FRENCH ELECTIONS 2012- Review of Candidates

I will attempt to make this post unbiased, however I am not always able to control my repulsion towards the Left.---JAFHR.

Sunday 22 April 2012- First round of the French Presidential Elections.

Right Wing                                                   Blue

Based on: Liberty; Tradition & the Legacy of the Past; upholding the valours of the Republic, creating a sustainable government in which all may profit, and in which the past is respected, the present is dealt with efficiently, and the future is prepared.

Left Wing                                                     Red

Based on: Equality; Poverty, and the Needs of the Present; creating a country in which all differences are abolished and wealth is taken from those who earn it to be distributed among the lower classes, and to solve present problems. 

• Candidates:

Nicholas Sarkozy, right-wing (moderate), 27% chances of winning. 

Francois Hollande, left-wing (socialist), 27% chances of winning.

Marine Le Pen, right-wing (National Front), 16% chances of winning. 

Jean-Luc Melenchon, left-wing (Trotskist), 14% chances of winning. 

Francois Bayrou, centre, 10.5% chances of winning.

Eva Joly, left-wing (Green Socialist), 3% chances of winning. 

Nicholas Dupont-Aignan, left-wing (moderate), 1.5% chances of winning. 

Phillipe Poutou, left-wing (Anti-capitalist), 1% chances of winning.

Nathalie Arthaud, left wing (Communist, the 'Workers' Struggle party'), 0.5 % chances of winning

Jacques Cheminade, left-wing (socialist), 0% chances of winning.

Policies of each Candidate- and a commentary of each:

SARKOZY

Slogan: La France Forte- A Strong France.

Aims:

• Globalization- to increase France's external trade, communication, diplomacy and general involvement. Seems quite vague but realistic- no great sums of money involved.
• Safety from the negative side of Globalization- to restrict immigration, by ensuring that anyone who does not know French language and the valours of French Democracy cannot settle in France. A good idea considering recent problems, but risky to public image.
• Safety- to direct more money towards 'The Forces of order'- Police Forces. Vague, but the only problem I foresee is increased tax.
• Preservation of French Identity- To make anti-French propaganda illegal- a good idea, but could be interpreted as an assault to freedom of speech.
• Familial rights- to preserve the lessening of taxes for families, and to increase teachers' salary. First part- fine by me, though any lessening of taxes in one direction means an increase of taxes in another. Second part: I have found that most teachers in Britain and France are socialist, and this may simply be an attempt to befriend them.
• Fiscal Justice: To abolish a whole range of fiscal frauds and cheats which permit some to cheat the government. This includes 'Capped retirements' and 'Golden parachutes'.
• Poverty: To lower Social charges for those who receive no more than 1400 euro/month. Charitable, but risky; would result in a tax increase,
• Education: to create more teaching jobs for children who need special (clinical) treatment.
• Lone Parents: To create an agency, the aim of which is to help lone parents. This ranges from physical aid to lowering taxes. Costly.
• Transportation: To improve the public transport in rural France. Costly, so there may well be an increase in taxes...
• Debt: to invest with the money given by taxes, so as to quickly and efficiently pay off debt. Interesting idea- never tried before, could just work...
• Overall impression: As Sarkozy has already put most of his other plans into operation, he does not have much more to promise. The program seems feasible, and the taxation seems just, although his stance towards immigration does not help his public image.

HOLLANDE

Slogan: Le Changement C'est Maintenant- Change is for Now.
Aims:

• To create a government-owned bank, so as to control the financial situation. Seems to me quite an odd idea, as this would just cost the government more money and cripple the already-existing banking industry.
• To modulate a number of taxes- in particular, the Society Tax. This is to 'Cut some Slack' for small businesses. Seems to me that this would cripple France's Overseas business opportunities.
• Steal From the Rich: to impose a massive 'Fortune tax' for those who gain more than €1,000,000 /year, and taxing any 'Unconventional profiting' at 75%... The new government would need a lot of taxes to pay off its massive ideas; this money will be gained off those who earn more money.
• Give to the Poor: The State will freely give its lands to social housing projects. This is probably never going to happen- there would be a resulting befuddlement of housing prices, and a dramatic raise of taxes (for wealthy people only).
• Slowly lowering the Nuclear energy from 75% to 50%. This would likewise increase Energy taxes to unprecedented levels; Hollande is probably saying this to strengthen his alliance with the Greens.
• Massive taxation of financial transactions, and restricting speculation in private banks- to lessen the power of financial industry. A growing percentage of France works in finance- to cripple finance may not be good for the unemployment rate.
• Hollande promises that the economy will be stabilized by 2017- the year he is to (?) leave office. Interesting timing...
• To renegotiate the Austerity treaty in order to let countries grow. How a higher debt can make a country rich, I have yet to discover...
• Somehow Hollande promises to stabilise the prices of oil, natural gas, water and medication- the only way to do this would be for the state to pay the surplus, which would mean an extra tax...
• More Jobs- To create 150000 jobs for 'Less qualified youths'. This will probably involve much bin-cleaning and other lowly governmental jobs; where will their salary come from? Taxes, taxes...
• To ameliorate schooling; by spending more money on teachers' training, and to create 6000 more teaching jobs. Nothing really different from Sarkozy's plans, but the tax problem is still an issue.
• Discrimination: to 'fight Antisemitism and racism as strongly as resources permit us' (not mentioning any methods); a 'Handicap screen' will be added to each law (strange idea, which many handicapped may feel is separating them from society); and all couples will henceforth be allowed to marry and adopt (which is a complete reversal of the Constitution, an will be very unpopular).
• Police work: Much of the budget will be going into the reformation of the police and the justice system, which will be made independent. (How on earth is that going to work?)
• Finally, Hollande talks of the befriending of the Southern bank of the Mediterranean, and the Arab countries (no plans for the resulting immigration...). He also talks of ending the Afghanistan war by 2013- so we lose our relationship with USA, to ally with Arabia. Charming.

Overall impression: Hollande's plans seem very, very expensive. the money is to come from taxes- Hollande talks of giving free lands, but we will in fact have paid for them in taxes- and Hollande intends most of these astronomical prices to be payed by the higher classes, those who have worked harder to earn their success. There are not enough successes in France to pay for these expensive schemes, thus eventually it will fall to the lower classes to pay for the extravagant plans of an irresponsible government. Not a good idea to vote in that direction.

LEPEN

Slogan: Oui, la France; Approve of France
Aims:

• Independence- to end certain treaties with Europe and America, in order to retain financial and military independence; to only fight wars when France is at stake. Doesn't seem a good idea to alienate all our allies...
• Security- to create 150000 more police jobs, and to create 'the true meaning of Zero Tolerance.' The police business seems quite expensive, though Marine mentions that these jobs did once exist in Chirac's time (thus she would not be creating but re-instituting), and the reason they were removed were not financial- if Chirac could afford more police, why not her?
• Immigration-  to get rid of all illegal immigration and to drastically decrease legal immigration; to remove all  temptation to migrate, and to instigate a 'National job priority' for French workers. This could all be seen as discrimination, especially the last bit- yet, if we don't delve into ethics, it would be a good idea- we would feel a short demographical plunge and a befuddlement of prices, but the country would come out the richer within three years' time. The only problem is the reaction of other countries.
• Secularism- to remove all traces of religion from the government and from the law- "freedom of belief is guaranteed, but the principles of the Republic (secularism) are non-negotiable." It would appear that Marine is talking about Islam. After all, she is only enforcing a ready-made law.
• Financial markets- to 'End the Dictatorship' of financial markets, by installing a stronger government. Doesn't really mean anything.
• Family- to create a lessening of taxes for parents. Typical- forgets to mention that the taxes will have to come from another direction...
• School culture- to change the scholar program, in order to cultivate our children in the way of the country's history, and moral principles. This would bring us into the world of philosophy, which is not fit for this particular post.
• To improve housing. A simple yet costly plan, which, once again, evokes the shadow of taxation.

Overall impression: The lack of economic plans seems a major drawback, and Le Pen's hostility towards the rest of the world seems unlikely to gain her many partisans.

MELENCHON

Slogan: Prenez le Pouvoir; Take Hold of Power.

Aims

• Finance: Banning of all speculation. Never going to work- much more likely that speculation will be taxed excessively. 
• Creation of a public bank, to control debt. As with Hollande, this is not likely to work.
• To free France from all EU treaties and contracts- effectively leaving the EU. Bad for finance and disastrous for diplomacy...
• Repose- only allowed to work 35 hours/week, forced to have two days off every week. Disastrous on all counts, from individuals to economy.
• Salaries- Minimum salary increased to €1700, and plans to get this in operation for the whole of Europe, to stop 'Unfair competition'. Bad for finance, disastrous considering that no other country would agree- especially after the breaking of the Lisbon treaty.
• Religion: Stopping all government expense on religious needs & buildings. This is done in the name of secularism, but to me it has crossed the line to atheism.
• Eco-friendly: to get rid of carbonic energy (EXPENSIVE); to introduce more renewable energy (EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE), and to reduce nuclear energy (POINTLESS).
• To make life-sustaining energy and water free. Firstly, this will make a heavy load of taxes. Secondly, how does one define 'Life-sustaining'?
• Health- to reimburse 100% of health costs. This is already (more or less) in operation, but only accessible to French citizens; since Melenchon wishes to redefine French Citizenship and allow anyone to claim it, this would mean a massive increase in health taxes.

I was not able to uncover much more, as most of Melenchon's programme contains fruitless waffling, like 'supporting peasant agriculture'.

Overall Impression: Generally unrealistic. Most of this ignores the devastating economic/tax effects, or the fact that other countries would intervene.

Yours in Politics,

Your friend,

JAFHR

The French Elections

Good Day to All.
As I am French, I will be spending the best part of these troubled weeks talking about the Elections. Just thought you ought to know. Consider it a series.
Good Day,

JAFHR

FRENCH ELECTIONS 2012- First Round Results.

Hollande: 28.5%

MORE than polls predicted. As I have previously discoursed, this is not good for France; yet it is just as I expected, considering the psychology used in Hollande's campaign.

Sarkozy: 26.1%

LESS than polls predicted. Not bad considering LePen's followers, yet this is the first incumbent president who has ever lost in a first round. Cause for worry.

LePen: 18.5%

MORE than polls predicted. An unexpectedly powerful political figure- where will her voters now go? Many express the opinion of 'Anything but Sarkozy', while others may be true Right-wingers... In her speech she did not mention backing anyone up, which is distressful but to be expected- she cannot support left-wing, but she can't support someone whom she has been criticising for five years.

Melenchon: 11.5%

LESS than polls predicted. Melenchon's speech was all about defeating Sarkozy, not supporting Hollande. We have already seen that Melenchon works by destruction, not construction.

Bayrou: 8.5%

LESS than polls predicted. Will make his intentions public in the next few days, it is however unlikely that he will support Sarkozy.

Joly: 3%

LESS than expected.

Dupont-Aignan: 1.5%

LESS than expected.

Nathalie Arthaud: 0.7%

MORE than expected.

Philipe Poutou: 0.5%

LESS than expected.

Francois Cheminade: 0.3%

MORE than expected.




-JAFHR-

A Busy Day

Greetings; 'tis I, JAFHR.
I have a few announcements to make.

• I have a couple of websites to advertise:

1. I have just made a blog, named thefolkloristslair.blogspot.com, which is a repertoire of my arcane folkloric knowledge;
2. Catholicfire.blogspot.com, which I strongly recommend for religious nuts like me.
3. leblognadel.over-blog.com, which I include as a sort of joke as it's in French. It's the blog of Gilles William Goldnadel, a politician whom I frequently quote from.

• Secondly, I would like to present my brother, whom you will know as Pimbear. Pimbear is fond of Horror stories and other cool pieces of literature (he mentions H.P.Lovecraft and Tolkien); he is also fond of bears, and, although he is not going to sound as mad as I am, he has the potential.

• Lastly, I would warn you all that JHWW is going to be back and blogging by Easter. He probably doesn't know when that is, so you have time to BRACE YOURSELVES!

Beware the Cheeseman...

Cordially,

Pimbear

JAFHR

Syncretism

Good Day.

Today I shall be explaining something which most people do not realise about religion. Most people are likely to think that, when a religion colonises a country, it gets rid of all traces of previous religions. Right? Well, not quite. This is a demonstration of why this is not the case.

My most obvious example is Scandinavia. Picture yourself as a Christian missionary, sent to Oslo to found a church with nothing but a sack of beans (provisions) and a few fellow churchmen. Many people in the 21st century like to say that missionaries converted people by force. Well, here is a sample of Viking mythology:

• Odin- god of war strategy.
• Thor- god of fighting.
• Loki- another strategist.
• Bragi- wartime poet.
• Niord- god of the navy, and of wartime provisions.

Maybe I am stretching it a bit, but my point is that Scandinavia was very much centred on war.

It was about the fiercest, most powerful nation in Northern Europe, and its empire stretched from Greenland to Russia, passing through Scotland, Yorkshire, Normandy, and even Spain and Lombardy, plus one short glimpse of Manhattan. Each and every peasant in this hard land knew how to use a weapon, if only a pitchfork. So how on earth are you, a 'geekish' young priest (meaning you know how to read) , supposed to convert them by force?

So, how are you going to convert them? Firstly, you need to gain their trust. To do that, you need to know their beliefs and customs. So, you learn of the Norse mythology, and the knowledge turns out to be very useful...

The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and so on-right? Well, the Norse gods, along with most polytheistic gods, are not omnipotent- they are sinful, and their powers are limited, and many are mortal. So you use the Christian idea of angels; angels are messengers of God, right? So you say that the Pagan gods were in fact sent by God to 'prepare the way' for Christianity. The gods are in fact angels; messengers. That way, you haven't contradicted the pagans, but you have added to their store of knowledge (or so they feel). With the vikings, this was particularly effective, as the y believed that all their gods were to die one day, at the Ragnarok. The missionaries said that Ragnarok had already come, and that, once the gods had died, God had taken over the rule of the world.

With this wonderful tactic- agreeing with the native beliefs, yet getting your own religion across- many religions flourished. Islam, for example, made its way into Africa and Persia by agreeing with the native communities on certain counts- for example, Islam talks of Djinns, nature spirits which actually came from Persia. Various strands of Buddhism believe in various deities- Shinto Buddhism, for example, or Greater-Vehicle Buddhism- and they all say that the 'gods' are in fact a greater level of reincarnation, or creatures which help you reach Nirvana.

In conclusion, you deserve to be lied at if you believe that religions are always at each others' throats. This tactic of agreement is named Syncretism; I thought you may want to be aware of it, after that post on Buddhism I made.

Greatest respects,

Your friend,

JAFHR