugees penned up in southern europe where they land. Italy and greece become overloaded and unable to help people, and they have to avoid the law abd sneak in elsewhere if they don't want to end up on the street. and communities do integrate after a while if not ghettoized, however the rich parts of cities actively resist having communal housing built there so as not to lower the land value, and rich families move en masse to the east end, driving up the land value and effectively forcing all lower income people into increasingly dense east ends, driving local infrastructure over capacity. Immigrants and muslims do not hold the power in europe, businessmen and politicians do, they are the ones who should be held accountable, but the far right would sooner just point the blame at the people with the least power, because despite claiming to champion the working clas most of them are just pretty well off and don't want higher taxes or communal housing ruining their property value

3: The EU isn't a dictatorship no matter how many times you say so. It is run by elected officials, whether elected in the EU parliment or in their home countries. While the system has problems, it has been the main dam against communist and fascist states in europe for the last couple of decades

Zontar:
Last time I checked...

I'm not convinced you've meaningfully checked at all.

most of the terrorist attacks over the past two years in France and Europe as a whole stem from those who came in as part of the migrant crisis, which only cold be painted as legal immigration through the retroactive legalisation of illegal entry.

The Charlie Hebdo and 11/2015 Paris attacks were made by second generation French and Belgian citizens. These guys were connected to the Brussels ISIL cell, which was almost entirely made up of Belgian / French citizens born or raised in the West, and who also committed a load of other major attacks across Belgium and France. The Nice attacker was a Tunisian who had legally gained entry.

There certainly have been some attacks by failed asylum seekers and the like, usually of much smaller scale like occasional stabbings.

Just look at Germany, where they've just revealed that 9% of all crime last year involved one of the illegal migrants doing it (compared to the 2 or 3% of the population they make up)

And where is your source for this, I wonder? Breitbart? Daily Mail? Donald Trump? Some random guy on Reddit or Tumblr?

I ask because I cannot find a reputable (i.e. non-xenophobic) source that corroborates those figures you mention. And several seem to suggest a very different, more complex picture from the one you suggest.

Hey, even with that objectively incorrect assessment of things that's still a better means of doing things then the Republicans "we have to deal with this shit now, fuck you for wanting it solved" attitude.

These piss-stain terrorists can't break our societies. But people in government who'd waste time, money, effort and hope at whatever prejudicial whims pass their fancy that day can. They can even make things much worse. And people like you who'd put them into power are the greatest danger to civil rights and democracy, giving up essential liberties for temporary security.

So, bluntly, perhaps you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic populist mandates. People who easily cause more damage than they prevent, whilst flailing wildly trying to solve a problem they haven't even bothered to understand.

I'm not by any means instrinsically opposed to tighter immigration policy. I am however against immigration policy based on lies, prejudice, incompetence, hate, and ignorance. Consequently, if you want to convince me your way of doing immigration is better, I suggest you don't defend your way with evidence of that sort.

Zontar:

Well that's what happens when the working class is abandoned by the political elites and both the left and the mainstream right intentionally go out of their way to ignore the problems that are plaguing society...

Now, this is a good point.

However, drill down into why the working classes feel abandoned and miserable, and it's almost never really about immigrants. It's that not so long ago their countries tended to have good employment prospects, relatively high wage, skilled jobs that enabled them if not always to thrive, then certainly to live decently and with dignity. Now they live in a world where the superrich get to pay themselves a couple hundred times the average wage, wealth inequality soars, the rich avoid taxes and the public services decay, the jobs around now are insecure, low skill, low pay, and undignified. Communities have collapsed with the now defunct industries that once supported them, and so on.

And then you come along and claim to champion them... backing all the neoliberal hoodoo or neoliberal politicians that drove the policies that caused this unhappiness in the first place. Tax havens, plutocrat presidency, slashed public spending, deregulation. They can carry on doing all that, just so long as they chuck out the Muslims.

CyanCat47:

1: Do you really expect us to take 4chan, perticularly a sub thereof that is so blatantly filled with people who use blatantly racist derogatory terms in the very thread you post? I don't know about you but, people doing silly stuff scares me significantly less than people believing that one racial group is inherrantly superrior and should wipe out/subjugate all other groups.

Okay, that doesn't relate whatsoever to what I posted in any degree so I have no idea how to respond to that.

2: While immigration systems in europe have problems, immigrantss are also an all-purpose boogeyman for politicians and corporations to distract people from their own mistakes. Trump is the living embodiment of this. If he is such a champion of the working class, why was trump towers built by illegal immigrants working without a lisence. Companies can choose not to employ illegal immigrants, yet they don't because it is cheaper.

While this is true and it's wrong, that wouldn't even be an issue if the government was actually capable and willing to uphold the law.

Specific countries would not be going over capacity with refugees if there was a treaty to actually effectively divide quotas. Instead countries like england and france contributed to treaties that would see all the regfugees penned up in southern europe where they land. Italy and greece become overloaded and unable to help people, and they have to avoid the law abd sneak in elsewhere if they don't want to end up on the street.

See none of that would be a problem if it wasn't for both the mass illegal migration happening (literally none of them could even make it to Europe without reaching a nation they are legally required to register as refugees in) and the systemic failure of the EU and its member states to uphold domestic and international law. Nations that don't border those with active conflicts are not ones that refugees just show up in unless they somehow managed a direct flight from the nation in question they are from, and only tend to take in refugees not because they show up but because of international agreements with nations that have to deal with them doing just that to help offload some of their burden.

Of course that leads to the problem that in most cases the refugees don't return to their country when the issue in question is resolved, but that's another matter, and one that doesn't change the fact the UK, France and others are under neither moral nor legal obligation to take in people who are by definition illegal immigrants due to no longer being covered under international conventions regarding refugees.

and communities do integrate after a while if not ghettoized, however the rich parts of cities actively resist having communal housing built there so as not to lower the land value, and rich families move en masse to the east end, driving up the land value and effectively forcing all lower income people into increasingly dense east ends, driving local infrastructure over capacity.

Yes, rich whites who are very often champagne socialists are a major factor in it, doesn't change the fact that integration simply is not happening in Europe.

Immigrants and muslims do not hold the power in europe, businessmen and politicians do, they are the ones who should be held accountable, but the far right would sooner just point the blame at the people with the least power, because despite claiming to champion the working clas most of them are just pretty well off and don't want higher taxes or communal housing ruining their property value

It should be remembered that said business and political class want more immigrants, which is a major part of the problem given they only care about numbers on a screen and don't give a damn about all the societal problem that have been caused by their actions that have directly been the driving force behind the rise of the right in Europe.

I'd also like to know why higher taxes are somehow inherently things the working class want, because this isn't something any of the blue collar people I've ever worked with have stated they wanted. Not one, out of literally hundreds. Not a single one.

And what makes you think the reason for all this, in the eyes of the working class, is money? That seems to be the mistaken underlying problem with discussing this issue, because money is only part of the problem yet it seems to be the only one that gets mentioned, not the societal problems, not the community problems, not the fact that people are afraid because of the rise in violence due to both the far left and immigrants both legal and illegal. These are all issues that are factoring into the rise of the right in Europe, and yet everyone seems to only talk about the bottom line.

3: The EU isn't a dictatorship no matter how many times you say so. It is run by elected officials, whether elected in the EU parliment or in their home countries. While the system has problems, it has been the main dam against communist and fascist states in europe for the last couple of decades

The EU isn't a democracy no matter how many times you say so. It's run by unelected bureaucrats who are the real source of its power within its structure, which is why it went, without consolation or consent from the people, from an economic trade treaty into being a military short of being by definition a nation. An institution which has historically not recognised the outcomes of referendums it didn't like (Hungary with its "not enough participation to count" and Ireland with its "try again until we get the outcome we want" bullshit being perfect examples of this). The EU has dictatorial aspirations and makes no secret of this fact.

The EU could be fixed and could do some good, but there's a reason why it's legitimately hard to find someone who doesn't want to kill it outright who also doesn't feel it needs massive top-to-bottom reform that would make it unrecognisable compared to what it is now. I think it's somewhere around only 1 in 5 Europeans right now who approve of it as it currently exists, and given how the Commissions have made it clear they have no interest in reform, that number is only going to continue to fall.

Agema:

Zontar:

Well that's what happens when the working class is abandoned by the political elites and both the left and the mainstream right intentionally go out of their way to ignore the problems that are plaguing society...

Now, this is a good point.

However, drill down into why the working classes feel abandoned and miserable, and it's almost never really about immigrants. It's that not so long ago their countries tended to have good employment prospects, relatively high wage, skilled jobs that enabled them if not always to thrive, then certainly to live decently and with dignity. Now they live in a world where the superrich get to pay themselves a couple hundred times the average wage, wealth inequality soars, the rich avoid taxes and the public services decay, the jobs around now are insecure, low skill, low pay, and undignified. Communities have collapsed with the now defunct industries that once supported them, and so on.

And then you come along and claim to champion them... backing all the neoliberal hoodoo or neoliberal politicians that drove the policies that caused this unhappiness in the first place. Tax havens, plutocrat presidency, slashed public spending, deregulation. They can carry on doing all that, just so long as they chuck out the Muslims.

Well it should be remembered that the kicking in of the door to allow in a flood of immigration did directly correlate with the economy downturn for the working class, and immigration is (rightfully) viewed as a bad thing for the working class since, well, it's a bad thing for the working class, with the only real argument being how bad it is.

And then when one remembers the economic boost the working class got in the US, UK and Canada under Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney, well it's a little hard to argue the numbers when it wasn't them but the neocons who came after then who ruined everything (such as Clinton and the Cheyenne GOP setting up the financial crisis, Blair setting the UK towards what it is today, and... well Canada's done better so no example here). Though at the end of the day it's also a moot point since the economics themselves aren't that large of a departure from either the current mainstream right or left, it's just that one of the major sources of the problem is at least being addressed, so the hope that things will improve is at least there, something one couldn't say about the current mainstream left or right.

Hope is a powerful thing, and that's something the moderate left and right can't pretend they can offer the working class and expect to actually get away with it.

Agema:
[

The Charlie Hebdo and 11/2015 Paris attacks were made by second generation French and Belgian citizens. These guys were connected to the Brussels ISIL cell, which was almost entirely made up of Belgian / French citizens born or raised in the West, and who also committed a load of other major attacks across Belgium and France. The Nice attacker was a Tunisian who had legally gained entry.

There certainly have been some attacks by failed asylum seekers and the like, usually of much smaller scale like occasional stabbings.

I was thinking raw numbers of attacks, not the actual number of casualties.

Just look at Germany, where they've just revealed that 9% of all crime last year involved one of the illegal migrants doing it (compared to the 2 or 3% of the population they make up)

And where is your source for this, I wonder? Breitbart? Daily Mail? Donald Trump? Some random guy on Reddit or Tumblr?

I ask because I cannot find a reputable (i.e. non-xenophobic) source that corroborates those figures you mention. And several seem to suggest a very different, more complex picture from the one you suggest.

[https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article161906621/Neun-Prozent-der-Tatverdaechtigen-sind-Fluechtlinge.html

These piss-stain terrorists can't break our societies. But people in government who'd waste time, money, effort and hope at whatever prejudicial whims pass their fancy that day can. They can even make things much worse. And people like you who'd put them into power are the greatest danger to civil rights and democracy, giving up essential liberties for temporary security.

Safety and security are one of the pillars of the function of government. A government which cannot assure the safety of its citizens has violated the social contract, and the fact so many these days have a "just deal with it" attitude despite the fact there is absolutely nothing about being a first world nation that means we have to deal with any of this shit is infuriating.

So, bluntly, perhaps you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic populist mandates. People who easily cause more damage than they prevent, whilst flailing wildly trying to solve a problem they haven't even bothered to understand.

And maybe you can understand why people like me don't want the country run by greedy politicians who claim imbecilic globalist mandates that before the 1990s would have been seen by the left as a declaration of war on the working class.

I'm not by any means instrinsically opposed to tighter immigration policy. I am however against immigration policy based on lies, prejudice, incompetence, hate, and ignorance. Consequently, if you want to convince me your way of doing immigration is better, I suggest you don't defend your way with evidence of that sort.

So the working class having immigration levels as what they currently are being a bad thing isn't enough? The fact that the British economy was doing better for the working class before the floodgates where opened in the late 90s isn't enough? The fact that the working class in the US has had a similar problem since a similar opening of the floodgates in the late 60s isn't enough?

Agema:

Just look at Germany, where they've just revealed that 9% of all crime last year involved one of the illegal migrants doing it (compared to the 2 or 3% of the population they make up)

And where is your source for this, I wonder? Breitbart? Daily Mail? Donald Trump? Some random guy on Reddit or Tumblr?

I ask because I cannot find a reputable (i.e. non-xenophobic) source that corroborates those figures you mention. And several seem to suggest a very different, more complex picture from the one you suggest.

How about some sources in German:
Here you have the official statistics:
http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/8118712/8be035e95ac66f27bef287e274abcb27/data/2017-02-08-bis-pm-dl-straftaten-taeter-pks.pdf
But I have to admit that I don't see anything about refugees in there.
It just says down in the end at "Angaben zu Tatverdaechtigen" (statistics about subject) that out of 74888 subjects 35497 were non-German and out of those 25926 were non-EU.

But the German press also says that 9% of crime were committed bei refugees.
https://www.welt.de/regionales/hamburg/article161906621/Neun-Prozent-der-Tatverdaechtigen-sind-Fluechtlinge.html

It says down in the second to last column:
6780 registrierte Tatverdaechtige haben einen Fluechtlingsstatus, das entspricht einem Anteil von 19,1 Prozent der nicht deutschen Tatverdaechtigen und 9,1 Prozent aller Tatverdaechtigen.

6780 registered suspects were refugees, this are 19,1% of the non-german and 9,1% of total suspects.

And those numbers are EXCLUDING illegal entry into the country.

Edit: Something funny to laugh at:
The statistics say that of the suspects accused of illegally entering the country a staggering 99,9% were non-German. I would have guessed that it was higher.

Something dramatic will have to occur for Le Pen to pull it out. Fillon (the center-right candidate) has endorsed Macron, and obviously almost everyone left of center is voting Macron. Unless something very dramatic occurs in the next two weeks and Macron botches his response to it, we can expect a Macron victory.

Shock and Awe:
Something dramatic will have to occur for Le Pen to pull it out. Fillon (the center-right candidate) has endorsed Macron, and obviously almost everyone left of center is voting Macron. Unless something very dramatic occurs in the next two weeks and Macron botches his response to it, we can expect a Macron victory.

I don't know, Macron being a modern day aristocrat who's further from the socialists then La Pen is since both are somewhat protectionist, state investment and euroskeptic, and Marcon is weak on terrorism, which was one of the major reasons Fillon won the nomination for the Republicans in the first place, means that it could still see a La Pen victory because of those two reasons.

It's anyone's game at this point despite what the media has been saying again about it being a done deal (because apparently the past few elections didn't happen).

Zontar:

Well it should be remembered that the kicking in of the door to allow in a flood of immigration did directly correlate with the economy downturn for the working class, and immigration is (rightfully) viewed as a bad thing for the working class since, well, it's a bad thing for the working class, with the only real argument being how bad it is.

And then when one remembers the economic boost the working class got in the US, UK and Canada under Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney...

It was Richard Nixon who signed the deal with China that started US jobs shipping abroad. And it was under Reagan that this vastly accelerated. In the UK, it was much more Thatcher - 3 million unemployed (twice) during her tenure in office, overwhelmingly working class. And after she'd finished, manufacturing was shot and jobs in that sector were blown away like smoke in a hurricane.

When one might say Thatcher did wonders for the working classes... in a way, maybe. In the UK, the traditional classes were labelled AB, C1, C2, D & E: C2, D and E are the working classes. Much of the upper strata of the working classes, C2, did do reasonably well under Thatcherite reforms. But the main bulk of the working class, D and E, were chewed up and spat out. One can bear in mind that Thatcher wanted every Briton to own their own home. But it was also Thatcher's housing reforms that contributed to a "buy to let" culture that has ended up contributing very significantly to British home ownership actually declining over the last 20 years (now I believe below the EU average). And it's the working classes who can't afford homes.

Clinton and Blair represent a form of "surrender" (I guess you might call it) by the left to the new economic situation. In practice, it was giving up on old leftism, and instead trying to improve the life quality for the disadvantaged by enabling cheap job creation (to reduce unemployment) combined with better social services and benefits to improve the problem of low wages. And then the modern right kicks in, and wants to take away the social services and benefits.

But these changes really aren't about immigration. They don't even consistently correlate with changes in immigration. They are changes in employment regulations, automation, and all manner of national policy that have had direct effects on the working conditions of anyone in the country, citizen or immigrant.

Well Macron won because Filon screwed up by both being corrupt and not having the decency to leave when it was revealed he was corrupt, something he said he would do. Now this means its not won yet for Macro, imagine someone (either the FN or the little green man helping the FN) found some big dirt on macron, when would they put it out there? In the first round where it would just lower macron and let to someone else making it 2nd round, or during 2nd round where the only alternative is Le Pen?

Agema:

It was Richard Nixon who signed the deal with China that started US jobs shipping abroad. And it was under Reagan that this vastly accelerated. In the UK, it was much more Thatcher - 3 million unemployed (twice) during her tenure in office, overwhelmingly working class. And after she'd finished, manufacturing was shot and jobs in that sector were blown away like smoke in a hurricane.

And yet poverty went down and median income went up at levels not seen since and rarely seen before that decade.

It was far from perfect, but it was better then the nearly 30 decades since then.

When one might say Thatcher did wonders for the working classes... in a way, maybe. In the UK, the traditional classes were labelled AB, C1, C2, D & E: C2, D and E are the working classes. Much of the upper strata of the working classes, C2, did do reasonably well under Thatcherite reforms. But the main bulk of the working class, D and E, were chewed up and spat out. One can bear in mind that Thatcher wanted every Briton to own their own home. But it was also Thatcher's housing reforms that contributed to a "buy to let" culture that has ended up contributing very significantly to British home ownership actually declining over the last 20 years (now I believe below the EU average). And it's the working classes who can't afford homes.

This trend likely wouldn't be as bad today had it not been for the fact that over the past 20 years the UK has been taking in more immigration then it did in total between 1066 and 1945 (only years I have numbers for, no idea what the per-year immigration level was between 1946 and the massive immigration reform of 1997). I know rent would likely be lower then it is now, and the economy wouldn't be much worst off outside of the corporate boardrooms that the left leaning parties traditionally didn't care for before whatever happened in the 90s that made it all they really cared about.

Clinton and Blair represent a form of "surrender" (I guess you might call it) by the left to the new economic situation. In practice, it was giving up on old leftism, and instead trying to improve the life quality for the disadvantaged by enabling cheap job creation (to reduce unemployment) combined with better social services and benefits to improve the problem of low wages. And then the modern right kicks in, and wants to take away the social services and benefits.

Say about it what you will, it was a step down from the right wing politics that came before it, though it takes two to tango and the GOP and until recently the Tories went along with the idea.

But these changes really aren't about immigration. They don't even consistently correlate with changes in immigration. They are changes in employment regulations, automation, and all manner of national policy that have had direct effects on the working conditions of anyone in the country, citizen or immigrant.

In the US this may be the case (it was a good 30 years after the door was kicked in after all) but in the UK it was 1997 which saw the dramatic rise in immigration begin, so much so that there has never been anything comparable to it at any point in British history, not even the Norman and Roman invasions. And given how much of a significant factory immigration has on depreciating wages for the working class, as well as competing for limited housing, and the social conflicts that have arisen between locals and immigrants over the past two decades, well to put it bluntly there's a reason why all you need to do to win over the working class these days is to take an anti-immigrant stance: you're working more in their interest then anyone else is.

Meiam:
Well Macron won because Filon screwed up by both being corrupt and not having the decency to leave when it was revealed he was corrupt, something he said he would do. Now this means its not won yet for Macro, imagine someone (either the FN or the little green man helping the FN) found some big dirt on macron, when would they put it out there? In the first round where it would just lower macron and let to someone else making it 2nd round, or during 2nd round where the only alternative is Le Pen?

Does Marcon even need dirt given he's a modern aristocrat who got his money by working finance who has an economic stance which makes the socialists more in line with La Pen then with him, and a security line that makes the Republicans more in line with La Pen then with him?

I'm not saying someone won't drop dirt on him (he definitely has dirt given his background, and if someone has it they'll drop it in the next two weeks) but that wouldn't be necessary to make this an election who's outcome can't be guessed right now.

Im more willing to believe the traditional party candidate voters willing to go for the centrist candidate than the extremist candidate. Old party voters want status quo that centrism is more likely to achieve here than the "frexit" candidate.

bastardofmelbourne:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
He's right wing ... market liberal, libertarian minded, wants smaller government and reduced government interference in the lives of its people and reducing the individual responsibilities a person has to their fellows in so doing. Right wing. He sounds solidly right wing to me. Liberal right-wing ... nothing wrong with that either.

What you are describing is called neoliberalism and has been for some time. Since at least the 80s, by my estimate. It has been championed by both "right-wing" (Thatcher, Reagan) and "left-wing" (Keating, Clinton) politicians.

This really kind of demonstrates what I was saying, actually. The binary nomenclature is getting less and less useful as time goes on.

In what world do you live in that either Clintons were "left-wing", they're only left by comparison with the Republicans, that was the whole basis of Bill's electoral pitch in 92. Abandon all pretense of left-wing economic policies in favour for a decidedly free market and right wing structure, simply without being socially conservative like the GOP was (And social conservativism has very little to do with the left-right dynamic, despite what most pundits would have you believe, since the adoption of the Third Way by the Democrats, there has been no mainstream left-wing party in the States.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And this false polemic of 'left' and 'right' that damages the credibility of the discussion.

Hear hear.

Zontar:

Two things to say:

1. Stop getting news from /pol/. Seriously, it'll do you good in the end.
2. The pinnacle of Australian culture is not pizza. It is the meat pie.

Meiam:
Well Macron won because Filon screwed up by both being corrupt and not having the decency to leave when it was revealed he was corrupt, something he said he would do. Now this means its not won yet for Macro, imagine someone (either the FN or the little green man helping the FN) found some big dirt on macron, when would they put it out there? In the first round where it would just lower macron and let to someone else making it 2nd round, or during 2nd round where the only alternative is Le Pen?

The second round is in two weeks, so this is only likely to happen if Le Pen has been sitting on some kind of PR bombshell kept as a "break glass in case of legitimate opponent" reserve.

Or, the Russians can lend French democracy a helping hand. I hear Macron has an email account. You know what happens when politicians have email accounts.

bastardofmelbourne:

2. The pinnacle of Australian culture is not pizza. It is the meat pie.

I'm not the one claiming the cinnacle of Australian culture is pizza.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here