Main French conservative party close to melt-down

Status
Not open for further replies.
What on earth are you talking about dude? Parties don't define an ideology, its characteristics do. The basic definition of socialism is workers controlling the means of production, end of story. It's like saying that the socialism in Spain is actually capitalism because the socialist party there (which is only socialist by name) has been practicing capitalism for years. You certainly can't be serious with all this.

We're not talking about the same thing at all.
As it is the socalists have given up in doing any socialism in 1982 here,
and the capitalists have stopped doing anything close to free market since 1973 here (heck no one even try to use the moniker apart from the jokers of the partyliberal).
As it is the monikers don't serve anything but to label the parties, if we're discussing politic and not economy the context is clear.
A socialist policy in France in the XXIth century doesn't have anything to do with how the economists would define it BUT that doesn't mean they're not stupid/destructive either.
 
1)
Nobody EVER cared about Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité for quite some time.
I mean we're talking about people coming from a special school that are training them to be above the population if anything.
The whole education system in that regard is a sham.
2)
Laïcité doesn't apply to the whole of France, Alsace is still under Concordat
3)
the rest of France is actually more of secular tradition than christian if anything, seriously we burned enough church and replaced enough teachers to make sure of that.

ok Alsace is the exception to the rule.
But come on, even just 40 years ago, most families were diligently going to the Sunday mass every week, fish was served in public school on friday, the overwhelming majority still practiced catholic baptisms, funerals, etc and declared themselves as christian.

So yes France certainly has a secular tradition but it also had a strong christian tradition (burnt church yes, but not enough to change the fact that there is always one church somewhere, even in the smallest village).
 
ok Alsace is the exception to the rule.
But come on, even just 40 years ago, most families were diligently going to the Sunday mass every week, fish was served in public school on friday, the overwhelming majority still practiced catholic baptisms, funerals, etc and declared themselves as christian.

Considering that the language French finally stamped out the regionalism only at the beginning of the XXth century thanks to how school was reformed then and it was the national language since François 1er...
Things are moving faster this time and we should be rid of any christian nonsense pretty quickly.

So yes France certainly has a secular tradition but it also had a strong christian tradition (burnt church yes, but not enough to change the fact that there is always one church somewhere, even in the smallest village).

It also have a pretty strong anti-christian tradition, heck that's the whole point of the laïcité laws of the IIIrd Républic.
Also all the churches are public properties too.

false edit: considering how all the parties are ruled in France, I'd say none of them are democratic.
 
Latest news for non-French speakers:

France politics: UMP party splits in parliament

Francois Fillon has set up his own faction of the UMP party in the French parliament, demanding a repeat of the leadership ballot within three months.

The ex-prime minister said the faction, Rally for the UMP (R-UMP), would be dissolved if a new vote was announced.

He disputes the victory of Jean-Francois Cope, who opposes a new vote, having had his win reconfirmed.

Of the 183 UMP deputies in the National Assembly, it is believed at least 60 will follow Mr Fillon.

The split was forced by a parliamentary deadline for all MPs to declare their party affiliation for next year's funds.

The ruling Socialist Party had refused to move the Friday deadline.

In practical terms, this means Mr Cope's supporters will lose crucial public funding at a time when the UMP is beset by debt, because the breakaway group will take some of the funding with them.

Parties receive an annual sum of 42,000 euros (£34,000; $54,000) per deputy.
'Nuclear option'

The original ballot was held by the party on 18 November for its 300,000 or so members, and Mr Cope was announced the winner by just 98 votes.

A recount was ordered after Mr Fillon's supporters found returns for three overseas territories had been overlooked but on Monday Mr Cope's election was reconfirmed with an increased majority - nearly 1,000 votes.

"The time is not right in the heat of the moment, in the bitterness... to say we must vote again right away," Mr Cope said on France Info radio on Tuesday.

Francois Fillon is also pursuing the so-called "nuclear option" with a legal challenge to the vote, the BBC's Christian Fraser reports from Paris.

Bailiffs went twice to the offices of the UMP on Monday to secure the voting record.

Amid all the bitterness, it was always unlikely that the two camps would find a mutually acceptable agreement, our correspondent says.
Jean-Francois Cope after a meeting at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 27 November Jean-Francois Cope saw his majority increased in the recount

On Monday, the hashtag RUMP was the top-trending term on Twitter in France with the names of both Mr Cope and Mr Fillon also in the top 10 list, as the UMP feud gripped France.

Mr Cope, who is firmly on the right wing of the UMP, had the support of many party activists during the contest.

By contrast, Mr Fillon, with his more moderate views on issues such as Muslim integration, appeared to enjoy broader appeal outside the party.

At a peacemaking lunch Monday with Mr Fillon, former President Nicolas Sarkozy said holding a new vote would "avoid an escalation of the conflict", a party source told AFP.

This account was confirmed by both Fillon and Cope loyalists in the party, the French news agency said.

The RUMP was due to hold its first meeting in parliament later on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Mr Cope visited the Elysee Palace as leader of the UMP to discuss political reform in France with President Francois Hollande.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20509681

Also: What - a - fucking - mess.

Les fillonistes étudient la proposition de référendum sur un nouveau vote des militants de l'UMP
The fuck is that, again?
 
In practical terms, this means Mr Cope's supporters will lose crucial public funding at a time when the UMP is beset by debt, because the breakaway group will take some of the funding with them.

Parties receive an annual sum of 42,000 euros (£34,000; $54,000) per deputy.
'Nuclear option'
That's what I was saying, Copé's UMP is fucked.
 
Found on Facebook:

pOVyE.jpg


I can't stop laughing at the situation. Who would have thought the UMP would out-PS the PS... :lol
 
You got to thanks those guys for the laughs they provided us with for the last 10 days now. It's been and continues to be an amazing ride.
 
Is Le Pen the winner of the fight on the French right?

m-le-pen_m.jpg


Though France’s National Front party is benefiting from the leadership crisis that has split the right-wing UMP, far-right head Marine Le Pen should not be celebrating quite yet. France24.com spoke to an expert for some insight.

“The [right-wing party] Union for a Popular Movement is dead,” Marine Le Pen, France’s far-right National Front party leader, stated recently.

Indeed, since the start of the crisis that has split France’s main right-wing party in two, Le Pen and other National Front heavyweights have made no secret of their satisfaction in press interviews and on social networks. But while the party is widely seen as the main beneficiary of the UMP’s implosion, Sylvain Crépon, a French researcher at Paris West University Nanterre and expert on the National Front, says the reality of the situation is more complex.

Here are highlights from our interview.

France24.com: Since the beginning of the UMP’s leadership crisis, National Front heavyweights have been aiming most of their attacks at Jean-François Copé. Strategically speaking, would they rather see François Fillon at the head of the party?

Sylvain Crépon: Because he has strived to move the UMP to the right, Copé has emerged as a rival for the National Front, while Fillon represents the wing of the UMP that draws a sharp contrast with the far right. That would explain, in part, the virulence of the attacks aimed at Copé over the last few days.

Still, the National Front’s strategy is contradictory. Political analysts have noted that elsewhere in Europe, whenever the mainstream right wing has hardened its stances, the far right ultimately benefits. In that sense, if someone like Jean-François Copé were at the head of the UMP, the National Front would not be undermined.

F24: Should we expect an exodus of UMP voters, and perhaps even local officials, toward the National Front if the UMP leadership crisis continues?

S.C.: National Front supporters and leaders are gleeful, because their party can now aim to become the principal opposition party against President François Hollande’s Socialists in the eyes of French voters. With a weak, divided UMP, Marine Le Pen has a way forward. If the UMP leadership crisis continues, leaving a vacuum on the right, one can expect to see Le Pen take on the role of virulent critic of the Socialist administration.

Still, it’s unlikely that local UMP officials will defect to the National Front. It’s possible that the National Front has seen an increase in membership over the last few days. But nothing indicates that the UMP has been haemorrhaging officials or members – especially since Copé’s strategy of shifting to the right seems to be popular among UMP members.

F24: What longer-term impact can the UMP crisis have on the National Front?

S.C.: Ironically, the UMP crisis Marine Le Pen has so been hoping for has come too early for the National Front to really get much out of it. If elections were being held in three or four months, they would certainly benefit. But the next elections (local) won’t be until 2014. The UMP is lucky in that sense, because between now and then its leaders can get their party in order.

On the other hand, if the crisis persists and results in a permanently fractured UMP, the National Front could draw some former UMP voters – or see them abstain from elections, which is also advantageous for the far right. It’s up to Marine Le Pen to show that she is capable of manoeuvring to her party’s advantage before local elections, especially in terms of forming new alliances. She has recently said that she would be open to welcoming various right-wing candidates – possibly including certain UMP mayors – into the National Front tent. If she attacks the UMP too much now, that could be complicated.
http://www.france24.com/en/20121127...t-french-right-national-front-ump-cope-fillon
 
We're not talking about the same thing at all.
As it is the socalists have given up in doing any socialism in 1982 here,
and the capitalists have stopped doing anything close to free market since 1973 here (heck no one even try to use the moniker apart from the jokers of the partyliberal).
As it is the monikers don't serve anything but to label the parties, if we're discussing politic and not economy the context is clear.
A socialist policy in France in the XXIth century doesn't have anything to do with how the economists would define it BUT that doesn't mean they're not stupid/destructive either.


Preposterous. You can't redefine an ideology because during a particular era the world moved to the right, your argument completely lacks perspective or logic. And btw:

capitalists have stopped doing anything close to free market since 1973 here

This part is very intellectually dishonest. Capitalists were never about "pure" free market, that was just a short-lived fad of the 60s sponsored by a few corporations and nutjobs that created some failed experiments in South America that had terrible consequences for the local population. So saying that the capitalists stopped doing anything close to free market as if they moved to the left is, simply put, lying.
 
Preposterous. You can't redefine an ideology because during a particular era the world moved to the right, your argument completely lacks perspective or logic. And btw:

I'm not even actually talking about the economical ideology.
In French politics, socialism =/= economical socialism.
I'm not redefining anything, I'm not even defining anything myself.
No one anywhere is claiming that a socialist policy by Hollande is taking over all private properties by state.
We're not talking about the same thing AT ALL.
You're describing the ideologies, I'm talking about the parties.

This part is very intellectually dishonest. Capitalists were never about "pure" free market, that was just a short-lived fad of the 60s sponsored by a few corporations and nutjobs that created some failed experiments in South America that had terrible consequences for the local population. So saying that the capitalists stopped doing anything close to free market as if they moved to the left is, simply put, lying.

Well you obviously don't Alain Madelin or the Liberal democrat party.

You could actually research what is said too, to claim that no party ever defended such a position EVER or only in the 60s is taking the forest for the trees.

He just wants a date with Sarkozy like Fillon had.

:lol
But he had a meeting with Hollande instead!
 
I'm not even actually talking about the economical ideology.
In French politics, socialism =/= economical socialism.
I'm not redefining anything, I'm not even defining anything myself.
No one anywhere is claiming that a socialist policy by Hollande is taking over all private properties by state.
We're not talking about the same thing AT ALL.
You're describing the ideologies, I'm talking about the parties.


Please stop flip flopping and mudding the waters with subjective standards. The post I first replied to was about left versus right and how they define ideology. For reference:

He wasn't. Leftists like to believe that leftists policies are actually centrist and try and tell the world that anything that isn't left wing is "extreme right".
and my reply:
Leftists are correct and the right has become extreme right (as known as neoliberalism) the last few decades. If you want to call Hollande a leftist then point me to his socialist policies, and I mean socialist as in the people controlling the means of production socialist.

Within just a few posts of our discussion you turned it into subjective terminology that is exclusive to France during this particular era completely missing the point of my original reply and discussion that followed.
 
Please stop flip flopping and mudding the waters with subjective standards. The post I first replied to was about left versus right and how they define ideology. For reference:

and my reply:

Within just a few posts of our discussion you turned it into subjective terminology that is exclusive to France during this particular era completely missing the point of my original reply and discussion that followed.

I must have misread and thought that the post had anything to do with the topic at hand then because :
as known as neoliberalism
That was never done by Sarkozy/Fillon or Chirac(lol).
Actually Hollande claimed that they (PS) did more privatisations than any other government in the last 20 years.
And just recently you claimed that no one made anything to bolster free market economy!
If I'm flipflopping you're Mitt Romney.
The right actually didn't become the extreme right, at least here.
Claiming as such is a gross ignorance of anything that happened in the last 20 years.
 
I must have misread and thought that the post had anything to do with the topic at hand then because :

That was never done by Sarkozy/Fillon or Chirac(lol).
Actually Hollande claimed that they (PS) did more privatisations than any other government in the last 20 years.
And just recently you claimed that no one made anything to bolster free market economy!
If I'm flipflopping you're Mitt Romney.
The right actually didn't become the extreme right, at least here.
Claiming as such is a gross ignorance of anything that happened in the last 20 years.


I don't even understand where you're going with this anymore. First of all, you were the one who implied that free market doesn't exist anymore, as if it's this mythical creature known as real free market that was killed in 1973. I contested that by saying that the search of pure free market was just a shortlived fad, I never said or implied that "no one made anything to bolster free market economy".

Second, I don't disagree that the PS privatized, actually that agrees with my point that the world has moved to the right and subsequently the right moved to the extreme right (economically). Sarkozy was a fine example of that.

Third, you still haven't explained why you were trying to use your own completely subjective, supposedly French, standards in a discussion about lelfist and rightwing ideology. I don't even understand why you quoted the part about neoliberalism in my post. Neoliberalism is extreme right, do you actually disagree with that?
 
I don't even understand where you're going with this anymore. First of all, you were the one who implied that free market doesn't exist anymore, as if it's this mythical creature known as real free market that was killed in 1973. I contested that by saying that the search of pure free market was just a shortlived fad, I never said or implied that "no one made anything to bolster free market economy".

And in that you're actually wrong, there's still groups out there claiming to search that (and unlike trickle down we do have examples of free competition being better for everyone).

Second, I don't disagree that the PS privatized, actually that agrees with my point that the world has moved to the right and subsequently the right moved to the extreme right (economically). Sarkozy was a fine example of that.

Yeah, you better not go there.
The parties haven't changed much.
PS is still between DSK and Emmanuelli, these people (at least one of them) are still there they didn't change their stances and the balance of power in the party is still very much the same.
In the last 20/30 years since Mitterend took over the party haven't changed AT ALL (and that's a bigger worry than if they moved to the left or right).
As for Sarkozy or the UMP, same thing.
the method may have changed but it's still pretty much the same, Sarkozy as a Security minister was even tame compared to the likes of Pasqua.
If anything the UMP is closer to the center than RPR ever was.
And as far as policy goes you'd better talk about Guéant or Hortefeu rather than Sarkozy or else we're talking 2002-2007.
Unless you're taking the left koolaid there's no metric to say that Sarkozy is a proof that the right is even more extreme, they keep saying that every year so excuse me if I don't take their word for it.

Third, you still haven't explained why you were trying to use your own completely subjective French standards in a discussion about lelfist and rightwing ideology. I don't even understand why you quoted the part about neoliberalism in my post.

Is it not clear how the original wasn't using any context so I used the context of the thread?
And leoliberalism? in France? You must have slept soundly in the last 60 years.


Vidberg going for the kill :
055_mayas.gif
 
Vidberg going for the kill :
055_mayas.gif

That is too good hahaha

English translation:

The Mayans were right wingers.

"Our world will end on December 21st 2012"
"Damn you sure?"
"Yes - I counted each organ and I don't really want to count again."
 
I've been following this thing for afar (I'm currently living in Japan), but this is hilariously tragic. This never looked like it'd go well, but I never expected such a result, it's like I wake up every morning with a new box of delicious biscuits right by my bed.
 
It's official there's a new group in the Assemblée Nationale, the Rassemblement UMP or RUMP, with 68 MPs created by Fillon.

Meanwhile a UMP-Copé MP just said that same sex marriage and adoption will make adopted children become terrorists as "terrorists often lack paternal authority".

"You will cause gender confusion, the denial of differences between genders and psychosis in the years to come!"

This MP is a hospital psychiatrist.Yeah.
 
It's official there's a new group in the Assemblée Nationale, the Rassemblement UMP or RUMP, with 68 created by Fillon.

Meanwhile a UMP-Copé MP just said that same sex marriage and adoption will make adopted children become terrorists as "terrorists often lack paternal authority".

"You will cause gender confusion, the denial of differences between genders and psychosis in the years to come!"

This MP is a hospital psychiatrist.Yeah.

Wut?
Good thing this happened, the crazies can keep getting crazier we've got a right that's not insane now.
 
ebc89c158e5f9828a3428a00755b309782f29b5d.png


So apparently the "non-aligned" UMP MPs are threatening to create a 3rd parliamentary group if a revote does not take place.

This just keeps getting better and better.
 
http://hfr-rehost.net/self/ebc89c158e5f9828a3428a00755b309782f29b5d.png

So apparently the "non-aligned" UMP MPs are threatening to create a 3rd parliamentary group if a revote does not take place.

This just keeps getting better and better.
:lol :lol :lol

The UMP is as good as dead.
 
And in that you're actually wrong, there's still groups out there claiming to search that (and unlike trickle down we do have examples of free competition being better for everyone).

No, you really don't. And the fad is really over, just because a tiny minority believes in it doesn't make it substantial enough to be taken seriously. Even in USA libertarianism is considered fringe and after the recent elections it's slowly dying.



Yeah, you better not go there.
The parties haven't changed much.
PS is still between DSK and Emmanuelli, these people (at least one of them) are still there they didn't change their stances and the balance of power in the party is still very much the same.
In the last 20/30 years since Mitterend took over the party haven't changed AT ALL (and that's a bigger worry than if they moved to the left or right).
As for Sarkozy or the UMP, same thing.
the method may have changed but it's still pretty much the same, Sarkozy as a Security minister was even tame compared to the likes of Pasqua.
If anything the UMP is closer to the center than RPR ever was.
And as far as policy goes you'd better talk about Guéant or Hortefeu rather than Sarkozy or else we're talking 2002-2007.
Unless you're taking the left koolaid there's no metric to say that Sarkozy is a proof that the right is even more extreme, they keep saying that every year so excuse me if I don't take their word for it.


You're still stuck in recent years subjective standards when we're talking about universal standards. I don't know what else I can say to explain to you that an ideology can't be redefined based on the political history of one country in a few decades. I'm done with this, you just don't get it.


Is it not clear how the original wasn't using any context so I used the context of the thread?
And leoliberalism? in France? You must have slept soundly in the last 60 years.

Yes neoliberalism in France, Sarkozy was practically its ambassador. Thankfully the French people strongly resisted and managed to get rid of him before he did some real damage.
 
Yes neoliberalism in France, Sarkozy was practically its ambassador. Thankfully the French people strongly resisted and managed to get rid of him before he did some real damage.

Ok, I'll stop right here because I really don't feel like wasting my time.
Either you provide proof of where exactly the guy who is the very best example of "State will rule and decide everything" is the ambassador of neoliberalism or I won't lose any more time.
Seriously we've got more regulations, laws and stupid stuffs under him than under any other governments and if anything he made corporations' jobs that much harder.

And the people I talked about earlier are the same people with the same idea we had since the 80's, they didn't change despite the world changing around them. PS is nowhere near being center AT ALL, you'd have to have no idea what this party is to even think that.

e:And even worse you seem to have NO idea at all why he wasn't reelected and why the election went the way it did.
 
With Sarkozy as President, there was one new tax every week. If that's neoliberalism I'm the Queen of England.

He even went on record to say that he will renegociate Shengen and basically block free trade and go back to before the EEC!
At this point Hollande and his tax breaks on corporations is what then?
 
With Sarkozy as President, there was one new tax every week. If that's neoliberalism I'm the Queen of England.


It's a common misconception that neoliberalism is against all taxes, actually it's about broadening the tax base usually at the expense of the middle class or even the poor who pay the least under other systems and then lowering the taxes of the rich to make them "equal" which Sarkozy also did with various tax breaks for them.
 
It's a common misconception that neoliberalism is against all taxes, actually it's about broadening the tax base usually at the expense of the middle class or even the poor who pay the least under other systems and then lowering the taxes of the rich to make them "equal".

Aaaaaaand even that didn't happen, heck if he did that or even if he was advocating that he wouldn't have been shown the door.
 
So you deny that there were tax breaks for the rich/corporations?

There haven't been tax break,
the closest there was is the infamous "bouclier fiscal" that had little to no effect at all.
Tax rose under Sarkozy. For corporations too.
Not even people on the left indict Sarkozy for that, and you can be sure as hell he was the antichrist for them.
heck you better amend wikipedia with your definition because
wiki said:
Neoliberalism refers to economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society. Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of policies that deregulate and enhance the role of the private sector

deregulation and enhancing the role of the private sector certainly wasn't part of Sarkozy's policies.
 
So basically Copé allow for a new vote to happen if and only if the winner doesn't get to be the candidate for the next presidential election and he still got to rule for 2 more years?
Is this a joke or is he so transparent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom