Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
where is the problem ?

Bayrou annonce la création d'un parti démocrate après la présidentielle

LYON (AFP) - François Bayrou a confirmé lundi à Lyon son intention de créer un parti démocrate après la présidentielle, qualifiant un tel courant de "chaînon manquant" de la politique en France et même en Europe.

Le candidat UDF a souligné lors d'un point de presse qu'"il y a trois grands courants dans le monde", les deux premiers étant "les courants conservateur et socialiste".

"Le troisième est le courant démocrate, qui manque en France et en Europe", a-t-il dit, avant de tenir une réunion publique au Palais des Sports.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/16042007/202/bayrou-annonce-la-creation-d-un-parti-democrate-apres-la.html

he is right, even if similar parties exist in other places in Europe, but maybe more as "liberal-democrats" if you don't count the nordic social-democracies. In reality the difference between the two currents is mostly about the level of intervention of the state.

The socialist parties are an eufemism for communist parties that became "reformed" after the fall of stalinism or after the fall of the Berlin wall. The Swedish VPK, then VP, then "V" are a good example of that. In France the socialist s replaced the classical communists whose rethorics became a bit out of date. In countries like France, their incapacity (even in government) of solving the real problems has only resulted the rise of extremism. One good third of the French workers votes Le Pen and the the other third votes for anachronisms like Laguiller et al...

There is a real opportunity here and it will happen and it would dramatically improve the French political life, and probably the European one. It can happen on the 22nd if Sego doesn't go to the 2nd run off (implosion guaranteed) and in any case if Sarko wins. The legislatives are the third round and a new Democrat "coalition" can really make the difference, preparing for 2012. It's maybe the most likely scenario, because Sego doesn't stand a chance anyway. She cannot mobilize more than 45% of the vote and for that a big part of the centrists have to vote for her.

What I understand from the "centrist" blogs most of them won't.

The socialists that won't vote Bayrou on Sunday are guaranteeing 5 years of Sarko. Le Pen isn't a threat, Sarko has a part of his vote and the low level of abstention will bring down his score. To make more than 20% with the projected abstention level, Le Pen has practically to dubble his electoral base from 2002. He won't, specially not against Sarko.

Sego is only smoke and mirrors, the stupidest invention the socialists have ever made.

In case you don't believe me read this :

"La réponse de madame Royal tardait à venir. J'ai passé le samedi après-midi avec John Paul Lepers et d'autres partenaires pour organiser le débat, et surtout pour avoir une réponse officielle du PS. Au fil des contacts auprès des différentes personnes de son entourage proche, la réponse était parfois oui, parfois non, parfois peut-être, et très souvent « on ne sait pas encore »... Les récentes prises de position de Rocard et Kouchner n'ont pas dû faciliter cette décision. Exaspéré par tout ça, John Paul Lepers décide de partir à un meeting de Ségolène Royal, pour lui poser la question, samedi soir. Après quelques heures d'attente, John Paul réussit à approcher finalement madame Royal pour lui demander : « Alors, vous venez au débat de lundi sur Internet ? ». Réponse étonnante de Mme Royal en s'éloignant : « Quel débat ? ». Sur ce, John Paul essaie de la suivre, mais un coup bien placé (exactement là où vous pensez) par une personne de la sécurité calme toute velléité de poser d'autres questions. J'ai beaucoup rigolé. John Paul nettement moins...

Finalement, on aura la réponse officielle dimanche, peu avant 14 heures, alors que tout était prêt et que de nombreuses personnes s'étaient mobilisées bénévolement tout le week-end... Et là, du coup, j'ai beaucoup moins envie de rire...

Je rappelle que tant M. Le Pen que Madame Royal avaient déjà accepté le principe de ce débat tout en étant conscients du refus probable de M. Sarkozy."

http://www.agoravox.fr/article.php3?id_article=22492

what kind of leader is this that lets one's bodyguards kick a guy in the balls because he is asking a question about a debate ?

what is the REAL difference between those people and Sarko ? My answer is "none".

But they still pretend to be on the poor people's side...

open your eyes

by oldfrog on Mon Apr 16th, 2007 at 08:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If we argue about this you're going to whine again that you get "near-flamed".

That you are, in fact, as I have said before half in jest, a reactionary, now seems perfectly clear when you write

The socialist parties are an eufemism for communist parties that became "reformed" after the fall of stalinism or after the fall of the Berlin wall.

That is historically false and a right-wing slur.

As to Bayrou, let him build a party if he wants. That's fine by me. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to his party - just let him really build a political movement that can stand on its own two feet, that's all. Which means, let him crawl out from under the right, where he has always lived and run his career, and to which he owes his political and electoral existence. Let him gather together enough political figures who believe they can get elected under his banner. For the moment, he's just talking and waving his arms about.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 02:12:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In countries like France, their incapacity (even in government) of solving the real problems has only resulted the rise of extremism.

Strange how job creation (and growth) was at record levels under the Jospin government. How the tax burden went down during that period. How real progress like CMU (universal health cover for the poorest) or PACS (civil unions) took place.

Your arguments are just false - the mindless repetition of the slurs of the right.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:07:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course, Chirac's blatant fearmongering had nothing to do with 'the rise of extremism'.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 05:07:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The socialist parties are an eufemism for communist parties that became "reformed" after the fall of stalinism or after the fall of the Berlin wall.

The socialist parties? I'll grant you the PCF and the trotskyists, but the socialist movement as we know it now was born out of the split between those who wanted socialism and democracy, and those who preferred their socialism served with dictatorship and mass murder - i.e. regardless of what one thinks of the socioeconomic aims of the socialists at various points in time, it is precisely their rejection of the communist political model that distinguishes them from the anti-democratic left.

by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 17th, 2007 at 02:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series