It's raining, it's cold, I have to work, Chook is several thousand miles away and I'm out of coffee. Life sucks. So what can we do about it?
Look at baby parrot piccies, of course. Awwww.
Alternatively, pick up some ideas on how to help your drunk friends. Heehee!
mardi 8 mai 2007
lundi 7 mai 2007
So here we are mixing politics and football
The well known dual passions of the French. So what do you get when France loses at football and at politics? find out here!
dimanche 6 mai 2007
So here we are selling stuff
Long day. Up early to distribute Ségolène leaflets and simultaneously help out on a stall at a boot sale in the 17th. Leaflets for Segolene were to help Sarkozy lose (apparently it's illegal to distribute tracts on the election day anyway...), and boot sale was to vaguely contribute to the association I belong to. Action culture is a bunch of guys who are friends of friends who have an organisation that aims to raise money and school equipment for a bunch of schools on Casamance, Southern Senegal. Check it all out here.
They were selling stuff that Edouard ('Doud', co founder with Ben) had got from the 5 star hotel he works in, stuff the hotel was just going to chuck out: beautiful linen sheets, towels, cosmetics, minibars, hoovers, cleaning equipment, ashtrays you name it. 157 euros by the time I left at lunchtime.
They were selling stuff that Edouard ('Doud', co founder with Ben) had got from the 5 star hotel he works in, stuff the hotel was just going to chuck out: beautiful linen sheets, towels, cosmetics, minibars, hoovers, cleaning equipment, ashtrays you name it. 157 euros by the time I left at lunchtime.
********
First results from AFP news agency on tonight's presidential result. Sarkozy easily ahead, 54% against 46%. Oh dear.
samedi 5 mai 2007
So here we are in the European Union
As my profile so concisely says, I am a student of European studies, having specialised first in Economics, and now in Politics and Law. Nobody seems to have heard of European studies, so a brief word on the subject. ES are a relatively new subject, usually focusing on the history, economics, law and politics of the construction of the European Union, though it can also take into account cultural studies, languages and other subjects relating to the EU. I chose ES for my two-year MA after my economics-and-french degree in England at the University of Sussex in Brighton.
A word on why the EU is important to me. I am British but was brought up in China, Belgium, the US and France. I was twelve (and in France by then) when there were 12 countries in the EU, fifteen when there were 15, 25 when there were 25. Ok, amusing parallels aside, my attachment to all things European does run a bit deeper than that. I honestly believe that European values (there is still some debate about what these actually are) are the way forward. In my mind, the principles (inspired from the Enlightenment) based on freedom, equality, non-discrimination and so on are both fantastic on paper and, as the EU gets stronger and they are actually applied, actually quite amazing. The abolition of the death penalty, the right to vote, to go to school, to own property, to have access to a swift and efficient judiciary; these things that many take for granted first budded as theories and then slowly became firmly-anchored values. The Irish, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Greeks, and more recently Cyprus, Malta and ten central and eastern European countries have joined and in their different ways benefited from the Union. Some may scream at the fact that so much money was given to these countries before and after their accession, but just as the Marshall plan (curtesy of our American brethren) allowed Europe to rebuild and implant solid, peaceful democracies in Europe after the war, so have European structural funds avoided countries returning (or just turning) to the desperate nationalism and xenophobia that accompany economic and democratic poverty. A hundred and sixty years ago, a third of all Irish died or emigrated out of hunger. Seventy five years ago the Germans turned to National Socialism in the belief it would give them a job and feed their family. Seventeen years ago the Romanians were living in a dictatorship and extreme poverty that are only familiar today in the form of banana African republics. Today, all are sealed in mutual peace due to economic interdependence and (somewhat forced admittedly) solidarity emanating from an invisible unknown called the EU.
I'm quite capable of sobbing when I see old men remember the Wars as they take the train from France to Germany, and knowing that there can not be a similar occurence because of the links between these countries today. (On a similar note, I also weep when I look out of my window on to the courtyard below and see the Portuguese and Indian kids from next door playing French games together even though their parents hardly speak the same language). I love the fact that students (such as I) now have the chance to study one or two semesters in other country, to meet different cultures, to talk about things that go well beyond nationality, that through students and the younger generation in particular a real European identity, based on freedom, non-discrimination and mutual respect is emerging. Unlike other great blocks that have been created in the past, the US or the USSR, the EU has incorporated from the start both individual rights (property, justice, political) as well as ideological, which incorporate society as a whole. Refusal of the death penalty, belief in free movement, the right to study whatever and whenever, the right to choose your job, to live decently whoever you are, in peace, with free education, free health and free transport, all these ideas that are engraved in the treaties and are the very root of what the founding fathers of the EU believed in represent the ideal backbone of the society I want to live in.
Cynics will cry: "Christ, do you know how much the Common agricultural policy costs?!", "the difficulties of harmonsing the economies of 13 countries so that their common currency actually refelcts their economic health...", "Jesus, Miranda, the European Parliament is the least legitimate democratic institution in the world", "I hate the Portuguese, don't want them in Europe". I actually agree with the first three of these (I don't hate the Portuguese, only the British and French actually ;), but must respond to these fictional cynics that they do not see the bigger picture.
Ok, so the CAP is hideously oversubsidised (trust me I know, I studied the problem for my dissertation last year), and it must be reformed. It will (it must, nobody denies), only in the meantime it is allowing Europe to feed itself (people were starving to death after 1945 remember) as well as not just letting millions of farmers just die out and move to shitty jobs in the city, as they would have 200 years ago. Obviously the Euro is absurdly overvalued, making the EU less competitive than undervalued (currency wise) China, and making our exports absurdly expensive. In the meantime however we have insulated ourselves against inflation (remember pictures at school of people buying potatoes with sacks of money? Life savings disappearing overnight?) and made imports very cheap for ourselves. Also, being tied together where it really hurts most (the pocket) means that we won't be shooting each other for a while. As for the lack of legitimacy of the EU Parliament you see me nodding vigourously. I am currently (not) writing my 100 page dissertation on the subject, and you will find no one more convinced then me that most of our European representatives are tossers, well paid and inefficient at that. But hey, 30 years ago the European Parliament was literally just a lot of old guys who talked. Now they decide where the money goes, suggest laws, and are directly elected by us. Not bad for a such a short life, try and find a Parliament in history that was so settled so quickly. And vote. As for the Brtish and French, both are definitely arrogant and bossy. The French are pretentious and smug and self-centred; the British are hypocritical, anal and disloyal. On the other hand, the French are passionate, fighters and dedicated. The British are inventive, firm and rational. The fact these countries, along with the humourless-brilliant Germans, sqawking-creative Italians and all the others are free to sniff each other out and more or less forced to cooperate with the quasi-garanty they they will not be killing each other and will show solidarity towards each other in the forseable future is a great thing.
All this to say, yes the EU is bollocks, a fifty year old pile of treaties that have somehow shuffled out buildings and people, institutions that control many aspects of what we do and how we do it. Some countries may have lost out on the EU, and some realise it. But all this is so new, we are judging on such a short-term activities. Surely peace and economic prosperity have been proof that we have probably got it right, at least in the parts that matter. Yes, we have to reform so many parts of the EU, not the least show that we have world presence, that we can perhaps avoid wars outside our borders (Iraq would have been a good opportunity), that we can collectively do something about the economic development of Africa or the environment. Yes, we must deal with cultural identities so that no one feels left out or that he is sacrificing his roots for something new. Of course we must allow Europe to help the Europeans have good lives.
But the EU is so young. Have the UK, Italy, Egypt, the US managed these things? Whether a region, a nation, a state, a union or a federation political structures are built on values, recognition of something bigger than one's self but working for one's self. European values are as good today as they were fifty years ago when they decided, for the first time in history, that countries, nations that had traditionnally been enemies would conscientiously and volontarily work together and become interdependent. This is surely just as revolutionnary as deciding that the people choose their own representants, or that the State must take care of the weakest.
European values and the building of Europe to make these values real to all those who adhere to them was the whole point to this...
A word on why the EU is important to me. I am British but was brought up in China, Belgium, the US and France. I was twelve (and in France by then) when there were 12 countries in the EU, fifteen when there were 15, 25 when there were 25. Ok, amusing parallels aside, my attachment to all things European does run a bit deeper than that. I honestly believe that European values (there is still some debate about what these actually are) are the way forward. In my mind, the principles (inspired from the Enlightenment) based on freedom, equality, non-discrimination and so on are both fantastic on paper and, as the EU gets stronger and they are actually applied, actually quite amazing. The abolition of the death penalty, the right to vote, to go to school, to own property, to have access to a swift and efficient judiciary; these things that many take for granted first budded as theories and then slowly became firmly-anchored values. The Irish, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Greeks, and more recently Cyprus, Malta and ten central and eastern European countries have joined and in their different ways benefited from the Union. Some may scream at the fact that so much money was given to these countries before and after their accession, but just as the Marshall plan (curtesy of our American brethren) allowed Europe to rebuild and implant solid, peaceful democracies in Europe after the war, so have European structural funds avoided countries returning (or just turning) to the desperate nationalism and xenophobia that accompany economic and democratic poverty. A hundred and sixty years ago, a third of all Irish died or emigrated out of hunger. Seventy five years ago the Germans turned to National Socialism in the belief it would give them a job and feed their family. Seventeen years ago the Romanians were living in a dictatorship and extreme poverty that are only familiar today in the form of banana African republics. Today, all are sealed in mutual peace due to economic interdependence and (somewhat forced admittedly) solidarity emanating from an invisible unknown called the EU.
I'm quite capable of sobbing when I see old men remember the Wars as they take the train from France to Germany, and knowing that there can not be a similar occurence because of the links between these countries today. (On a similar note, I also weep when I look out of my window on to the courtyard below and see the Portuguese and Indian kids from next door playing French games together even though their parents hardly speak the same language). I love the fact that students (such as I) now have the chance to study one or two semesters in other country, to meet different cultures, to talk about things that go well beyond nationality, that through students and the younger generation in particular a real European identity, based on freedom, non-discrimination and mutual respect is emerging. Unlike other great blocks that have been created in the past, the US or the USSR, the EU has incorporated from the start both individual rights (property, justice, political) as well as ideological, which incorporate society as a whole. Refusal of the death penalty, belief in free movement, the right to study whatever and whenever, the right to choose your job, to live decently whoever you are, in peace, with free education, free health and free transport, all these ideas that are engraved in the treaties and are the very root of what the founding fathers of the EU believed in represent the ideal backbone of the society I want to live in.
Cynics will cry: "Christ, do you know how much the Common agricultural policy costs?!", "the difficulties of harmonsing the economies of 13 countries so that their common currency actually refelcts their economic health...", "Jesus, Miranda, the European Parliament is the least legitimate democratic institution in the world", "I hate the Portuguese, don't want them in Europe". I actually agree with the first three of these (I don't hate the Portuguese, only the British and French actually ;), but must respond to these fictional cynics that they do not see the bigger picture.
Ok, so the CAP is hideously oversubsidised (trust me I know, I studied the problem for my dissertation last year), and it must be reformed. It will (it must, nobody denies), only in the meantime it is allowing Europe to feed itself (people were starving to death after 1945 remember) as well as not just letting millions of farmers just die out and move to shitty jobs in the city, as they would have 200 years ago. Obviously the Euro is absurdly overvalued, making the EU less competitive than undervalued (currency wise) China, and making our exports absurdly expensive. In the meantime however we have insulated ourselves against inflation (remember pictures at school of people buying potatoes with sacks of money? Life savings disappearing overnight?) and made imports very cheap for ourselves. Also, being tied together where it really hurts most (the pocket) means that we won't be shooting each other for a while. As for the lack of legitimacy of the EU Parliament you see me nodding vigourously. I am currently (not) writing my 100 page dissertation on the subject, and you will find no one more convinced then me that most of our European representatives are tossers, well paid and inefficient at that. But hey, 30 years ago the European Parliament was literally just a lot of old guys who talked. Now they decide where the money goes, suggest laws, and are directly elected by us. Not bad for a such a short life, try and find a Parliament in history that was so settled so quickly. And vote. As for the Brtish and French, both are definitely arrogant and bossy. The French are pretentious and smug and self-centred; the British are hypocritical, anal and disloyal. On the other hand, the French are passionate, fighters and dedicated. The British are inventive, firm and rational. The fact these countries, along with the humourless-brilliant Germans, sqawking-creative Italians and all the others are free to sniff each other out and more or less forced to cooperate with the quasi-garanty they they will not be killing each other and will show solidarity towards each other in the forseable future is a great thing.
All this to say, yes the EU is bollocks, a fifty year old pile of treaties that have somehow shuffled out buildings and people, institutions that control many aspects of what we do and how we do it. Some countries may have lost out on the EU, and some realise it. But all this is so new, we are judging on such a short-term activities. Surely peace and economic prosperity have been proof that we have probably got it right, at least in the parts that matter. Yes, we have to reform so many parts of the EU, not the least show that we have world presence, that we can perhaps avoid wars outside our borders (Iraq would have been a good opportunity), that we can collectively do something about the economic development of Africa or the environment. Yes, we must deal with cultural identities so that no one feels left out or that he is sacrificing his roots for something new. Of course we must allow Europe to help the Europeans have good lives.
But the EU is so young. Have the UK, Italy, Egypt, the US managed these things? Whether a region, a nation, a state, a union or a federation political structures are built on values, recognition of something bigger than one's self but working for one's self. European values are as good today as they were fifty years ago when they decided, for the first time in history, that countries, nations that had traditionnally been enemies would conscientiously and volontarily work together and become interdependent. This is surely just as revolutionnary as deciding that the people choose their own representants, or that the State must take care of the weakest.
European values and the building of Europe to make these values real to all those who adhere to them was the whole point to this...
jeudi 3 mai 2007
So here we are, the presidential debate
Hahahaha! Despite sarkozy's reputation as a smooth and charismatic talker he was, to everyone's surprise completely dominated by Ségolène, hurray!
Watch the debate here.
Take a look at part two, when ségo is at roughly 52 minutes of talk time. Don't you just love the way she told him off for being such a immoral hypocrite!Watch the debate here.
Allez Ségo!!!!
mercredi 2 mai 2007
So here we are ... disappointed in spiderman 3
Ok, so like thousands of other nerds over the world, Chook and I duly trekked to the cinema on day 1 of Spiderman 3. Our favorite cinema, an old 1920s one on the Grands Boulevards, called Max Linder is usually deserted (a combination of being unknown and usually only playing arty-farty movies), but tonight the queue stretched for miles and, being late as always, we ended up right at the back of the theatre on fold down seats against the wall. To be fair, maybe I thought the film was so crap because of the seating arrangement, but since when has fairness dictated my behaviour? The film was shit, basta.
Actually no, not basta. I should expand. The film was shit because
a) There was no plot: having a bit of black glob fall from the sky and change your wardrobe colour is not plot, it's an excuse to make a black spiderman.
b) The characters are rubbish: Harry is feeling betrayed, then in a coma, then friendly, then evil/possessed, then manipulating, then friendly, then dead. If you were looking for a smooth logic running through this rather confused character then think again. Kirsten, or MJ or marijuana or whatever, is girlfriend, then fired, then cheating, then sorry, then weeping then worried, then angry then hostage then weeping again. Ditto. The new blond guy has got severe pathological psychiatric problems if he thinks killing people is a justified response to losing your job. Not very credible, like the others. In all fairness Tobey, or PP, is cute.
c) There are too many baddies, none of which are any good. Black spidey is, er, a black spidey, sandman (yup, he sends you to sleep) is a murderer with a heart, fanged thing is funny but you don(t see enough of him, goblin junior is obviously too confused to be a decent baddie but still tries, just adding another layer of fluff to the whole thing.
d) ONE good storyline is better than 4 or 5 which do not make sense and do not fit together in any coherent way. Black alien glob, jealous photographer, escaped murderers, cheating girlfriend, amnesic friend, mourning aunt... it's all too much for my little brain! Cynically, I reckon they've started all these storylines (without finishing most of them) so that SM4 has something to take off from...
e) It was boring. You know there are some movies you sit down, get out the popcorn and within 20 minutes, or so it seems, you see the credits roll, the popcorn is half chewed and it's already over. Well, I didn't get that, au contraire.
f) Ok, so the special effects are amazing, shame they invested so much on those and not more on a decent script or storyline.
So, a big disappointment all in all, especially as I loved the first two. Still, a lot of people disagree with me, check it out here.
Actually no, not basta. I should expand. The film was shit because
a) There was no plot: having a bit of black glob fall from the sky and change your wardrobe colour is not plot, it's an excuse to make a black spiderman.
b) The characters are rubbish: Harry is feeling betrayed, then in a coma, then friendly, then evil/possessed, then manipulating, then friendly, then dead. If you were looking for a smooth logic running through this rather confused character then think again. Kirsten, or MJ or marijuana or whatever, is girlfriend, then fired, then cheating, then sorry, then weeping then worried, then angry then hostage then weeping again. Ditto. The new blond guy has got severe pathological psychiatric problems if he thinks killing people is a justified response to losing your job. Not very credible, like the others. In all fairness Tobey, or PP, is cute.
c) There are too many baddies, none of which are any good. Black spidey is, er, a black spidey, sandman (yup, he sends you to sleep) is a murderer with a heart, fanged thing is funny but you don(t see enough of him, goblin junior is obviously too confused to be a decent baddie but still tries, just adding another layer of fluff to the whole thing.
d) ONE good storyline is better than 4 or 5 which do not make sense and do not fit together in any coherent way. Black alien glob, jealous photographer, escaped murderers, cheating girlfriend, amnesic friend, mourning aunt... it's all too much for my little brain! Cynically, I reckon they've started all these storylines (without finishing most of them) so that SM4 has something to take off from...
e) It was boring. You know there are some movies you sit down, get out the popcorn and within 20 minutes, or so it seems, you see the credits roll, the popcorn is half chewed and it's already over. Well, I didn't get that, au contraire.
f) Ok, so the special effects are amazing, shame they invested so much on those and not more on a decent script or storyline.
So, a big disappointment all in all, especially as I loved the first two. Still, a lot of people disagree with me, check it out here.
mardi 1 mai 2007
So here we are in France's presidential campaign
It won't come as a scoop if I tell you that France is right now coming to the end of a long and passion-fuelled presidential campaign. For months now personnalities, the media, café counter conversations, sunday lunch debates and every other kind of social interaction has been centred on the choice of who is capable (or not) of being France's next President.
It isn't my aim here to go through all the blurb that has been wafting our way, it would take pages to write up and the internet is full of sites that will explain it more accurately. However, here is a brief history of what, in my view, have been the main milestones in this campaign.
It is worth bearing in mind that France is a pluralist democracy which, unlike Britain or the US say which are caracterised by their bipartisan approach, boasts a large number of political parties, though most are clearly less important (in the sense of size and influence) than a few.
French political culture is still deeply anchored in what is called "le clivage gauche/droite ". Left wingers ("la gauche") and right wingers ("la droite") have had a conflictual relationship since the 60s, and "l'alternance", i.e. replacing la droite with la gauche or vice-versa at practically every election, has been a huge feature of French political life for years. "La cohabitation", describing the situation where the head of State (the President of the Republic) and the head of government (the Prime minister) are of different political colours has also been a feature of the France's Vth Republic politics. (The Vth Republic dates from 1958 when Charles De Gaulle, hero of the Resistance in WW2, designed a Constitution that gave the President quasi-monarchic powers). The combination of l'alternance and la cohabitation, plus the status of the President has meant for the last 30 years or so that France's political scene has been shambolic, based on rejection of the last lot in power and impossible cooperations at the highest levels of State.
It is equally important to recap how the French electoral system works for the Presidentials. Any person wishing to present him/herself must gather signatures from 500 of France's 36000 mayors. Once these have been validated by the Conseil Constitutionnnel, France's equivalent to a Constitutional Court, the candidates proceed to the first round ("le premier tour").
Traditionnally it is an eclectic bunch that campaigns for that premier tour. Green, communist, extreme-right, center, rural right, urban right, left, international left, you name it, you can probable find it, but the great feature of the VthRepublic is that no matter who you vote for in the first round, the left wing candidate will face the right wing candidate in the "second tour", which is held two weeks after the first.
Until 2002 that is, which is milestone one in my analysis.
The French say that you vote with your heart in the premier tour, with your head in the second, and that is what prodeuced the extraordinary situation of April 2002. Without going into detail of the campaign at the time, it is necessary to know that people were pissed off with the right, in the form of Jacques Chirac who had been a useless and corrupt politician for years as well as President for the past seven. However, people were equally disillusioned with the left, represented by the fluffy Lionel Jospin who lacked charisma and had failed to unite the left (a tricky business in France as it spans the communists to the center-left) and who had been the Prme minister since 1997 (there's cohabitation in action).
Add to that charismatic candidates such as the handsome young postman Olivier Besancenot (from the LCR, Communist revolutionary league), issues such as the environment being taken more seriously, fears over immigration and security (the National Front's bête noire for years) and general disinterest and mistrust in the political world, and what do you get? The 21st of April 2002, now a synonym for disaster in France.
What happened is this: the left split, mostly profiting the extreme left and the Greens as well as a more central candidate. Jospin did badly. The right, more stable, got Old Chirac through, but the real shock was who ended up facing him: Jean-Marie Le Pen.
JMLP is a dinosaur of politics, he has been around for about 50 years, and created his National Front party in 1972 (le Front National, or FN). His basic political line has been "screw the right and screw the left even more, get rid of the thieving immigrants, get out of Europe, re-establish the death penalty, bring back order to the Republic ". He has had enlightening slogans such "3 million unemployed, 3 million immigrants" and is famous for saying that the Nazi gas chambers were "a detail of history". He is in other words a xenophobic old fart, who has consistently blamed communism, socialism, immigration and Europe as the roots of all trouble for the past 40 years or more. He is also as right wing as it is possible to be, though even right-wing old Chirac has refused to shake hands with him. He is generally considered a threat to Republican values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité".
His presence in the second tour was seen as a disaster by pretty much everyone except his own supporters who, as this election showed, appeared to be more numerous than previously thought, though later analysis showed that many who voted for him were making use of a "protest vote', rather than voicing a firm adhesion to his beliefs. A huge campaign from all other parties took place in the two weeks between the premier and second tours, and even the left, grimacing, called to vote for Chirac, who won the election with over 80% of votes.
France was stuck with Old Chirac for the next five years, but this episode rocked the very foundations of French politics.
Zoom to 2006, the 2007 election is already on everyone's lips. How to avoid a similar scenario, how to get the left back on the scene, how to get the old droite-gauche polarisation back at the second tour. Quickly the notion of "le vote utile', the useful vote, appeared. Rather than vote with your heart at the first round, vote for who you would most like to see at the second. The question is, who?
La Droite, or rather the UMP (Union por un mouvement populaire) - Chirac's party, the government's party and the majority party in Parliament - chose Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior minister of the time who has also done a stint as Budget and finances minister and Prime minister, as its leader. There will be other posts on Sarkozy, all that needs to be said now is that this man, a lawyer, son of a Hungarian immigrant and in politics since his twenties is known as the man who, as Interior minister and head of the Police, said he would "nettoie les banlieues au Karcher", which can be roughly translated as "wash down the banlieues with a jet hose" to get crime and delinquancy down. This did not go down well in the banlieues, the urban agglomerations found round France's big cities and sometimes characterised by poverty, crime and lack of opportunities. A separate post on the 2005 riots will go in to more detail.
Sarkozy is also big on "travailler plus pour gagner plus", or "work more to earn more". This is in reference to the 35 hour working week the Left put in place in 1998 and the low purchasing power of the French. He also supports reforms that would allow minors to be treated like over 18s in certain cases and, through the laws he passed has been taking foreigners back to the border, including children who go to school in France.
On the other side, within la Gauche, or the PS (Parti socialiste) things were more complicated. Someone was needed who could sweep away the failure of Lionel Jospin, unite a left which was, and still is deeply divided on issues such as Europe and how to get the economy back in shape. The first step was therefore to hold primary elections within the PS to see who would be a favorable candidate. The choice was between Laurent Fabius, former Prime minister and more recently known for leading part of the PS to vote NO at the EU Consitutionnal treaty referendum. The second, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a professor of Economics and politics at Paris prestigious Insitut d'études politiques (Political science institute, IEP or Sciences Po as it is known) and former budget and finances minister who helped design the 35 heures (35 hour working week). Finally was Ségolène Royal, who has been minister several times - for the Environment, Family and social affairs, linked tgo the Education ministry- as well as a member of Parliament and a regional representative.
Hours of debate were organised on France's Parliamentary channel (LCP) so that PS members could choose the best. Fabius was like a tired old lettuce, demanding instant, impossible pay rises, public investment and sounding rather like the left of the left on many social and economic issues. DSK was a sleek badger, a man who keeps his cool and obviously competent on most issues, pro-European and conscious of the need to reform the economy to survive globalisation. Segolene, fresher and younger-looking, was firm and spoke clearly and loudly with a kind of rictus-smile on her face, but was rather monotonous and bossy.
After weeks of this, Segolene won, a woman, a beautiful one, who says is determined to change France, modernise "her" (France is a woman, symbolised by the revlutionnary figure of Marianne), with a modern, firm, 'juste' woman at her head.
So the official campaign starts, the media is mobilsed, conversations monopolised, arguments dominated by "who are you going to vote for?". Without recounting the campaign, here are some personal highlights, in no particular order or degree of importance:
* Sarkozy, still Interior ministry, is shat upon for the way he handled the riots, his provocative statements regarding the inhabitants of the banlieues, his remarks on Muslims (slaughtering sheep in the bath and so on), his capacity to create opposition between chunks of society (workers/unemployed; immigrants/French; rich/poor etc). He is also criticised for taking many ideas from the FN and arresting 'illegals' in careless and inhumane ways, such as the 70+ old who was arrested in broad daylight when he came to get his grandchild from school.
* Ségolène goes to China, and says France has much to learn from the country's "efficient" justice system
* François Bayrou, and old figure of France's centre party (the UDF, less than 7% of votes at the last Presidentials) cries "enough of all this left-right crap, we need to reunite!" and overnight becomes France's third man of French politics.
* Le Pen, the octogenarian dinosaur with a glass eye (though this is an improvement of the patch he wore in the 70s), full of "send the immigrant back! law and order!" becomes a fluffy old grandad and tours the tv sets with his loud and arrogant daughter Marine, boasting that whatever is being said by Sarkozy as regards controlling immigration was first said by him. Sadly, he is right.
* Sarkozy becomes increasingly convincing, an excellent orator, putting forward "values" such as hard work, law and order, respect for the Republic, protection of the poor, the destitute and the handicapped. He speaks well and passionately, has an answer to everything and in most confrontations crushes he opponent.
*Segolene is considered increasingly incompetent, and there are people from within her party who grumble about her. Claude Allegre, ex-education minister who worked with her, says he hates her and her methods. Eric Besson, one of her counsellers writes a book saying he fears for his children in the France she would run. She seems to have a superficial knowledge of everything, has a rather monotonous voice, and repeats statements loudly time and time again.
*Segolene, candidate of the PS, is more or less married to the First secretary of the PS, François Hollande with whom she has four kids. On tv, her counsellor Arnaud to Montebourg answers the question "what is Ségolène's worst fault?" with "Francois Hollande". Silence on live tv. He is fired.
*Bayrou's popularity increases, stabilises, increases, decreases, stabilises. People start wondering how realistic a centre (centre right usually) President is. How will he form a majority? Who would he work with? He suggests DSK. No way, says the latter.
* Segolene is popular in the banlieues, who have seen their electoral lists swell with people who are against Sarkozy. Sarkozy cannot even go to certain banlieues, especially in the north of Paris, after what he said during and after the riots of November 2005. He has moved to headquarters in the relatively working class/immigrant area in Paris's 10th arrondissement. You can't miss it, twenty police vans are parked outside all the time.
*Sarkozy is accused by French paper, le Canard enchainé, of paying virtually nothing for his huge flat in his constituency, and various other dodgy deals. All is denied and wrapped up quickly.
*Candidates publish their income and capital. Sarkozy and Segolene pay the ISF (Tax on fortune), not Bayrou.
*Other candidates are first of all cutie trotskyist Besancenot, the postman who wants immediate raises in salaries, schools and health, as well as renationalisation of all privatised huge businesses, all this financed with stripping profits from multinationals. He speaks very well and his youth and passion work well with left-wing women who dislike Segolene for being a rather harsh and bossy boot.
*Sarkozy is accused of being authoritarian, controlling, overly ambitious at a personal level, corrupt, borderline mad and hysterical.
*Segolene, being tricked on a radio show where she thinks she is talking to the Prime Minister of Canada, jokes about getting rid of the Corsicans. This flapped about as further proof of her incompetence.
*The scooter of Sarkozy's 14 year old son is stolen. DNA matching is required, the secret services mobilised, the bomb warmed up. Well, it was rather outrageous how many cops were on the case.
* Other candidates include Philippe de Villiers, Patriot, right wing, anti-Europe, pro his region which is the traditional realm of the noble, catholic and monarchist French who escaped the Republican Revolution. He talks as if he is drunk/has a bar of soap in his throat, strangled and pulling his mouth all round his face, stopping every six seconds to lick the corner of his mouth. Wants a flag in every school.
* Segolene goes mad. Realising that everyone is cashing on the 'Vive la France' card, she suggests a flag in every school and sings La Marseillaise at conferences. Until now this has been strictly right-wing territory. Le Pen laughs.
*Sarkozy sucks up to the workers, 'la France qui se leve tot" (the France that gets up early), tours warehouses and old industrial plants, shakes a million hands and quotes ideas of great left wing thinkers, Jaurès and Blum. Segolene and the rest of the Left laugh.
*Other candidates are mainly left wing. Besancenot aside, we have Marie -Georges Buffet of the Communist party (PC), shrill and rapid-firing about massive pay-offs and profits, financial havens, poor worker conditions. José Bové is a self declared peasant, internationalist, environmentalist, anti-WTO, anti-GM, anti FN. Dominique Voynet is the Green candidate who is sending off emergencu signals, and Arlette Laguillier who has been around almost as long as Le Pen, of the workers party wishes to defend the Proletarians, who are now voting Sarkozy and Le Pen. Everyone laughs.
*Sarkozy goes mad. In an interview with 'Philosophie magazine' he says that certain personnality traits such as delinquancy, paedophilia and homosexuality are innate, and down to nature not nurture. Bayrou, twelve days after this statement, says "er, is anybody going to pick up on this?", and the Press go crazy.
*Other candidates are so small nobody remembers them: the tall youngish guy, Frederic Nihous, from the "preserve 'em hunt'em fish 'em it's tradition" party (CPNT) and the guy nobody has heard of, Gérard Schivardi, who is, well, we don't know. he wants to leave the EU seems to be the only fact.
So Sunday the 21st of April, in the middle of France's April heatwave, people totter off to vote. Strict rules say that no indication of who is winning must ne known before 8. What does rapidly appear however is the huge turnout. Voting outlets must be kept open longer than planned, the queues are huge, it's a record for the Vth Republic; 85% of the electorate turned up.
It's soon clear that Sarkozy and Ségolène have gone through. Segolene gets 25,87% , Sarkozy gets 31,18%. Bayrou got only 18%, after months at around 20-23% and thoughts that he would get through. Le Pen is crushed at 10%, his lowest score for twenty years (Hurray!) though most of those votes now simply lie with Sarkozy.
All tv channels are on it but with little to say. Le Pen is pissed off, Bayrou is disappointed, calling for unity, Sarkozy is beaming and nervously leaping about, Segolene is lying low while hundreds are waiting for her in the streets of Paris. Debates start between different parties, a drunken bernard Tapie, ex-left now with Sarkozy is drunk and slurs he supports "Ségolène, er...Sarkozy".
We are now only five days away from the decisive second round. In the last ten days, Bayrou and Ségolène have got closer, even having a tv debate much to the anger of Sarkozy who is saying she therefore gets extra airing time. Sarkozy appears to be increasingly dangerous, some papers are presentinghim as controlling the media and dangerous for democracy. There is going to be a debate between him and Ségolène on Wednesday May 2nd. The thing is, he is a very good orator despite his manic little frame, and she is rather bootfaced and posh and stern despite her pretty face. It will be 'a confrontation of ideas, of personnalities" and one can only pray to God, she will appear more convincing than him.
It isn't my aim here to go through all the blurb that has been wafting our way, it would take pages to write up and the internet is full of sites that will explain it more accurately. However, here is a brief history of what, in my view, have been the main milestones in this campaign.
It is worth bearing in mind that France is a pluralist democracy which, unlike Britain or the US say which are caracterised by their bipartisan approach, boasts a large number of political parties, though most are clearly less important (in the sense of size and influence) than a few.
French political culture is still deeply anchored in what is called "le clivage gauche/droite ". Left wingers ("la gauche") and right wingers ("la droite") have had a conflictual relationship since the 60s, and "l'alternance", i.e. replacing la droite with la gauche or vice-versa at practically every election, has been a huge feature of French political life for years. "La cohabitation", describing the situation where the head of State (the President of the Republic) and the head of government (the Prime minister) are of different political colours has also been a feature of the France's Vth Republic politics. (The Vth Republic dates from 1958 when Charles De Gaulle, hero of the Resistance in WW2, designed a Constitution that gave the President quasi-monarchic powers). The combination of l'alternance and la cohabitation, plus the status of the President has meant for the last 30 years or so that France's political scene has been shambolic, based on rejection of the last lot in power and impossible cooperations at the highest levels of State.
It is equally important to recap how the French electoral system works for the Presidentials. Any person wishing to present him/herself must gather signatures from 500 of France's 36000 mayors. Once these have been validated by the Conseil Constitutionnnel, France's equivalent to a Constitutional Court, the candidates proceed to the first round ("le premier tour").
Traditionnally it is an eclectic bunch that campaigns for that premier tour. Green, communist, extreme-right, center, rural right, urban right, left, international left, you name it, you can probable find it, but the great feature of the VthRepublic is that no matter who you vote for in the first round, the left wing candidate will face the right wing candidate in the "second tour", which is held two weeks after the first.
Until 2002 that is, which is milestone one in my analysis.
The French say that you vote with your heart in the premier tour, with your head in the second, and that is what prodeuced the extraordinary situation of April 2002. Without going into detail of the campaign at the time, it is necessary to know that people were pissed off with the right, in the form of Jacques Chirac who had been a useless and corrupt politician for years as well as President for the past seven. However, people were equally disillusioned with the left, represented by the fluffy Lionel Jospin who lacked charisma and had failed to unite the left (a tricky business in France as it spans the communists to the center-left) and who had been the Prme minister since 1997 (there's cohabitation in action).
Add to that charismatic candidates such as the handsome young postman Olivier Besancenot (from the LCR, Communist revolutionary league), issues such as the environment being taken more seriously, fears over immigration and security (the National Front's bête noire for years) and general disinterest and mistrust in the political world, and what do you get? The 21st of April 2002, now a synonym for disaster in France.
What happened is this: the left split, mostly profiting the extreme left and the Greens as well as a more central candidate. Jospin did badly. The right, more stable, got Old Chirac through, but the real shock was who ended up facing him: Jean-Marie Le Pen.
JMLP is a dinosaur of politics, he has been around for about 50 years, and created his National Front party in 1972 (le Front National, or FN). His basic political line has been "screw the right and screw the left even more, get rid of the thieving immigrants, get out of Europe, re-establish the death penalty, bring back order to the Republic ". He has had enlightening slogans such "3 million unemployed, 3 million immigrants" and is famous for saying that the Nazi gas chambers were "a detail of history". He is in other words a xenophobic old fart, who has consistently blamed communism, socialism, immigration and Europe as the roots of all trouble for the past 40 years or more. He is also as right wing as it is possible to be, though even right-wing old Chirac has refused to shake hands with him. He is generally considered a threat to Republican values of "liberté, égalité, fraternité".
His presence in the second tour was seen as a disaster by pretty much everyone except his own supporters who, as this election showed, appeared to be more numerous than previously thought, though later analysis showed that many who voted for him were making use of a "protest vote', rather than voicing a firm adhesion to his beliefs. A huge campaign from all other parties took place in the two weeks between the premier and second tours, and even the left, grimacing, called to vote for Chirac, who won the election with over 80% of votes.
France was stuck with Old Chirac for the next five years, but this episode rocked the very foundations of French politics.
Zoom to 2006, the 2007 election is already on everyone's lips. How to avoid a similar scenario, how to get the left back on the scene, how to get the old droite-gauche polarisation back at the second tour. Quickly the notion of "le vote utile', the useful vote, appeared. Rather than vote with your heart at the first round, vote for who you would most like to see at the second. The question is, who?
La Droite, or rather the UMP (Union por un mouvement populaire) - Chirac's party, the government's party and the majority party in Parliament - chose Nicolas Sarkozy, Interior minister of the time who has also done a stint as Budget and finances minister and Prime minister, as its leader. There will be other posts on Sarkozy, all that needs to be said now is that this man, a lawyer, son of a Hungarian immigrant and in politics since his twenties is known as the man who, as Interior minister and head of the Police, said he would "nettoie les banlieues au Karcher", which can be roughly translated as "wash down the banlieues with a jet hose" to get crime and delinquancy down. This did not go down well in the banlieues, the urban agglomerations found round France's big cities and sometimes characterised by poverty, crime and lack of opportunities. A separate post on the 2005 riots will go in to more detail.
Sarkozy is also big on "travailler plus pour gagner plus", or "work more to earn more". This is in reference to the 35 hour working week the Left put in place in 1998 and the low purchasing power of the French. He also supports reforms that would allow minors to be treated like over 18s in certain cases and, through the laws he passed has been taking foreigners back to the border, including children who go to school in France.
On the other side, within la Gauche, or the PS (Parti socialiste) things were more complicated. Someone was needed who could sweep away the failure of Lionel Jospin, unite a left which was, and still is deeply divided on issues such as Europe and how to get the economy back in shape. The first step was therefore to hold primary elections within the PS to see who would be a favorable candidate. The choice was between Laurent Fabius, former Prime minister and more recently known for leading part of the PS to vote NO at the EU Consitutionnal treaty referendum. The second, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a professor of Economics and politics at Paris prestigious Insitut d'études politiques (Political science institute, IEP or Sciences Po as it is known) and former budget and finances minister who helped design the 35 heures (35 hour working week). Finally was Ségolène Royal, who has been minister several times - for the Environment, Family and social affairs, linked tgo the Education ministry- as well as a member of Parliament and a regional representative.
Hours of debate were organised on France's Parliamentary channel (LCP) so that PS members could choose the best. Fabius was like a tired old lettuce, demanding instant, impossible pay rises, public investment and sounding rather like the left of the left on many social and economic issues. DSK was a sleek badger, a man who keeps his cool and obviously competent on most issues, pro-European and conscious of the need to reform the economy to survive globalisation. Segolene, fresher and younger-looking, was firm and spoke clearly and loudly with a kind of rictus-smile on her face, but was rather monotonous and bossy.
After weeks of this, Segolene won, a woman, a beautiful one, who says is determined to change France, modernise "her" (France is a woman, symbolised by the revlutionnary figure of Marianne), with a modern, firm, 'juste' woman at her head.
So the official campaign starts, the media is mobilsed, conversations monopolised, arguments dominated by "who are you going to vote for?". Without recounting the campaign, here are some personal highlights, in no particular order or degree of importance:
* Sarkozy, still Interior ministry, is shat upon for the way he handled the riots, his provocative statements regarding the inhabitants of the banlieues, his remarks on Muslims (slaughtering sheep in the bath and so on), his capacity to create opposition between chunks of society (workers/unemployed; immigrants/French; rich/poor etc). He is also criticised for taking many ideas from the FN and arresting 'illegals' in careless and inhumane ways, such as the 70+ old who was arrested in broad daylight when he came to get his grandchild from school.
* Ségolène goes to China, and says France has much to learn from the country's "efficient" justice system
* François Bayrou, and old figure of France's centre party (the UDF, less than 7% of votes at the last Presidentials) cries "enough of all this left-right crap, we need to reunite!" and overnight becomes France's third man of French politics.
* Le Pen, the octogenarian dinosaur with a glass eye (though this is an improvement of the patch he wore in the 70s), full of "send the immigrant back! law and order!" becomes a fluffy old grandad and tours the tv sets with his loud and arrogant daughter Marine, boasting that whatever is being said by Sarkozy as regards controlling immigration was first said by him. Sadly, he is right.
* Sarkozy becomes increasingly convincing, an excellent orator, putting forward "values" such as hard work, law and order, respect for the Republic, protection of the poor, the destitute and the handicapped. He speaks well and passionately, has an answer to everything and in most confrontations crushes he opponent.
*Segolene is considered increasingly incompetent, and there are people from within her party who grumble about her. Claude Allegre, ex-education minister who worked with her, says he hates her and her methods. Eric Besson, one of her counsellers writes a book saying he fears for his children in the France she would run. She seems to have a superficial knowledge of everything, has a rather monotonous voice, and repeats statements loudly time and time again.
*Segolene, candidate of the PS, is more or less married to the First secretary of the PS, François Hollande with whom she has four kids. On tv, her counsellor Arnaud to Montebourg answers the question "what is Ségolène's worst fault?" with "Francois Hollande". Silence on live tv. He is fired.
*Bayrou's popularity increases, stabilises, increases, decreases, stabilises. People start wondering how realistic a centre (centre right usually) President is. How will he form a majority? Who would he work with? He suggests DSK. No way, says the latter.
* Segolene is popular in the banlieues, who have seen their electoral lists swell with people who are against Sarkozy. Sarkozy cannot even go to certain banlieues, especially in the north of Paris, after what he said during and after the riots of November 2005. He has moved to headquarters in the relatively working class/immigrant area in Paris's 10th arrondissement. You can't miss it, twenty police vans are parked outside all the time.
*Sarkozy is accused by French paper, le Canard enchainé, of paying virtually nothing for his huge flat in his constituency, and various other dodgy deals. All is denied and wrapped up quickly.
*Candidates publish their income and capital. Sarkozy and Segolene pay the ISF (Tax on fortune), not Bayrou.
*Other candidates are first of all cutie trotskyist Besancenot, the postman who wants immediate raises in salaries, schools and health, as well as renationalisation of all privatised huge businesses, all this financed with stripping profits from multinationals. He speaks very well and his youth and passion work well with left-wing women who dislike Segolene for being a rather harsh and bossy boot.
*Sarkozy is accused of being authoritarian, controlling, overly ambitious at a personal level, corrupt, borderline mad and hysterical.
*Segolene, being tricked on a radio show where she thinks she is talking to the Prime Minister of Canada, jokes about getting rid of the Corsicans. This flapped about as further proof of her incompetence.
*The scooter of Sarkozy's 14 year old son is stolen. DNA matching is required, the secret services mobilised, the bomb warmed up. Well, it was rather outrageous how many cops were on the case.
* Other candidates include Philippe de Villiers, Patriot, right wing, anti-Europe, pro his region which is the traditional realm of the noble, catholic and monarchist French who escaped the Republican Revolution. He talks as if he is drunk/has a bar of soap in his throat, strangled and pulling his mouth all round his face, stopping every six seconds to lick the corner of his mouth. Wants a flag in every school.
* Segolene goes mad. Realising that everyone is cashing on the 'Vive la France' card, she suggests a flag in every school and sings La Marseillaise at conferences. Until now this has been strictly right-wing territory. Le Pen laughs.
*Sarkozy sucks up to the workers, 'la France qui se leve tot" (the France that gets up early), tours warehouses and old industrial plants, shakes a million hands and quotes ideas of great left wing thinkers, Jaurès and Blum. Segolene and the rest of the Left laugh.
*Other candidates are mainly left wing. Besancenot aside, we have Marie -Georges Buffet of the Communist party (PC), shrill and rapid-firing about massive pay-offs and profits, financial havens, poor worker conditions. José Bové is a self declared peasant, internationalist, environmentalist, anti-WTO, anti-GM, anti FN. Dominique Voynet is the Green candidate who is sending off emergencu signals, and Arlette Laguillier who has been around almost as long as Le Pen, of the workers party wishes to defend the Proletarians, who are now voting Sarkozy and Le Pen. Everyone laughs.
*Sarkozy goes mad. In an interview with 'Philosophie magazine' he says that certain personnality traits such as delinquancy, paedophilia and homosexuality are innate, and down to nature not nurture. Bayrou, twelve days after this statement, says "er, is anybody going to pick up on this?", and the Press go crazy.
*Other candidates are so small nobody remembers them: the tall youngish guy, Frederic Nihous, from the "preserve 'em hunt'em fish 'em it's tradition" party (CPNT) and the guy nobody has heard of, Gérard Schivardi, who is, well, we don't know. he wants to leave the EU seems to be the only fact.
So Sunday the 21st of April, in the middle of France's April heatwave, people totter off to vote. Strict rules say that no indication of who is winning must ne known before 8. What does rapidly appear however is the huge turnout. Voting outlets must be kept open longer than planned, the queues are huge, it's a record for the Vth Republic; 85% of the electorate turned up.
It's soon clear that Sarkozy and Ségolène have gone through. Segolene gets 25,87% , Sarkozy gets 31,18%. Bayrou got only 18%, after months at around 20-23% and thoughts that he would get through. Le Pen is crushed at 10%, his lowest score for twenty years (Hurray!) though most of those votes now simply lie with Sarkozy.
All tv channels are on it but with little to say. Le Pen is pissed off, Bayrou is disappointed, calling for unity, Sarkozy is beaming and nervously leaping about, Segolene is lying low while hundreds are waiting for her in the streets of Paris. Debates start between different parties, a drunken bernard Tapie, ex-left now with Sarkozy is drunk and slurs he supports "Ségolène, er...Sarkozy".
We are now only five days away from the decisive second round. In the last ten days, Bayrou and Ségolène have got closer, even having a tv debate much to the anger of Sarkozy who is saying she therefore gets extra airing time. Sarkozy appears to be increasingly dangerous, some papers are presentinghim as controlling the media and dangerous for democracy. There is going to be a debate between him and Ségolène on Wednesday May 2nd. The thing is, he is a very good orator despite his manic little frame, and she is rather bootfaced and posh and stern despite her pretty face. It will be 'a confrontation of ideas, of personnalities" and one can only pray to God, she will appear more convincing than him.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
