The French Presidential Runoff

Written By: - Date published: 8:37 am, April 26th, 2017 - 79 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, democracy under attack, Europe, International - Tags:

Why is it so hard to conceive of a radical alternative to the kind of government on offer?

The French Presidential runoff, like the recent Dutch election and others, brings to mind the question of German sociologist a century ago when he asked: Why is there no socialism in America? Some of that is to do with the size of the country: shared purposes are hard to sustain on an imperial scale without a major loss of freedom. Then there’s their inherent cultural suspicion of government.

It is not by chance that social democracy and welfare states have worked best in small, fairly homogenous countries, where issues of mistrust and mutual suspicion do not arise so acutely. A willingness to pay for other people’s services and benefits rests upon the understanding that they in turn will do likewise for you and your children: because they are like you and see the world as you do.

Where immigration and visible minorities have altered the development of a country, we typically find increased suspicion of others and a loss of enthusiasm for the institutions of a welfare state. It is incontrovertible that welfare states face serious practical and political challenges today. Their survival is not yet in question, but confidence is weakening.

The French Presidential runoff between Le Pen and Macron is now starkly lit by the hard right populist – and failing – President Trump. He has been our best reminder that deeply radical governments are deeply unstable. The degree of instability is what people are voting for when they choose the degree of radicalism.

Macron, fully in the mold of Clark and Key, Gordon Brown, Hillary Clinton and Merkel, is a centrist who seeks to strengthen civic institutions and retain the push of global free trade. He’s pretty to look at, fresh within his own political party, and interesting. But he won’t change much.That is the best to hope for.

In this world where many democracies are sliding to the very hard right, we get to conceive radical alternatives in power. Right now that small c conservative position is a good thing.

79 comments on “The French Presidential Runoff ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Fustercluck 1
    26 April 2017 at 9:33 am

    A Rothschild banker is a good thing?

  2. Glenn 2
    26 April 2017 at 9:34 am

    “I feel I am to the left of Obama”
    Marine Le Pen
    http://www.visualcapitalist.com/french-elections-macron-le-pen-eu/

    Comparing Macron and Le Pen is interesting. While Le Pen has been labeled hard right many of her policies are left of centre.

    Advocates 10%tax cut for lowest income tax brackets.

    Keep the 35 hour working week.

    Lower retirement age to sixty.

    Make overtime tax free.

    Advocates a bonus of 1000 euros per year for low wage earners and pensioners.

    National plan for equal pay for women.

    Calls for a move to zero carbon economy.

    Referendum on Europe Bring back Franc.

    Macrons policies.

    Keep the 35 hour week.

    Limit wealth tax to real estate.

    Cut government spending to 50% of GDP

    Cut 120,000 state jobs by not replacing state servants on retirement.

    Extend unemployment benefits to entrepreneurs, farmers, self employed and those who quit jobs voluntarily

    Implement universal pension.

    Close coal fired power plants.

    Stay in Europe.

    Hard decisions for the French Voter.

    • Bill 2.1
      26 April 2017 at 9:53 am

      The same was noted as regards the broad economic sweep of Sanders and Trump. the choice is more to do with breaking from that discredited centre in a direction of increasing democracy, or to break in a direction of authoritarianism.

      Neither of these French hopefuls offer up anything other than an opportunity for financial interests to consolidate their power at the expense of ordinary people and society at large.

      I’d bet Shauble is still nursing a hang-over from his celebrating of this result.

    • mikesh 2.2
      26 April 2017 at 11:36 am

      It is said that France’s departure from the eurozone could lead to a collapse of the euro; other countries, notably Greece, would probably follow suit. This would not be good for financial institutions.

      • Phil 2.2.1
        26 April 2017 at 12:57 pm

        This would not be good for financial institutions.

        I’m sure there are plenty of people on this site who would not see that as a bad thing… I guess that’s exactly what you’re going for.

        But seriously, Greece and other smaller countries get relatively big EU-subsidies while their in the EU. The countries with the most to lose from Brexit and a potential Frexit are the larger nations with higher GDP per capital (i.e. the ones mostly footing the EU bill) like Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark.

        • KJT 2.2.1.1
          26 April 2017 at 2:25 pm

          You mean the countries that are borrowing to buy German manufactured goods. I doubt if they have a net benefit from the EU. Greece certainly does not.

    • D'Esterre 2.3
      26 April 2017 at 1:17 pm

      Phil:”Compared to a racist monster?”
      Say what? The racism epithet is just name-calling. As pointed out below, her policies lean to the left-wing.

      • peterlepaysan 2.3.1
        26 April 2017 at 7:29 pm

        Please stop confusing mob populism with the left wing (whatever that term means).

        Le Pen is both a fascist and a racist.

        VIVA the Vichy Government! I do not think so.

        • Fustercluck 2.3.1.1
          27 April 2017 at 7:24 am

          Hey Peter.

          Ya got any citations for that fascist/racist thing or are you just re-labeling nationalism there, bro?

          • peterlepaysan 2.3.1.1.1
            27 April 2017 at 8:54 pm

            Citations?
            Where precisely would I, or you, find, such citations.
            Which academic journals publish research papers on the conflation of racism, fascism and nationalism?

            The best known publication that conflated those ideologies was a (non academic) book called Mein Kampf.

            Obtw, what justification exists for nationalism?

    • Richard McGrath 2.4
      26 April 2017 at 8:38 pm

      Both pleasingly have some smaller-government policies – tax cuts, reining in spending and putting a lid on the bloated public sector. Unfortunately, there are some stupid ideas such as a zero carbon economy (unless they beef up nuclear power and find some other way to power and lubricate machinery that doesn’t involve oil). To me, Macron seems the better choice. He’ll win in a landslide.

  3. Bill 3
    26 April 2017 at 9:41 am

    Macron is Hollande on steroids – Thatcher risen.

    Macron was Hollande’s finance minister and Hollande’s Socialist party died a death because of the liberal policies that were being enacted.

    The centre is collapsing in France just as elsewhere, but the sad and frustrating thing is that the right wing factions from within the so-called leftist parties that constituted that centre, are successfully heading off genuine left wing possibilities and, at least in the short term, getting away with promoting right wing individuals and policies.

    Of course, msm lends all the support it can by ignoring left wing aspirations and throwing up xenophobic bogey men to frighten people into voting for these radical centre candidates who are emerging from the corpses they’ve made of the sold out, washed up (once were) parliamentary parties of the left.

    It won’t last.

    A few short years back, there would have been no possibility of a Mélenchon or a Sanders or a Corbyn or any of the social movements and new expressions of politics we’ve seen in Spain, in Greece…

    In a few short years from now, those genuine and (mostly) social democratic expressions of leftist thought, will have broken through and be the new normal.

    Meanwhile, things are probably going to get quite ugly

    • ropata 3.1
      26 April 2017 at 10:21 am

      A few short years back, there would have been no possibility of a Mélenchon or a Sanders or a Corbyn or any of the social movements and new expressions of politics we’ve seen in Spain, in Greece…

      So true, we were in the grip of Blair / Clinton neoliberal “Third Way” BS

      In a few short years from now, those genuine and (mostly) social democratic expressions of leftist thought, will have broken through and be the new normal.

      I really hope so. Might be a decade or two, when the current generation die off and Millennials finally take power. Max Planck said (paraphrase): “Science advances one funeral at a time”

    • Ad 3.2
      26 April 2017 at 11:08 am

      Trump is the best illustration of the kinds of disruption that occurs when extremists get in.

      The hard right extremes are proving better at getting major chunks of electorates to vote for them than the hard left is. But there is now very little time for any remaining centrist democratic government to show that it can redistribute wealth sufficiently to put faith back into the functioning of ordinary government. It’s a decade since the GFC and class mobility has got worse every year.

      I can’t see how your trajectory of left radicalism could happen.
      But then, I’m sure the Commander of the Battleship Potempkin couldn’t see it either.

      It’s beginning to look like the years around Martin Luther.

      • Bill 3.2.1
        26 April 2017 at 12:24 pm

        There is no such thing as a ‘hard right’ or a ‘hard left’ – just a left and a right (both authoritarian and non-authoritarian) that has abandoned the dying centre.

        Bankers are extremists (Macron).
        Trump used the rhetoric of Sanders and is no extremist (he’s an arse of an authoritarian).
        Neither Corbyn nor the SNP are expressions of ‘left radicalism’.

        This centre that you want to see preserved is inhabited only by the worst expressions of liberalism, peddling the most dangerous of radicalism and so far, successfully gaining power and simultaneously stymieing the left through fear-mongering.

        It and they can’t be dispatched quickly enough

        • Ad 3.2.1.1
          26 April 2017 at 2:16 pm

          I just don’t get your taxonomy there.

          Bankers are extremists, Macron was a banker, therefore Macron is an extremist?

          Trump is not an extremist, but is an authoritarian?

          Corbyn is part of a ‘soft centre’?

          Is Melenchon ‘soft centre’ or ‘left’?

          Can you be ‘left’ and from an old party?

          What are your thresholds from ‘soft centre’ to ‘left’?
          Or from ‘soft centre’ to ‘right’?
          Or from democratic to authoritarian?
          When is an authoritarian not an extremist?

          • GregJ 3.2.1.1.1
            26 April 2017 at 4:48 pm

            Perhaps Political Compass helps?

            US Presidential Election:

            https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

            French Presidential Election:

            https://www.politicalcompass.org/france2017

            UK Political Parties 2015:

            https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015

          • Bill 3.2.1.1.2
            26 April 2017 at 6:07 pm

            I was originally going to suggest with your terminology that you must have eaten a dogs breakfast, thrown it up and then stirred it around on the carpet before scooping it into a bucket and throwing it into a comment box.

            It’s all over the show.

            Most of what is bubbling beneath the surface on the left is simple, non-threatening, social democracy.

            This centre you seem to want to hold to is the extreme. Some call it neo-liberalism. And your banker fella is very much a neo-liberal.

            I suspect “The Troika” will be looking to beat a jubilant path to the door of the French National Assembly real soon – right after Macron has laid in the ground-work.

            Like I said above, Shauble will have been celebrating this result.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2
        26 April 2017 at 4:07 pm

        Trump is the best illustration of the kinds of disruption that occurs when extremists get in.

        He’s also an example of what happens when governments stop listening to the people and only implement policies that the corporations and rich people want.

        But there is now very little time for any remaining centrist democratic government to show that it can redistribute wealth sufficiently to put faith back into the functioning of ordinary government.

        True but if we don’t then society collapses. of course, that may be what’s needed as part of the necessary evolution of societies.

        • Ad 3.2.2.1
          26 April 2017 at 4:28 pm

          What kind of collapse would you like, and for how long?

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.1.1
            26 April 2017 at 4:57 pm

            Who said I would like one?

            To put it another way: Death is as much a part of life as being born.

            • Ad 3.2.2.1.1.1
              26 April 2017 at 5:12 pm

              “Of course, that may be what’s needed …”

              What would this death of society look like to you?
              Any major change in world history that you could compare it to?
              The Black Death?
              The decline and fall of the Roman Empire?
              The Russian Revolution?
              The French Revolution?
              World War 1?

              Which of those societal deaths were “as much a part of life as being born”?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                26 April 2017 at 7:43 pm

                Any major change in world history that you could compare it to?

                The collapse of:
                Ancient Greece
                Ancient Egypt
                Ancient Rome
                The British Empire
                The Ottoman Empire
                And the empires in Latin America

                https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

                It finds that according to the historical record even advanced, complex civilisations are susceptible to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation:

                “The fall of the Roman Empire, and the equally (if not more) advanced Han, Mauryan, and Gupta Empires, as well as so many advanced Mesopotamian Empires, are all testimony to the fact that advanced, sophisticated, complex, and creative civilizations can be both fragile and impermanent.”

                By investigating the human-nature dynamics of these past cases of collapse, the project identifies the most salient interrelated factors which explain civilisational decline, and which may help determine the risk of collapse today: namely, Population, Climate, Water, Agriculture, and Energy.

                These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five thousand years.”

        • Bill 3.2.2.2
          26 April 2017 at 6:10 pm

          Trump has caused bugger all disruption. The markets shot up. They’re happy. Business will continue as normal and they get a bit of banking deregulation into the bargain.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2.2.1
            26 April 2017 at 9:36 pm

            Trump has caused bugger all disruption.

            Of course he hasn’t:
            1. Individuals don’t have that sort of power even if they are ‘the president’
            2. He made it look like he was listening – doesn’t mean to say that he was listening

  4. Robert Glennie 4
    26 April 2017 at 12:41 pm

    You want to know why the French are sliding to the right?

    Because Hollande completely ruined it for progressives. You simply cannot have a 75% income tax – which Hollande did, and there were numerous articles showing he was as much as cause of the corruption and the problem the French have with their establishment as he railed about it. Smoking gun two faced hypocrite.

    This one from Der Spiegel is about a scandal in 2013

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/corruption-scandal-puts-hollande-and-france-on-their-heels-a-892965.html

    And this from the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/29/francois-hollande-flopped-france

    I know nothing about Macron, but I hope he thrashes Marine Le Pen. Because if she is anything like her Daddy, she probably wants nuclear testing to resume in the Pacific – the elder Le Pen did when he won in 2001.

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    26 April 2017 at 12:51 pm

    In this world where many democracies are sliding to the very hard right, we get to conceive radical alternatives in power. Right now that small c conservative position is a good thing.

    Yes. This one makes Clinton v Trump look trivial. The question of whether or not you should vote for an investment banker rather than a neo-fascist shouldn’t be a difficult one. There’s a good opinion piece on it here, by a descendant of French Jews.

    The bit most relevant to the people dubious about Macron:

    The hard-left candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has, as yet, refused to endorse Macron. This is because he needs – in a move that further reduces the hard-left to its own self-parody – to consult the wishes of his supporters first. Yes, that’s right, he absolutely must have a collective debate about whether or not to endorse the candidate who has, as two of her closest advisers, associates of an unrepentant former SS member. Way to maintain the socialist dream!

    • Bill 5.1
      26 April 2017 at 12:56 pm

      Why should he endorse either of them?

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.1
        26 April 2017 at 1:25 pm

        Two reasons:

        1. If the question arises as to whether you’d prefer an ordinary conservative or a neo-fascist to run the country and you abstain, you’ve effectively said you don’t distinguish between conservatism and fascism, which declares you lacking in judgement and not fit to run a school gala, let alone a country.

        2. There’s a real danger of France getting a neo-fascist as President. An influential figure who won’t endorse the neo-fascist’s opponent clearly has no problem with that prospect. Not what I’d look for in a leader myself, but each to their own.

        • KJT 5.1.1.1
          26 April 2017 at 2:28 pm

          Vote for an ordinary conservative and get poor slowly, or vote for a Fascist, get poor fast and recover again with the backlash.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2017 at 2:33 pm

            unless there is no backlash, or you fail to survive it.

            • KJT 5.1.1.1.1.1
              26 April 2017 at 3:02 pm

              We are not going to survive the “sane” conservatives.

              You know. The ones that responded to the Paris accord, on AGW, by issuing more oil exploration licenses.

              At least Le-Pen thinks we should do something about it.

              • McFlock …
                26 April 2017 at 3:35 pm

                Thing is, you’re weighing fewer people surviving in the longer term against the likelihood of more people surviving in the shorter term.

                It’s an interesting theoretical question as to whether murdering a few people for the greater good is justifiable (which is what we’re talking about when we’re talking about voting for the far right because their carbon plans are nice).

                But in reality, I’m not sure there’s been any real life occasion that it was the correct thing to do. At best there might be one or two occasions where I’d be inclined to say “I hope I’d have the strength to avoid doing that”.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1.2
            26 April 2017 at 3:25 pm

            “Nach Hitler, uns!” That worked out so well for the left…

          • Bill 5.1.1.1.3
            26 April 2017 at 6:20 pm

            I don’t know that people would necessarily get poor under fascism KJT. Roosevelt got the basic framework for the New Deal from Mussolini’s Italy.

            I think a more accurate comparison is that you get to choose to be free to be living under a bridge with financiers running the show, or you get to have basic social provisions and a bucket full of fear under the fascists.

            It’s all shite.

        • DoublePlusGood 5.1.1.2
          26 April 2017 at 2:57 pm

          Or Melenchon can refuse to endorse either of them, and soundly criticise both of them at every opportunity. This builds Melenchon’s position for the parliamentary elections, and shows the electorates that both candidates in the second round are terrible for France, for different reasons.

          Basically you are saying that if you had David Seymour and Colin Ansell as the two candidates for president of New Zealand, then Sue Bradford should endorse David Seymour. A stretch of an analogy for sure, but I do it to point out the ridiculousness of expecting a socialist to endorse free market economics.

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.2.1
            26 April 2017 at 3:23 pm

            Or Melenchon can refuse to endorse either of them, and soundly criticise both of them at every opportunity.

            He could. And if doing that discouraged a large proportion of the left from voting in the second round, the likelihood of a neo-fascist running France would increase dramatically. He’s either opposed to a neo-fascist running France and willing to do something about it, or he isn’t.

            Basically you are saying that if you had David Seymour and Colin Ansell as the two candidates for president of New Zealand, then Sue Bradford should endorse David Seymour.

            Nope. More like John Key vs Colin Ansell. If there are only two options, one of the options is fascism, and you refuse to take the other option, it means you’re not fussy about whether the country’s run by fascists or not. It amazes me how many people supposedly on the left fall into that category.

            • DoublePlusGood 5.1.1.2.1.1
              26 April 2017 at 3:53 pm

              People will all know that the left will hold their nose and vote for Macron. That does not mean Melenchon has to endorse anyone.

              • Bill …
                26 April 2017 at 6:29 pm

                I agree.

                He could reasonably condemn both in those areas that they deserve condemnation. To endorse would be to self censor.

                Liberals might not like that the lesser of the evils is getting it in the neck along with the greater of the evils, but meh.

              • Psycho Milt …
                26 April 2017 at 7:22 pm

                Will they hold their noses and vote for Macron? More to the point, will they do that if their preferred candidate makes it clear he wouldn’t? Actively working to suppress the vote for fascism’s opponent is actively supporting fascism as far as I’m concerned.

                • Bill …
                  26 April 2017 at 10:21 pm

                  Actively working to suppress the vote for fascism’s opponent is actively supporting fascism as far as I’m concerned.

                  See that? We agree on something. So what to do with these establishment types and their ploy of talking up fascism while simultaneously working to marginalise left candidates before, they hope, hoovering up the vote off the back of the fear for a candidate they’ve hyped?

                  Endorse them because “lesser of two evils”? Vote for them because “lesser of two evils”?

                  edit – if you harbour doubts on that front, go back through the articles relating to the election and compare the coverage of Le Pen and Mélenchon – both in terms of sheer volume and content.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.3
          26 April 2017 at 4:19 pm

          1. Is there a difference between conservatism and fascism? Because from where I’m sitting I’m not seeing any real difference.
          2. Why should we continue to ‘believe’ in leaders when they’ve shown that they’re incapable of leading?

          • McFlock 5.1.1.3.1
            26 April 2017 at 4:26 pm

            1: seriously?

          • Enough is Enough 5.1.1.3.2
            26 April 2017 at 5:09 pm

            Why don’t you lead then us Draco? You can be the answer – offer us an alternative?

          • One Two 5.1.1.3.3
            26 April 2017 at 7:06 pm

            1. The same mentality and ideology has the levers of power today, that was in control the past few hundred years..let’s say

            They fund, train, supply and coordinate fascists of today, the same way they did business and funded , then extracted them out of Europe and placed them around the globe, starting Nasa and the CIA with nazis and fascists..

            No difference..

          • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.3.4
            26 April 2017 at 7:25 pm

            Is there a difference between conservatism and fascism?

            Why am I not surprised?

            They fund, train, supply and coordinate fascists of today, the same way they did business and funded , then extracted them out of Europe and placed them around the globe, starting Nasa and the CIA with nazis and fascists..

            NASA and the CIA? Wasn’t it the lizard people?

              • Psycho Milt …
                26 April 2017 at 9:52 pm

                Ah yes, the belated attempt to prevent the Soviet Union, that bastion of anti-fascism, from hoovering up all the top German scientists. At least we got a few of them, I guess.

                • McFlock …
                  26 April 2017 at 10:05 pm

                  although the abwehr/ss crowd the CIA picked up turned out to be a dead loss.

                  But I guess by the measure of “how many nazis did we use”, the soviets were also conservatives. Hell, Peter Fraser might have picked up a couple for NZ for all we know.

                • One Two …
                  26 April 2017 at 11:35 pm

                  ” at least WE got a few of them” …

                  Just which war do you fantasize being part of?

                  Not widely read, and not very bright. No wonder you used the lizard people comment (again) and was not aware of ‘open secrets’ such as paperclip..

                  The ‘we’ you snuggle up to are fascists of the most sinister variety…they’ve managed to change colour so many times, most believe they are anything other than what they are!

                  Dupes and dumb people are harvested for energy in supporting the blood lust of ‘the neauvau fascists’

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    27 April 2017 at 6:33 am

                    I was aware of Paperclip, having read “Operation Paperclip” by Annie Jacobsen many years ago. That’s how I know it was a belated effort to prevent the USSR from getting all the top German scientists. I just hadn’t recognised that attempt to attract German scientists to the West in your bizarre comment about fascism being a conservative plot.

                    And “we” refers to “us, the members of those societies making up the group of allies that benefited from Operation Paperclip.” Sometimes “we” covers a pretty broad range of humanity, up to and including all of it.

  6. SpaceMonkey 6
    26 April 2017 at 1:22 pm

    It is no longer a left vs right thing. It’s now an establishment vs anti-establishment thing. Macorn represents the establishment and if the French want more of what they’ve been getting for the past whatever years then they will vote for Macron. If they want change they will go Le Pen, irrespective of how unpalatable that might be.

    This was the same dynamic that saw Trump elected. But as we’ve seen after his first 100 days that it makes little difference overall as the Deep State has lots of leverage to ensure whoever is elected toes the line.

    The system is rigged.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      26 April 2017 at 4:24 pm

      +111

      • In Vino 6.1.1
        26 April 2017 at 9:10 pm

        Agree. Hate to quote the Daily Blog, but on a graph they had, Macron was more right-wing than Le Pen. Both were authoritarian, if I remember rightly. The site seems to be down at the moment. But the worrying thing is that we are so unclear about what Macron stands for.

    • peterlepaysan 6.2
      26 April 2017 at 9:26 pm

      Who rigged the system?

    • peterlepaysan 6.3
      26 April 2017 at 9:44 pm

      Who rigged the system?
      Why?
      If we follow the money where does it lead?

      Is the rigged system the same all over the world, rigged by the same people?
      Some evidence would be useful.

      • One Two 6.3.1
        26 April 2017 at 11:39 pm

        Evidence. ..

        Take a closer look Peter, use your own mind and resources before asking others to do it for you..

        Goodness me, it’s not rocket science

  7. Ad 7
    26 April 2017 at 2:50 pm

    Main Macron policies:

    • Local housing tax exemptions worth 10 billion euros ($10.6 billion)

    • Merger of myriad public- and private-sector retirement pension systems as well as a merger of unemployment benefit systems, which currently differ for regular wage-earners and the self-employed.

    • Broad financial targets include keeping France’s budget deficit below the EU-mandated 3 percent of GDP, lowering the jobless rate to 7 percent by the end of his potential five-year term from around 10 percent now, an investment plan of 50 billion euros and public spending savings seen reaching 60 billion annually by the end of the mandate.

    • Corporate tax would be cut from 33 to 25 percent.

    • The CICE tax credit system for firms would be converted into permanent payroll tax breaks for low-wage workers.

    • 35-hour legal work week would remain but negotiation of real work hours would be left to company level.

    • Low-wage earners would be exempted from certain social welfare levies, a measure that would put an extra month’s wage per year in the employee’s pocket.

    • 50 billion euros of public investment over five years, of which:

    – 15 billion for training/changing skill-sets to find jobs.

    – 15 billion on energy/environment targets: exit within 5 years from coal-based energy
    production, shift towards alternative, renewable energy sources, rise in carbon tax.

    – 5 billion in farm sector financing for environment-friendly projects, local production cooperatives and aid during price crises.

    – 5 billion for transport and local infrastructure, with a focus on renovating old train lines rather than building new ones.

    – 5 billion euros on health sector, including better reimbursement of glasses, dentures and hearing aids, plus move away from wasteful medicine packages that contain more pills than a patient needs.

    – 5 billion on modernization, computerization of public administration.

    • Halve number of early primary school pupils to 12 per class in 12,000 low-income zones, with teachers given a bonus of 3,000 euros a year to work in such areas.

    • All 18-year-olds to get a 500 euro “culture pass” to spend on cinema, theater and concert tickets.

    • Strict application of secular policy in public life. No ban on Muslim veil for university students, as envisaged by some candidates.

    • Asylum requests processed within six months.

    • State subsidy of 15,000 euros over 3 years for firms that hire people in 200 low-income neighbourhoods.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-programme-fact-idUSKBN17G19H?il=0

    • McFlock 7.1
      26 April 2017 at 2:52 pm

      well, that all just sounds like far right neoliberal insantiy, lol 🙂

      • Ad 7.1.1
        26 April 2017 at 3:03 pm

        We have forgotten how far our social welfare system has shrunk, and how far the French one has expanded.

        With Macron, if I lived in France, I’d be able to get all my uncles fitted with new false teeth and hearing aids for free, and get my nephews to see some real culture for free to the tune of 800 Euros!

        Plus, work for 35 hours a week.

        Sigh.

      • Richard McGrath 7.1.2
        26 April 2017 at 8:50 pm

        Partly: there’s nothing neo-liberal about paying people to go to concerts and manipulating the energy, labour, education and transport markets. But his other policies sound quite good.

    • Psycho Milt 7.2
      26 April 2017 at 3:29 pm

      Jesus, could we swap our neo-liberal extremists for French ones ASAP, please?

  8. adam 8
    26 April 2017 at 3:26 pm

    This is why La Pen is going to win.

    Rather than work to offer somthing better, go for conservatism. That is not a winning formula.

    I think like trump, brexit and the rest – you are missing the point. People have had enough of this liberal experiment. Especially the failed free-market liberalism of the last 40 odd years.

    I’m very afraid that authoritarianism will win. Because no one is offering people any other chance.

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    26 April 2017 at 3:58 pm

    He has been our best reminder that deeply radical governments are deeply unstable.

    I’m pretty sure that the First labour government was, at the time, considered a deeply radical government. And I know the Fourth one was.

    The problem is, as you imply here:

    Where immigration and visible minorities have altered the development of a country, we typically find increased suspicion of others and a loss of enthusiasm for the institutions of a welfare state.

    is that the country is unstable due to poorly thought out policies by supposedly centrist governments.

  10. One Anonymous Bloke 10
    26 April 2017 at 4:19 pm

    Has anyone described it as a “toxic runoff” yet?

    The toxic runoff of centrism, for instance.
    The toxic runoff of Neoliberalism.
    The toxic runoff of globalisation.
    The toxic runoff of the Sétif and Guelma massacre.

    Vive la revolution!

  11. peterlepaysan 11
    26 April 2017 at 9:18 pm

    The NZ mmp system has blunted the edge of the volatile politics in the democratic secular states. Angela Merkal has survived under a similar system.
    What both Germany and NZ have lost has been a very active voting electorate. The number of non voters is a worry and the number of non voters has been increasing, sharply.
    This is only storing up trouble for the future.
    National and its parasites are cruising.
    If the opposition parties cannot galvanise the apathetic we will never build enough prisons gulags.

    Le Pen and Macron represent the disaffected non voting electorate. So did Trump and sanders, so did Brexi (and the Celtic states).

    We live in interesting times. (Curse it!)

  12. DS 12
    27 April 2017 at 10:56 pm

    We’re actually extremely lucky it’s Macron vs Le Pen. Macron is a dull, inoffensive centrist. The true worry was Fillon vs Le Pen – an actual Thatcherite (and a corrupt one to boot) against a neo-fascist.

  13. millsy 13
    28 April 2017 at 12:48 am

    Macron = Blair.