French Presidential Elections

MaxwellBygraves

'We must reorintate Europe for employment, for growth, for the future!' - Francois Hollande

BelgianBeerGeek

^Maxwell B is right.
Our local elections were a mockery. Our local politicians are forcing through a really popular "build all over local farmland" policy and were re-elected, despite being a bunch of lying shysters. They relied on a terribly low turn-out, and were vindicated.
Nice to see the French actually care about their politics, although the Le Pen result is still worrying. Despite her attempts to seem normal, her party is deeply unpleasant.

MaxwellBygraves

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Nice to see the French actually care about their politics, although the Le Pen result is still worrying. Despite her attempts to seem normal, her party is deeply unpleasant.

Agreed. At least in the UK, the BNP lost all their council seats. I hope for France's sake he holds good on his policies or Le Pen's share of the vote will rise even further.

finchy

bompington wrote:

I would say this is pretty good news for Cameron and the Tories: by the next UK election it will have given three years or so to demonstrate what good old-fashioned tax'n'spend can do to a country in tough economic times.

OTOH, you might say that France is better set up for the future - lower overall debt, healthier demographics, not as much spending needed on infrastructure - so whatever the new president does France could end up outperforming the UK and making the Tories look bad by comparison.

OffTheBackAdam

It'll be interesting to see how the markets respond and even more what the reaction of Angela Merkel's going to be!
Greece is looking like it won't get a coalition with a workable majority. If you think our's looks messy, they're 32 parties in Greek politics, upto 10 are likely to get above 3% of the vote and thus qualify for seats in their parliament.
First exit pole results.

ND: 20%
Syriza(radical left):18.5%
PASOK:17%
Independant Greeks 12%
KKE:10%
Fascists: 7%
Democratic left: 5%
Greens: 3%

verylonglegs

If you've got any Euros in a draw anywhere I'd spend or get them changed sharpish

MaxwellBygraves

I think if we want to learn anything from this election, it's that we need to start holding elections on a Sunday. No logical reason to hold on Thursdays.

OffTheBackAdam

A Sunday election will make naff all difference.
If the electorate can't be arsed to vote on a Thursday, spend 5 minutes on the way to/from work (For those that do and it's only for those that work we're talking about), then why would they vote on a Sunday?.
If we learn anything from this election, it's that the voters just don't care.
There's only one thing that will get voters out in force, a vote on whether to leave the EU.
That's one ballot we'll not be offered by any of the "Big Three" parties in England, certainly never by either major party in Scotland, should they ever actually cut themselves adrift from the UK.

Jez mon

Can't help but feel the EU referendum is only a big issue to DM reader types, who generally are reasonably engaged in the system anyway.

A sizeable portion of the population just don't have any connection to any of the modern politicians, most of the country falls into lifelong labour, or lifelong Tory, the parties only have to try and win over a small part of the electorate in order to get into power, so they focus on that.

MaxwellBygraves

Here's a really, really scary picture. Greek Neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn who've just won about a tenth of the seats in Greek Parli:

verylonglegs

As unfortunate as that result is I suspect that that tenth of the seats is due to desperation from the Greek voters. They've taken an absolute kicking and have not found anyone to take notice so far.

Re turnout in the UK, if I was in a cynical mood I'd suggest the only way to increase it here would be to switch off TV transmissions and tell the populous that it will be turned on again once they've got off their arses and taken note of what goes on in the wider world. Realistically though it's probably a combination of things, politicians that actually seem real, shake up of how our parliment is formed etc. Not sure about sunday voting, one thing I always notice when I'm France is that Sunday is still very much a day of rest. (Wags will suggest France is always on a day of rest :P ) Here though there is still the distraction of shops etc on a Sunday. Maybe people don't vote here because the majority really aren't that badly off?

joshr96

Aggieboy wrote:

Sophie Marceau not running?? She'd look better in high heels than Sarkozy. I'd put a big X in her box faster than an arrow whacking King Harold's eye.........................

Starting to like France now.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

I would say this is pretty good news for Cameron and the Tories: by the next UK election it will have given three years or so to demonstrate what good old-fashioned tax'n'spend can do to a country in tough economic times.

Like America or Germany in the '30s?

OffTheBackAdam

We've seen what good, old-fashioned, tax & spend does.
Healey tried it and it lead to a bail-out by the IMF.
Blair & Brown tried it and wrecked our economy.

bianchimoon

So what happened?, did sophie marceau become presidentess?
I really hope so, cos on her last state outing she really pleased the crowds
(for big-ups to watch only!!) before johnthebaptist42 starts on me
http://bonjourplanetearth.blogspot.co.u ... -oops.html

rick_chasey

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

We've seen what good, old-fashioned, tax & spend does.
Healey tried it and it lead to a bail-out by the IMF.
Blair & Brown tried it and wrecked our economy.

That's not Keynesian though, since that was spending during boom times.

Keynesian is spending against the business cycle. So spending during private sector contraction (i.e. now), and saving during the private sector expansion.

Now, for sure, the 2nd part didn't occur, but deficit reduction is pretty impossible with a shrinking economy. Everyone earns less, gov't included, but the debt amount stays the same.

Stimulating the economy is more of a prioriety than ausiterity as it is right now.

The downgrading of the gov't bond rating is also less scary than is made it. The states was downgraded by S&P and it did SFA to the bond yield.

The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.

nathancom

Rick Chasey wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

We've seen what good, old-fashioned, tax & spend does.
Healey tried it and it lead to a bail-out by the IMF.
Blair & Brown tried it and wrecked our economy.

That's not Keynesian though, since that was spending during boom times.

Keynesian is spending against the business cycle. So spending during private sector contraction (i.e. now), and saving during the private sector expansion.

Now, for sure, the 2nd part didn't occur, but deficit reduction is pretty impossible with a shrinking economy. Everyone earns less, gov't included, but the debt amount stays the same.

Stimulating the economy is more of a prioriety than ausiterity as it is right now.

The downgrading of the gov't bond rating is also less scary than is made it. The states was downgraded by S&P and it did SFA to the bond yield.

The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.

Stimulating the economy is good for your average Joe in the street however the coalition have little interest in the average Joe. The commercial elite have done very well out of austerity, new markets opening as government shrinks, a ready excuse for laying off staff and cutting wages. British companies are awash with cash at the moment. HSBC are still arguing for the current policies to remain in place.

I think Brown/Blair were faced with a poor infrastructure when they came to power, NHS and Schools crumbling as a result of Thatcher/Major. The investment was necessary and has benefited ordinary people. I think instead of laying the blame at their door, Thatcher needs to answer for destroying UK manufacturing without attempting to stimulate growth to replace the industries she put to sleep.

All she put in place as the deregulation of the City (a policy continued by Brown unfortunately) and that clearly led us to where we are today. I don't know why they thought the City could create wealth for the entire country when it only employs a relatively small group of people in London, but then when was the last government to care about any of the regions except the South East.

alihisgreat

Rick Chasey wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

We've seen what good, old-fashioned, tax & spend does.
Healey tried it and it lead to a bail-out by the IMF.
Blair & Brown tried it and wrecked our economy.

That's not Keynesian though, since that was spending during boom times.

Keynesian is spending against the business cycle. So spending during private sector contraction (i.e. now), and saving during the private sector expansion.

Now, for sure, the 2nd part didn't occur, but deficit reduction is pretty impossible with a shrinking economy. Everyone earns less, gov't included, but the debt amount stays the same.

Stimulating the economy is more of a prioriety than ausiterity as it is right now.

The downgrading of the gov't bond rating is also less scary than is made it. The states was downgraded by S&P and it did SFA to the bond yield.

The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.

Labour's spending maintained the 'boom', and therefore was a Keynesian policy as it was smoothing the cycle (in that it prevented down swings for 15 years or whatever it was).

Its just that Brown went about it in the wrong way and let borrowing reach ridiculous levels.

Also something worth considering is the 'balanced budget multiplier' -> in theory the government can tax to spend, running a balanced budget but still stimulate the economy -> Consumers may for example spend 60% of their income (dependant on their marginal propensity to consume).. if the Goverment takes that money as taxes, they can spend 100% thus increasing spending in the economy.

Therefore the government can simultaneously stimulate the economy and bring in austerity measures.

No need to prioritise one when you can have both?

nathancom

Borrowing wasn't at ridiculous levels under Labour until the Banking collapse of '08. Then as the Housing bubble collapsed, and gov receipts similarly collapsed, borrowing increased massively.

Labour is guilty of helping to fuel the credit/housing bubble but it is simply a fallacy that they engaged in indiscriminate borrowing during the years of plenty.

Stevo_666

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that Hollande and the socialists are in power. Given that France is a competitor of the Uk I suppose we should be quite pleased he's been voted in

The idea that state spending can really solve the problems by stimulating growth is a bit of a fallacy - the French state already accounts for something like 56% of the French economy so it the theory were true, France would already be the richest country in Europe

DesB3rd

“The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.”

Look at how the fiscally orthodox UK actually performed as opposed to the "folk memory" of (overcast skys, flat caps, closed yards etc) the 1930s; in terms of international comparison the picture is really rather good, early exit from recession (vs. US), growth well ahead of long-term trend and good by international comparison, burgeoning new industries etc.

The "stimulus good, orthodoxy bad" interpretation of the 1930s tied up well with political zeitgeist of the post-war era, lingering on as "common knowledge" & as a Keynesian rallying post - nothing more.

rick_chasey

DesB3rd wrote:

“The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.”

Look at how the fiscally orthodox UK actually performed as opposed to the "folk memory" of (overcast skys, flat caps, closed yards etc) the 1930s; in terms of international comparison the picture is really rather good, early exit from recession (vs. US), growth well ahead of long-term trend and good by international comparison, burgeoning new industries etc.

The "stimulus good, orthodoxy bad" interpretation of the 1930s tied up well with political zeitgeist of the post-war era, lingering on as "common knowledge" & as a Keynesian rallying post - nothing more.

What brought Germany and the US out of recession then?

EKIMIKE

I think the key is to look at where the spending goes. Otherwise we're simply observing trivial spending statistics (fairly useless information).

Recapitalising banks isn't particularly useful if they don't then lend at reasonable rates, or at all.

Likewise giving wads of cash to business owners for taking on apprentices isn't particularly useful if the apprentice doesn't gain any truly useful skills (kiddy i work with is technically an apprentice, getting an NVQ in 'communication' - the boss gets £1400 from the govt. - What use is this? Why not teach him some carpentry or how to weld? Would be far more appropriate for the job).

There is more to this than Keynes v Hayek...

rick_chasey

EKIMIKE wrote:

There is more to this than Keynes v Hayek...

What's happened in Europe politically over the past two weeks is though.

The Dutch gov't collapses when they don't agree on austerity - the French vote out a pro-austerity leader for a pro-growth leader, the greeks vote down an austerity plan and the pro-austerity parites in the local elections in the UK get a drubbing.

For austerity you can read Hayek policies.

EKIMIKE

This is where politics is not helpful in relation to economics. When economic policy becomes simplified and absolute (in favour of a particular ideology) then you run into problems. That's whether the times are good or bad.

For example, part of the reason for the crisis was an undiluted devotion to neo-liberal doctrines from the likes of Milton Friedman.

When you apply such political partisanship to economics, sense seems to go out of the window, the debate get's painfully simplified in an effort nail the colours to the mast and the policies go the same way.

rick_chasey

EKIMIKE wrote:

This is where politics is not helpful in relation to economics. When economic policy becomes simplified and absolute (in favour of a particular ideology) then you run into problems. That's whether the times are good or bad.

For example, part of the reason for the crisis was an undiluted devotion to neo-liberal doctrines from the like of Milton Friedman.

When you apply such political partisanship to economics, sense seems to go out of the window, the debate get's painfully simplified in an effort nail the colours to the mast and the policies go the same way.

Economics is politics...!

There's a little too much faith in economics. It didn't stop this recession, nor did it foresee it. It's excellent at explaining what's happened, but it's frightfully poor at predicting anything of note in the future.

finchy

DesB3rd wrote:

“The '30s global depression ended when govt's on both sides of the atlantic started heavy spending. It was made worse when nations kept reining in the spending.”

Look at how the fiscally orthodox UK actually performed as opposed to the "folk memory" of (overcast skys, flat caps, closed yards etc) the 1930s; in terms of international comparison the picture is really rather good, early exit from recession (vs. US), growth well ahead of long-term trend and good by international comparison, burgeoning new industries etc.

The "stimulus good, orthodoxy bad" interpretation of the 1930s tied up well with political zeitgeist of the post-war era, lingering on as "common knowledge" & as a Keynesian rallying post - nothing more.

How deep was the recession in the different countries? If I remember correctly from my GCSE history lessons, the USA and Germany had far worse problems to solve than the UK.

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKIMIKE wrote:

This is where politics is not helpful in relation to economics. When economic policy becomes simplified and absolute (in favour of a particular ideology) then you run into problems. That's whether the times are good or bad.

For example, part of the reason for the crisis was an undiluted devotion to neo-liberal doctrines from the like of Milton Friedman.

When you apply such political partisanship to economics, sense seems to go out of the window, the debate get's painfully simplified in an effort nail the colours to the mast and the policies go the same way.

Economics is politics...!

There's a little too much faith in economics. It didn't stop this recession, nor did it foresee it. It's excellent at explaining what's happened, but it's frightfully poor at predicting anything of note in the future.

Agreed. Good economic predictions rely on all factors being know and controllable. In the modern world that simply isn't realistic, but an educated guess is still better than a plain old guess, usually based on political ideology.

EKIMIKE

Rick Chasey wrote:

Economics is politics...!

There's a little too much faith in economics. It didn't stop this recession, nor did it foresee it. It's excellent at explaining what's happened, but it's frightfully poor at predicting anything of note in the future.

In essence this is my point. When politicians get too wrapped up in 'absolute' economic theories they lose touch of reality.

That's why it isn't as simple as Keynes v Hayek/Stimulus v Austerity. But that seems to be the overwhelming subject of debate. It's all theory, no reality.

I 100% agree that there is too much faith in economic theories. Particularly ones over-reliant on mathematics. Economics is a social discipline first and foremost.

The problem is, in tough times politicians get all partisan (just look at Sarkozy's migration to the further regions of the right) and will say things just to get votes. These messages need to be simple. At the moment it just gets distilled into Keynes v Hayek/Stimulus v Austerity. You can have both...

rick_chasey

EKIMIKE wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Economics is politics...!

There's a little too much faith in economics. It didn't stop this recession, nor did it foresee it. It's excellent at explaining what's happened, but it's frightfully poor at predicting anything of note in the future.

In essence this is my point. When politicians get too wrapped up in 'absolute' economic theories they loose touch of reality.

That's why it isn't as simple as Keynes v Hayek/Stimulus v Austerity. But that seems to be the overwhelming subject of debate. It's all theory, no reality.

I 100% agree that there is too much faith in economic theories.

Fair enough.

I have a pretty basic understandings of economics and finance. Not anything sophisticated.

I see it like this: Growth = good.

- Spending = GDP. More spending = GDP growth. Yay.

Ergo, to get economies growing, you need to spend. If consumer spending & general private sector spending isn't doing enough, the state should step in to compensate.

Currently, there's a lot of state debt - so there are clamours for 'austerity' - i.e. reining in public spending to reduce the debt.

There's of course another option to raise taxes, but the fear is that disincentives spending.

What's the worst case for too much debt for a state? Increased borrowing costs - which starts a vicious circle into bankruptcy.

Given what happened in the states and where the UK is relative to the rest of the developed world (and ultimately that's what matters) it can probably afford to take a downgrade without too much of a cost - rather like what happened to the US - IF, there is some semblance of growth. The US took a downgrade by S&P and no-one batted an eyelid.

What the UK can't afford to do is have more shrinkage. That makes sorting out the deficit problematic anyway, and may even lead to a downgrade despite all the austerity - and it causes lots of other social problems.

So, I'm for a (balanced) pro-growth strategy. That ultimately means reducing 'cuts'. Within reason, obviously, but a pure focus on just austerity won't work, like there is in the UK and across the Eurozone. It takes too much heat out of the economy.

That's, from what I've read, what Hollande is for.