Metal Reviews

Yep, Bayrou and his lot (MoDems?) seems the most sensible choice from here. Pity he doesn't stand a chance...

The MoDem yes, it stands for Mouvement Démocrate (Democrat Movement, duh). They're a lot more "EU-enthusiasts" than the Lib Dems (I may be wrong though), but there's a lot in common. With the current institutions (presidential election with two rounds and only two competitors for the second round + parliament members elections using an outrageous non-proportional suffrage (at all, not even one bit of it) ), it's almost impossible for them to win. The same goes for Le Pen and Mélenchon of course. I love how we're prone to give lessons to everyone about how our democracy is fantastic with all those political parties for everyone, but in the end it's basically the exact same crap than the US bi party system. Our democracy is a joke.

/rant.

Lib Dems are more Euro-reformers than Europhiles, really, although it's hard to tell sometimes as we have a reputation for being totally in love with Europe (and a lot of party members are). In terms of actual policy we want positive changes, right of recall for MEPs, CAP reform and so on, but remain more pro-EU than I'd like, even still having a policy of joining the Euro 'when conditions are right'!

I still think British (& French! ) involvement in Europe is positive, on balance, but the ever-increasing powers of the EU have to be challenged eventually, else it'll be the likes of our UKIP and your FN who will be wrecking it (and everything else) altogether.

Wow you French guys can actually determine what side of politics your politicians sit on?

In Australia politicians sit on whatever side their media minded advisers tell them to to maximise public approval.

E.g. Labor party is meant to be centre-left.

Yet it started privatising a lot of government businesses in the 1980s.

Recently it has introduced new taxes on mining and carbon, but is cutting government expenditure (more right wing orientanted) at a time when Keynsian economics thought states government should be spending more.

Their industrial legislation has actually reduced worker's rights as well as employer rights and has just created more red tape.

Tasmanian Labor government is slashing government spending despite the state being in a recession.


The Liberal party was meant to be centre-right. However they do very left wing things such as acquiring surplus hospitals due for closure and then keeping them open.

Current Liberal leader, Tony Abbott, political position is simply opposite of what the Labor government position is.


Voting in Australia is thus mainly a waste of time. Yet it's compulsory to turn up for voting or you get fined.


I always view Australia as a fake democracy. I remember one commentator describing Australia as the most controlled country in the OECD with the government controlling everything from the size and colour of your fence to dog/cat ownership to ensuring the political system favours existing elites.

I thought I should make a comment here:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... of-voters/

I am not an Obamaist, but as the reincarnation of Dwight Eisenhower is not running for President on either side, I feel the need to point out how foolish the Republican establishment appears for attacking Obama here. How dare he ask the Russian leadership for time on negotiations until after the election? Surely Reagan didn't mention the importance of the 1986 elections to Gorbachev? Oh wait...he did, as numerous accounts have since mentioned, he just managed to not get caught on open mic.

Romney, regardless of how much I prefer his domestic political positions to Obama's, is an absolute ignoramus on Russia. Romney currently considers the USA's greatest geopolitical threat to be...not China...not militant Islamism...but Russia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 13652.html

It disgusts me that significant elements of the Republican old guard would still rather be fighting wars of the prior century than be ready for China if and when (hopefully never) the "peaceful rise" becomes less peaceful.

That saddens me greatly as well. The US should recognise an important ally in Russia to counter the greater threats of China (and perhaps India) and the many terrorist threats.

If only Ron Paul allowed himself to shake the right hands sometimes. But then that's why he's a paragon of virtue in US politics.

After this:



Now this:



I wish The Economist would definitively shut the hell up. Just focus on *your* country's GDP growth rate and let us guys deal with our own business... And seriously, Hollande, dangerous? If *he* is dangerous, Sarkozy's a tiny narcissistic and neurotic racist cocaine user.

Err wait...

The Economist is ridiculous.



Edinborrow? Aberdown? Fuck you.

Knew Fridge'd be whining about that. Economist = win.

Exactly. I found Paul's campaign results this year very disappointing. I really thought he had a chance to at least win a few primary elections and force the Republican party to listen to some wisdom on not overextending over international affairs. But no, business as usual here, Eisenhower's party nowhere in sight.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ey_hate_us

Heavy article, but very worth reading.

Thanks, forwarded to my friends and relatives.

It's too often overlooked or washed over in the name of cultural relativism or "we can't judge" types of thinking, usually at the hands of my own political spectrum, the left. It gets me absolutely raging, especially when I get called a racist or some similar bollocks for pointing out that Islam severely mistreats women.

So basic claim is that liberal democratic rights won't translate into social change? I'm convinced. IDEOLOGY, BRO.

The way I read it was that the basic claim was that giving misogyny the authority of religion, especially one that hasn't gone through a process of secularization, results in explaining away the abuse in terms of PC and overlooking the full consequences of the sexism in Muslim culture. It also ends up in women arguing for their own oppression.

I honed in on the part where people are championing the Arab Spring when it fact it has resulted in no changes whatsoever in the treatment of women. Violations of basic human dignity should be the rubric of success rather than grand promises for the right to vote in the future.

not heavily into the topic, but it looks to me like the younger Le Pen has quite a lot of influence now. she won't go Hollande's way, but do you think she could try to force Sarkozy into a deal that would give her party more power for the next term, or something?

- On Marine Le Pen's influence: well, yes and no. Her score was high, but not that high. In 2002, the two nationalist candidates (Jean-Marie Le Pen and Bruno Mégret) made 19,2%, whereas she's made 18% last Sunday. That's high, but not high enough to consistently weight on the UMP (the center-right/right wing party) on her own. She's talented and here to stay, though.

- On the possible deals between the UMP and the FN: this is her bet, her strategy. She wants to make the UMP implode, scavenge it for its most nationalist, traditional and conservative components, and create a new party which would be the top right-leaning party of the country. Sarkozy wouldn't have any part in this however, as he stated he'd just resign from politics in case he loses the Presidential election.

- When can/will the UMP implode and Le Pen gain parts of it? -> the Presidential election is only the first part of the 2012 French elections, there are the Législatives in June, which are just as important (Parliament members elections). Three scenarios:

1) IF Hollande wins and the UMP implodes between the Presidential and the elections of June (that's quite a big "if", but possible), there would be deals in some circonscriptions and therefore there would be FN Parliament members elected. Potentially plenty of them. This is the best scenario for Le Pen.
2) If Hollande wins, but the UMP doesn't implode (before June, or at all), the FN would play the same role as usual. Which is, almost none, basically, because of/thanks to our (outdated) institutions. But she would definitely be back with a vengeance in 2017. Second-best scenario for Le Pen.
3) If Sarkozy wins, the PS (Hollande's party) is completely devastated. It would have no impact on the FN, but it would have a huge one on Bayrou's Modem and Mélenchon's Front de Gauche. Worst-case scenario for Le Pen, because the latter is an electoral menace for her (they pretty much share the same electorate, it's been proven.)

Conclusion: Le Pen has no interest whatsoever (in my and many's opinion) in a Sarko victory. And the month of May is going to be crucial...

Yo Bruce, what the fuck is Bayrou playing at?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fe39ed68-953f ... z1tpoyOI7t

The whole point of centrists is that we stick two fingers up at the socialist/conservative duopoly, not support the one who looks like he'll win! Bah.

Local elections day in most of the UK, turnouts everywhere reported to be very low. Clearly, voters are pissed off with everyone, and want less politics, not more.