French election results - Macron vs Le Pen

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Unaccounted abstentionism is not going to overturn Macron's 20 point lead.

Unless she manages to reach 45% support in one week, then I'm not the least bit worried.

Sonmi:
Unaccounted abstentionism is not going to overturn Macron's 20 point lead.

Unless she manages to reach 45% support in one week, then I'm not the least bit worried.

I wouldn't be worried either, but this is the age of President Trump. Anything can happen.

What concerns me is this apparent developing trend of "I don't like either candidate, so I won't vote." It concerns me because I used to think that way, and it's a very seductive line of thought; it tricks you into thinking you're flipping off The Man, when all you're really doing is abdicating what little influence you had. Voter apathy is very, very dangerous, and what this poll indicates is that there's some kind of Bernie-or-Bust-like sentiment amongst Melenchon's voters. That's a worrying trend.

Unrelated: another interesting article about what the election would look like if France had an electoral college. The change puts Le Pen and Macron neck-and-neck, so...uh...good thing France doesn't have an electoral college, then.

bastardofmelbourne:

Sonmi:
Unaccounted abstentionism is not going to overturn Macron's 20 point lead.

Unless she manages to reach 45% support in one week, then I'm not the least bit worried.

I wouldn't be worried either, but this is the age of President Trump. Anything can happen.

What concerns me is this apparent developing trend of "I don't like either candidate, so I won't vote." It concerns me because I used to think that way, and it's a very seductive line of thought; it tricks you into thinking you're flipping off The Man, when all you're really doing is abdicating what little influence you had. Voter apathy is very, very dangerous, and what this poll indicates is that there's some kind of Bernie-or-Bust-like sentiment amongst Melenchon's voters. That's a worrying trend.

Unrelated: another interesting article about what the election would look like if France had an electoral college. The change puts Le Pen and Macron neck-and-neck, so...uh...good thing France doesn't have an electoral college, then.

I think you underestimate the effect abstentionism can have on a candidate's legitimacy, if Macron is unable to obtain a decisive victory against Le Pen, then he won't be seen as a strong contender to lead France in the legislatives, which will allow the UMP and FI to swoop in and take as many seats as possible.

The front republicain is nice and all, but it lends unearned legitimacy to a candidate often at the complete opposite of the consensus of the electorate, see Chirac in 2002. Both on the left and on the right, abstention is seen as the pragmatic alternative to gain ground on Macron, and Macron knows it, which is why he recently started attacking the PS and LR as well as Melenchon... it's almost as if he was still fighting against the eliminated parties rather than against Le Pen, it's a complete sham.

I wouldn't say Melenchon's voters have a "Bernie or Bust" sentiment, they would have certainly voted for Hamon should he have managed to get to the second turn. When your options are between the pest and cholera, there's very little that can be done, especially when one's victory is basically guaranteed. They're not apathetic either, they stay politically active and intend to take charge during the legislatives, which are the real fight to look out for.

And again, the comparison with the States is a bad one. Being 20 points in advance in a system where the popular vote decides the winner is not being 3 points in advance in a system with first-past-the-post in weighted regions.

Sonmi:
I think you underestimate the effect abstentionism can have on a candidate's legitimacy, if Macron is unable to obtain a decisive victory against Le Pen, then he won't be seen as a strong contender to lead France in the legislatives, which will allow the UMP and FI to swoop in and take as many seats as possible.

The front republicain is nice and all, but it lends unearned legitimacy to a candidate often at the complete opposite of the consensus of the electorate, see Chirac in 2002. Both on the left and on the right, abstention is seen as the pragmatic alternative to gain ground on Macron, and Macron knows it, which is why he recently started attacking the PS and LR as well as Melenchon... it's almost as if he was still fighting against the eliminated parties rather than against Le Pen, it's a complete sham.

I wouldn't say Melenchon's voters have a "Bernie or Bust" sentiment, they would have certainly voted for Hamon should he have managed to get to the second turn. When your options are between the pest and cholera, there's very little that can be done, especially when one's victory is basically guaranteed. They're not apathetic either, they stay politically active and intend to take charge during the legislatives, which are the real fight to look out for.

And again, the comparison with the States is a bad one. Being 20 points in advance in a system where the popular vote decides the winner is not being 3 points in advance in a system with first-past-the-post in weighted regions.

Yeah, I'm probably just hyperventilating.

Breathe, BoM, breathe.

"I am not Hollande."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39766334

So will he be Hollande, or Cameron?

Sonmi:

I think you underestimate the effect abstentionism can have on a candidate's legitimacy, if Macron is unable to obtain a decisive victory against Le Pen, then he won't be seen as a strong contender to lead France in the legislatives, which will allow the UMP and FI to swoop in and take as many seats as possible.

In this case, would it really matter? Instead of saying 'Look at this low turnout' they could say 'You only won because people voted against Le Pen, not because they stood behind you'

Lieju:

Sonmi:

I think you underestimate the effect abstentionism can have on a candidate's legitimacy, if Macron is unable to obtain a decisive victory against Le Pen, then he won't be seen as a strong contender to lead France in the legislatives, which will allow the UMP and FI to swoop in and take as many seats as possible.

In this case, would it really matter? Instead of saying 'Look at this low turnout' they could say 'You only won because people voted against Le Pen, not because they stood behind you'

Because they wouldn't be able to prove that people voted for him simply in opposition of Le Pen rather than in genuine support for his program, while a considerable drop in participation from the first round to the round is a quantifiable measure of the electorate's dislike for him.

Sonmi:

I think you underestimate the effect abstentionism can have on a candidate's legitimacy, if Macron is unable to obtain a decisive victory against Le Pen, then he won't be seen as a strong contender to lead France in the legislatives, which will allow the UMP and FI to swoop in and take as many seats as possible.

I suspect it doesn't make much difference either way.

Once elected, the main parties will navel-gazingly concern themselves with how to shut Macron down in order to protect their established power base against the newcomer. And not just the politicians - other institutional forces like unions will try to block everything too because that's just what they do: we all know by now French president after president that promises reforms achieves approximately nothing.

And Le Pen will come back in 5 years even stronger. Except that now Macron is descredited, the mainstream right and left should be free to square up for who gets to run against her before expecting all of France's moderates to dutifully fall in line and stop the FN again.

Agema:
I suspect it doesn't make much difference either way.

Once elected, the main parties will navel-gazingly concern themselves with how to shut Macron down in order to protect their established power base against the newcomer. And not just the politicians - other institutional forces like unions will try to block everything too because that's just what they do: we all know by now French president after president that promises reforms achieves approximately nothing.

Sure, the main parties will mobilize themselves against Macron after suffering waves of defections, but what they have to worry about is the electorate. Should Macron manage to appear as a unifier, it be better for his image, making him and his party members more credible candidates during the legislatives.

I disagree that right-wing reforms always get blocked by institutions, just look at the El Khomri law.

Agema:
And Le Pen will come back in 5 years even stronger. Except that now Macron is descredited, the mainstream right and left should be free to square up for who gets to run against her before expecting all of France's moderates to dutifully fall in line and stop the FN again.

I rather agree with this, if the FN doesn't go through a civil war following the elections.

Their electorate is too split politically and regionally, while the supporters of the FN in the North are closer to the economic policies of the Left and are generally secular, her supporters in the South are far more on the Right, acting essentially as Republicains on steroids, with Catholic traditionalism put in the mix. I hardly see a party that divided hold together on the pretext of anti-globalism and general xenophobia.

Macroni went up to 63% in the polls and the American alt right is trying to spread fake news about him.

http://www.numerama.com/politique/254983-compte-offshore-demmanuel-macron-une-intox-venue-de-4chan.html

It's been apparently confirmed that Macron's campaign was the target of a successful cyberattack that has leaked a large archive of emails, just hours before campaigning ended in France and two days before the presidential election.

Macron is also alleging that some of the emails have been doctored, though who knows? I haven't even seen what's in them yet.

bastardofmelbourne:
It's been apparently confirmed that Macron's campaign was the target of a successful cyberattack that has leaked a large archive of emails, just hours before campaigning ended in France and two days before the presidential election.

Macron is also alleging that some of the emails have been doctored, though who knows? I haven't even seen what's in them yet.

Not surprised that it happened now, they were probably snooping on all the candidate but choose to release them only at the second round when literally the only alternative is Le Pen (or you know, not voting which just play in Le Pen hands). Still because of the media blackout this should have very limited impact since only people who already decided to vote Le Pen will widely share these around. I'm guessing the Melechon people will also spread this and repeat what happened with Bernie voter who just decided not to vote, but I doubt it'll be enough to change the results.

Still you'd think your candidate being helped by an email dumb from the opposite candidate and probably organized by Russia, a foreign power with a crappy reputation, would make people question twice voting for Le Pen, but I never understood nationalist.

Sonmi:
Unaccounted abstentionism is not going to overturn Macron's 20 point lead.

Unless she manages to reach 45% support in one week, then I'm not the least bit worried.

Larger leads have been overturned before. Macron is by far the likeliest to win here, but people tend to take things for granted far too often in politics.

Besides, one of the few forces left which could cause severe damage to his campaign is complacency.

France actually has an unusual law that basically imposes a media blackout on election day and the day before, forbidding anyone from prognosticating about the possible results right before people go in to vote.

This can help Macron or hurt him; on the one hand, if no-one in the media is talking about the leaked emails, the leak will have no effect. On the other hand, the law prevents him from properly rebutting the accusations in public, because he's literally not allowed to campaign on election weekend.

I think he'll win. Polls still have him ahead quite strongly. We'll see in the next day or so, I guess.

So Macron won
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-39823865

65.1% - 34.9%
It wasn't even close

All right. We've done the whole right-wing nationalist populism thing. That's fine, good fun, now we've got it all out of our systems and we can come back to the real world.

The hard reality for the neoreactionaries is this: when people actually get a chance to see what these people want, nobody likes it. They managed to get ahead in Brexit and the US elections because at the time it was all still novel and nobody had really had a chance to see alt-right policy in action.

But with alt-right politicians failing to win elections in two important European elections and projected to lose the upcoming election in Germany, and with the progressive backlash against Trumpism in the states currently being projected to cost the right wing the legislature, the days of this movement are apparently numbered.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/07/emmanuel-macron-wins-french-presidency-marine-le-pen

All I can say is; Thank God. And thank you, French Voters, for not voting for an out-and-out Racist who would ruin your country.

renegade7:
All right. We've done the whole right-wing nationalist populism thing. That's fine, good fun, now we've got it all out of our systems and we can come back to the real world.

Can we do the same for modern globalist progressivism? Because that joke should have ended 20 years ago yet is still being pushed strong despite being even more at odds with reality.

But with alt-right politicians failing to win elections in two important European elections and projected to lose the upcoming election in Germany, and with the progressive backlash against Trumpism in the states currently being projected to cost the right wing the legislature, the days of this movement are apparently numbered.

That's even more terrifying when you actually sit down and think about it.

I mean when you sit down and actually think about it it's almost horrifying. A full 40% of the population is suffering from problems that not only is the political mainstream actively ignoring, but will insult you and brand you for even making mention of it. That's the type of thing that will, no matter how things possibly play out, lead to change that upends the establishment and the status quo, and if it cannot be done within the framework of the system, the very legitimacy of the system is at risk. It's only legitimate if we all agree it is after all.

While the outcome was completely expected, given how the political cancer that caused this symptom to happen in the first place is not only still there but actively being fed, this isn't dying, it's only going to get worst. 40% of the youth voted for La Pen in the first round, and given why they did so there's a 0% chance of Macron reversing that unless every single thing he has ever said in public and private is a lie and his entire professional and political career until this moment was built upon lies to get where he is now.

This isn't over, not by a long shot, though I do hope the globalists believe it to be. Makes winning peacefully far easier.

bastardofmelbourne:

Sonmi:
Unaccounted abstentionism is not going to overturn Macron's 20 point lead.

Unless she manages to reach 45% support in one week, then I'm not the least bit worried.

I wouldn't be worried either, but this is the age of President Trump. Anything can happen.

What concerns me is this apparent developing trend of "I don't like either candidate, so I won't vote." It concerns me because I used to think that way, and it's a very seductive line of thought; it tricks you into thinking you're flipping off The Man, when all you're really doing is abdicating what little influence you had. Voter apathy is very, very dangerous, and what this poll indicates is that there's some kind of Bernie-or-Bust-like sentiment amongst Melenchon's voters. That's a worrying trend.

I don't know, if you had me choose being punched in the face really hard or punched in the dick not so hard I'd rather not vote for either. Even if the dick punching supporters have a better point but both suck just the same. It's better to just not have any "duel" style elections at all so the party to punch you in the chest can get a vote and gain more influence in the public eye.

inu-kun:

I don't know, if you had me choose being punched in the face really hard or punched in the dick not so hard I'd rather not vote for either. Even if the dick punching supporters have a better point but both suck just the same. It's better to just not have any "duel" style elections at all so the party to punch you in the chest can get a vote and gain more influence in the public eye.

I'd probably take being punched in the dick to be honest. It's not pleasant, but it's not as bad as people suggest, whereas being punched in the face is pretty shit and it more likely to seriously damage something rather than just hurting for a bit. I think it's the balls that are super-sensitive to being punched.

Zontar:

But with alt-right politicians failing to win elections in two important European elections and projected to lose the upcoming election in Germany, and with the progressive backlash against Trumpism in the states currently being projected to cost the right wing the legislature, the days of this movement are apparently numbered.

That's even more terrifying when you actually sit down and think about it.

Losing one election does not mean you're suppressed, The US nor France is a dictatorship. I don't like Trump but that doesn't mean I want another Civil War, I'll just call out his bullshit and I'll wait four years to try and vote him out.

I mean when you sit down and actually think about it it's almost horrifying. A full 40% of the population is suffering from problems that not only is the political mainstream actively ignoring. but will insult you and brand you for even making mention of it. That's the type of thing that will, no matter how things possibly play out, lead to change that upends the establishment and the status quo, and if it cannot be done within the framework of the system, the very legitimacy of the system is at risk. It's only legitimate if we all agree it is after all.

Okay first off source for the 40% number you pull, second off if you're talking about The election numbers for the people who voted in favor of Le pen that was 34.9% not 40%. Next what would you classify suffering? Not everyone who votes for politician votes for the same reason. Some may have feared immigrants Effects on the economy, Maybe fear of terrorist attacks, some may fear globalism is unhealthy along with the EU, some may have been from people who find Macron more extreme and rather voted for Le pen. Some simply like her political opinions, Some may have been spite votes or troll votes. Not everyone who voted for her was living in a dumpster eating stale bread. Most of them will be fine. Everyone who voted against Trump is not burning in Lava at the moment.

While the outcome was completely expected, given how the political cancer that caused this symptom to happen in the first place is not only still there but actively being fed, this isn't dying, it's only going to get worst. 40% of the youth voted for La Pen in the first round, and given why they did so there's a 0% chance of Macron reversing that unless every single thing he has ever said in public and private is a lie and his entire professional and political career until this moment was built upon lies to get where he is now.

First of all source for the 40% Number again and That's how Democracy works. A large number of British don't want to leave the EU and a lot of Americans don't want trump as president but they lost the vote at the end. While Democracy is probably the best form of government we have, it's still flawed. The minority getting nothing has always been a problem with it but just because your side lost at one point doesn't mean it's It's suddenly becomes a tragedy.

This isn't over, not by a long shot, though I do hope the globalists believe it to be. Makes winning peacefully far easier.

If you're counting on apathetic to win an election is probably the worst way you can win an election.

Mr.Mattress:
All I can say is; Thank God. And thank you, French Voters, for not voting for an out-and-out Racist who would ruin your country.

You do realize that now, Marie may find that her wallpaper will be stolen. I hope you can live with that.

renegade7:
All right. We've done the whole right-wing nationalist populism thing. That's fine, good fun, now we've got it all out of our systems and we can come back to the real world.

The hard reality for the neoreactionaries is this: when people actually get a chance to see what these people want, nobody likes it. They managed to get ahead in Brexit and the US elections because at the time it was all still novel and nobody had really had a chance to see alt-right policy in action.

But with alt-right politicians failing to win elections in two important European elections and projected to lose the upcoming election in Germany, and with the progressive backlash against Trumpism in the states currently being projected to cost the right wing the legislature, the days of this movement are apparently numbered.

Chickens. Hatched. Counting.

>30% of the voters were willing to vote for Le Pen, despite knowing what she represented, despite the fact that she was if anything less personable than Trump. If you ignore that fact, and fail to fix the fucking issues, things will only get worse. All they need is a Farage-like figure, or anyone that doesn't come across as a complete neo-nazi, and you are looking at a much nearer thing.

The EU needs fixing. Unfortunately, Macron seems to be more of a Federalist, but at least he recognises that something needs doing.

Zontar:

Can we do the same for modern globalist progressivism? Because that joke should have ended 20 years ago yet is still being pushed strong despite being even more at odds with reality.

What do you actually mean when you say "globalist progressivism"? Those terms, on their own and without context, are near-meaningless buzzwords.

Are you referring to global trade? Or, as I suspect, merely to immigration again-- an empty rebranding exercise to make it seem more palatable and less obvious that it's just another term for anti-immigrant scapegoating.

And you were talking about tried-and-failed approaches. Right-wing governments have been doing the anti-immigrant scapegoating farce for centuries (and, note, it tends not to make the problems go away).

tf2godz:
Losing one election does not mean you're suppressed, The US nor France is a dictatorship. I don't like Trump but that doesn't mean I want another Civil War, I'll just call out his bullshit and I'll wait four years to try and vote him out.

I never implied that loosing the election means suppression, I simply pointed out the fact that the establishment loosing the election was needed, because the status quo supporting corporatists want a system in place that is simply not viable in even the medium term. The reason La Pen and Trump became politically significant in the first place has a 0% chance of being addressed if we're being realistic. La Pen will be back next election, the numbers of people who are discontent will be higher, Trump loosing won't fix the problems that caused him to win in the first place, and pretending that anything within the mainstream could hope to change any of that is unrealistic.

Okay first off source for the 40% number you pull, second off if you're talking about The election numbers for the people who voted in favor of Le pen that was 34.9% not 40%. Next what would you classify suffering? Not everyone who votes for politician votes for the same reason. Some may have feared immigrants Effects on the economy, Maybe fear of terrorist attacks, some may fear globalism is unhealthy along with the EU, some may have been from people who find Macron more extreme and rather voted for Le pen. Some simply like her political opinions, Some may have been spite votes or troll votes. Not everyone who voted for her was living in a dumpster eating stale bread. Most of them will be fine. Everyone who voted against Trump is not burning in Lava at the moment.

The number is just a ballpark. The point is a large minority too small for the corporatist right and the bourgeoisie left to ignore forever is growing discontent due to the fact the attempts at pushing a globalist system on Western nations (often with little or no consultation to the people it effects) due to how it negatively effects us, both monetarily and in other ways that some pretend, due to an inability to put a dollar value on it, don't even exist as a factor, let alone one that needs to be justified.

I know I'm not too happy about the fact that (by my own union rep's own words) I and everyone in my factory is effectively paying a 5% tax due to wage depreciation in the industry. And that's just direct costs, before getting into indirect ones such as the greater tax burden immigrants place the country on. And that's just one issue amongst many that you're not even allowed to talk about without being called every word in the book by the bourgeoisie.

First of all source for the 40% Number again and That's how Democracy works. A large number of British don't want to leave the EU and a lot of Americans don't want trump as president but they lost the vote at the end. While Democracy is probably the best form of government we have, it's still flawed. The minority getting nothing has always been a problem with it but just because your side lost at one point doesn't mean it's It's suddenly becomes a tragedy.

Yes but one of the reasons democracy has managed to remain mostly stable is that even despite the will of the majority when a large minority starts to suffer the issue tends to get addressed. When we're at the point where one in three people are dealing with issues where to even acknowledge them is considered a radical stance (only 1 of the candidates in the US election for both parties did so) something has to give. The problem needs to be solved, it's not a luxury, it's not an option, it's something that has to happen, and it will happen, and the question is if doing so through the system will accomplish this, or, failing that, a new system will be created to replace it, as is the case throughout history.

If there is no major political reformation in the next decade or so to fix the problem, without there being an alternative rise of a totalitarian state, it would be a very noteworthy departure from the past three centuries of precedent for such problems. Sure, it might happen, but it would be a first. France has had revolution over less, one recently enough that some where alive to see it.

If you're counting on apathetic to win an election is probably the worst way you can win an election.

Not apathy, complacency. If the establishment thinks it's going to win it won't actually try too hard to do so, and given how in Anglo nations it has been flailing due to a takeover by incompetents (just look at Labour in the UK, or the Democrats in the US ever since Brexit and the Election as a perfect example of this doubling down on a failing strategy) I doubt the rest of the West will be immune from this.

People who are saying this is over are sorely mistaken, this is at most the end of the beginning.

Silvanus:

Zontar:

Can we do the same for modern globalist progressivism? Because that joke should have ended 20 years ago yet is still being pushed strong despite being even more at odds with reality.

What do you actually mean when you say "globalist progressivism"? Those terms, on their own and without context, are near-meaningless buzzwords.

Are you referring to global trade? Or, as I suspect, merely to immigration again-- a clever-sounding rebranding exercise to make it seem more palatable and less obvious that it's just another term for anti-immigrant scapegoating, as right-wing governments have been doing for centuries (and, note, it tends not to make the problems go away).

I'm talking about the overwhelmingly pro-corporate anti-social politics that pretty much define the pro-EU political parties of Europe, Labour in the UK, the Liberals in Canada, the establishment of both parties in the US and so on, that uses the buzzword of globalism to justify the systemic removal of sovereignty from nations (often against the will of the voters), have a fascistic relationship with corporations (no other word can describe what Germany and the EU are attempting to do with social media other then fascism, it's literally a core part of the ideology), and push multiculturalism onto our nations without our citizens ever having actually voted on it (Canada sure as hell never had an election on the matter) all in the name of progress that only benefits megacorporations and the well off and literally no one else, not even the middle class that often tricks itself into thinking that a few ethnic dishes offsets the cost when it does nothing of the sort.

This class warfare has been going on for too long now, and yet another warrior of the rich fighting the poor and middle has taken power. Not that it's surprising, the big money players all backed him and his opponent wasn't palpable to the left despite being very close ideologically.

Zontar:

I'm talking about the overwhelmingly pro-corporate anti-social politics that pretty much define the pro-EU political parties of Europe, Labour in the UK, the Liberals in Canada, the establishment of both parties in the US and so on [...]

Just to quickly stop you there for a moment: in the UK, the Conservatives are, by an extremely large margin, more "pro-corporate" than Labour. This is agreed upon right across the political divide. Lower corporation tax; lower regulation for corporations across the board; privatisation of utilities; the threat that the UK will become a tax haven after Brexit.

The notion that Labour are "pro-corporate" in comparison with our existing government is, quite frankly, utterly laughable nonsense, and voters of both parties would agree with that for different reasons.

Zontar:

, that uses the buzzword of globalism to justify the systemic removal of sovereignty from nations (often against the will of the voters), have a fascistic relationship with corporations (no other word can describe what Germany and the EU are attempting to do with social media other then fascism, it's literally a core part of the ideology), and push multiculturalism onto our nations without our citizens ever having actually voted on it (Canada sure as hell never had an election on the matter) all in the name of progress that only benefits megacorporations and the well off and literally no one else, not even the middle class that often tricks itself into thinking that a few ethnic dishes offsets the cost when it does nothing of the sort.

As predicted, it devolves quite quickly into anti-immigrant scapegoating.

I hate to tell you this, Zontar, but corporations making a large profit are able to pay their workers higher wages. That they do not do so is not the fault of competition within the labour force: nobody can be blamed for seeking the best wage available for them and their family.

You'll notice it is not the hard-right parties which promise to regulate how those businesses can act, and regulate a higher minimum wage for those lower down the ladder.

Zontar:
This class warfare has been going on for too long now, and yet another warrior of the rich fighting the poor and middle has taken power. Not that it's surprising, the big money players all backed him and his opponent wasn't palpable to the left despite being very close ideologically.

"Very close ideologically". You've pulled this line before, about Sanders and Trump, I believe-- and then, as now, not offered anything of substance to back it up, other than highly charged rhetoric.

On every major priority, bar none, Le Pen is as far from representing the priorities of the left as possible. Ditto Trump. That is agreed universally amongst the candidates themselves and their voters and party members; the only dissenting voice here is you, who does not share those priorities, and as a result simply does not understand them.

Zontar:

overwhelmingly pro-corporate anti-social politics that pretty much define the pro-EU political parties of Europe, Labour in the UK

Weird, I've always considered the Tories much more pro-corporate than Labour. Mostly because they are, but I'm sure you have reasons too.

Silvanus:
Just to quickly stop you there for a moment: in the UK, the Conservatives are, by an extremely large margin, more "pro-corporate" than Labour. This is agreed upon right across the political divide. Lower corporation tax; lower regulation for corporations across the board; privatisation of utilities; the threat that the UK will become a tax haven after Brexit.

The notion that Labour are "pro-corporate" in comparison with our existing government is, quite frankly, utterly laughable nonsense, and voters of both parties would agree with that for different reasons.

While I won't disagree that the Tories aren't pro-corporation, Labour certainly isn't pro-worker, and megacorporations certainly are not in support of lower regulations since that's half of what prevents competition from arising.

That they do not do so is not the fault of competition within the labour force

So wages are the only thing in the entire economy not effected by the law of supply and demand? Well, TIL.

You'll notice it is not the hard-right parties which promise to regulate how those businesses can act, and regulate a higher minimum wage for those lower down the ladder.

Actually the hard-right tend to do just that, it's the centre-right that doesn't. Though minimum wage tends to be opposed due to the economic reality of its status as a job (such as the fact that amongst young black workers in the US every 10% increase in the minimum wage has a corresponding 6% increase in unemployment)

"Very close ideologically". You've pulled this line before, about Sanders and Trump, I believe-- and then, as now, not offered anything of substance to back it up, other than highly charged rhetoric.

On every major priority, bar none, Le Pen is as far from representing the priorities of the left as possible. Ditto Trump. That is agreed universally amongst the candidates themselves and their voters and party members; the only dissenting voice here is you, who does not share those priorities, and as a result simply does not understand them.

TIL that Sanders was lying when he complained about the lack of employment and underpaid labour being an issue, and that the socialists in France are not in fact anti-EU and pro-economic intervention as they claim.

I'm sorry, but claiming that Sanders was closer to Clinton or that the French socialists where closer to Macron is basically stating that both lie about what their actual positions are. Which, while possible (Clinton and Macron certainly didn't tell the public their actual positions after all) seems unlikely to me.

Baffle2:

Zontar:

overwhelmingly pro-corporate anti-social politics that pretty much define the pro-EU political parties of Europe, Labour in the UK

Weird, I've always considered the Tories much more pro-corporate than Labour. Mostly because they are, but I'm sure you have reasons too.

Well Labour certainly isn't pro-worker.

inu-kun:
I don't know, if you had me choose being punched in the face really hard or punched in the dick not so hard I'd rather not vote for either. Even if the dick punching supporters have a better point but both suck just the same. It's better to just not have any "duel" style elections at all so the party to punch you in the chest can get a vote and gain more influence in the public eye.

The hidden problem underneath choosing leaders is that executives have too much power. It becomes a contest of personalities rather than issues. The details of what laws might be passed or policies pursued get buried under ad hominem attacks and salacious rumors. I think the British really nailed it in this regard by keeping the top-level positions out of the scrum.

Zontar:

Well Labour certainly isn't pro-worker.

Yes they are. How are they not? If you say Tories are then maybe you need to speak to some docs, nurses, teachers, retail workers, hell, anyone on Zero Hour and Freelance.

Parasondox:

Yes they are. How are they not?

Well given how important wages are to workers, coupled with the fact that Labour wants to add more unpaid days off to the calendar while continuing the depreciation of wages as an effective tax on workers to push social policy that only benefits the rich (people care more about the results of policy then intent, something that's about the opposite of Labour these days), and their advocacy for shitty public housing blocks that those who live in have no future due to the environment it creates, well if Labour really does care about workers they do a horrible job of it and should be kept out of office until they get a competent leadership that can advocate policy that will actually help them instead of harm them.

Zontar:

Parasondox:

Yes they are. How are they not?

Well given how important wages are to workers, coupled with the fact that Labour wants to add more unpaid days off to the calendar while continuing the depreciation of wages as an effective tax on workers to push social policy that only benefits the rich (people care more about the results of policy then intent, something that's about the opposite of Labour these days), and their advocacy for shitty public housing blocks that those who live in have no future due to the environment it creates, well if Labour really does care about workers they do a horrible job of it and should be kept out of office until they get a competent leadership that can advocate policy that will actually help them instead of harm them.

Wait wait wait hold on. Do you know how it's like now for workers under a Tory government?

Parasondox:

Wait wait wait hold on. Do you know how it's like now for workers under a Tory government?

Given Labour's campaign to desperately not loose half its seats, I'd say it's hard to imagine May's government doing worst given how that would require active attacks on them at this point.

Zontar:

Parasondox:

Wait wait wait hold on. Do you know how it's like now for workers under a Tory government?

Given Labour's campaign to desperately not loose half its seats, I'd say it's hard to imagine May's government doing worst given how that would require active attacks on them at this point.

No, no, no. I said and asked do you KNOW how it's like now for workers under a Tory government. Not "imagine". KNOW.

 Pages PREV 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