the Sarkozy years

Thing is he was elected on the promise to confront ....which says a lot ! This country is split pretty much down the middle . Don't get me wrong , I am a guest in this country and as such a mere observer ! Seeing half of France that has woken-up to the fact that we live in a globalised world and the other half that keeps pushing buttons on trains and demand the right to retire by the age of 50 and get double the benefits.....

Whenever I hear this, I have to ask myself whether it was the entire French nation who voted for Sarko or just some of the country. Because to hear you and others, anyone would think that every single person voted for Sarko - which is patently untrue. Sarko does not have a 100% mandate and anyone who thinks that he can ride roughshod over the unions has to think again.

Converting France into a francophile version of the US or UK is a big mistake. It will only come back to haunt him.

Your experience does not appear to match what I've heard from my friends.

To be fair in his post he does acknowledge that France is 'pretty much split down the middle' Nino. Far from saying Sarkozy has a 100% mandate.


Whatever BS views on it tho may be something else.

The French have had it far to easy for years. Short working weeks, long holidays, great hospital care, and amazing food and wine. Not to mention les jeunes femmes. It's about time Sarkozy privatized the whole country and sold it to Japan and the US. That'll teach 'em.

Whatever the case, Sarko doesn't enjoy full support. It would be wrong to think that he has. It was often claimed that Thatcher had a 'mandate', not even this was true: she had a massive parliamentary majority...slight difference.

Yeah alright BUT like I said I don't really know much about it - I'm just basing this on what I saw on telly. I'm guessing that a lot of people also don't vote on things they really know about but go with whovever looks good on TV. I mean look at Blair, Sarkozy, Cameron or whoever...I bet there's a sizable portion of people who vote after thinking "ooo that David Cameron looks like he's a nice boy..lets vote for him!" Same applies to Sarko or anyone - especially after Chirac.

chiracs first govt was paralised because he tried to bring in exactly the same 'reform' his second was paralised from day one because the lhe left of chirac vote was split and he knew he was president cos everyone voted against le pen
so its not the same thing
what has happened is this the unions in public transport and gas and electricty workers went on strike a month ago , for one day, and the govt. said it wouldnt back down ,so the the public transport workers called for a strike that could carry on every 24 hours IF it was voted for by those on strike , the civil servants , in the meantime called a strike for the 20th of nov and what the transport workers (not the leadership but the 'bas') are trying to do is to carry the strike on until tuesday so loads of people are out together
however it looks like the union leaders are trying to sell out the strike ,hence the contiuation,
Thibault (who lead the strike that brought down chiracs first govt) has been seen by a lot of his membership and esp those that matter in this dispute (cheminots) to have sold out , this is why the strike goes on

and for the right wingers out there i would remind them that the unions gave a months notice of the strlike but the govt only decided to talk 2 hoursbefore the strike started

sarko is no thatcher

and despite the 'arch de zoe ' etc the once 'hyper president is nowhere to be seen

the call has gone out from the union rank and file for a retirement entiltement after 37.5 for everyone not just those who have a decent union
and it seems to be gaining ground

The other reason why sarko is scared is that there is a ,still small,(by french standards) university revolt , largely political at the minute but if the cheminots and the civil servants have a good day on tuesday????????

You shouldn't always believe what you see on the telly.

I agree fully with you on that one as do I on the right to protest and strike.

Thing is the french (or a large part of the population) seem to want to have their cake and eat it ! They love their Easyjets , H+Ms and cheap products but act all surprised when this means that jobs go abroad and one has to work longer in life to keep the whole show going .

And maybe it's because i live in Paris where people are a bit "harsh" but I haven't met a single person supporting this strike. Yesterday as I walked home I talked to a woman walking alogside me . She was a nurse and had just finished a 48 hr shift ( her colleagues living outside Paris could not make it into work) - she is married to a doctor in the same hospital who has been the only one in the A+E department for the last 3 days. She was close to tears and told me that heart - and anxiety attacks are on the up and that the whole system is at its limit . She said she wouldn't mind those conditions if the workers were striking for something worthwhile but in this case had no sympathy at all ! A view that is reflected almost everywhere.

Again , I don't take sides on this one but one really notices how enormously pissed-off people are !

I think you might find different attitude away from big cities.
Where I go in Brittany for instance, seems to be a hot bed of political activism and not much of it appears to be right wing.

In order to get the economy going and reduce unemployment some workers rights have to be eroded. Constant striking will just piss people off.

Whats your job?

The French have a tradition of strikes and civil disobedience and consequently have one of the highest standards of living in the world, if you believe the criteria

fuck you

That might be the problem at the moment !

He has a point though , how can you keep a system in which people can retire by the age of 50 on higher benefits than everybody else while the general population is living longer and there aren't enough young people to pay for their pensions ?

fuck you indeed .... we'll all be soon !!!

Sarko welcomes Ghadafi. Needless to say, the visit hasn't gone down too well.

I sort of feel that it's my duty to carry on this thread after the untimely and tragic death of guinnessdrinker.

Here's the latest
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f2f610da-a91c-11dc-ad9e-0000779fd2ac.html

Sokrazy is about to wield the axe and cut thousands of civil servants' jobs. There's another constituency he's alienated.

Shades of Suez?

Sokrazy says Israel could launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. He doesn't seem to have paid much attention to the latest intel reports on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme. This is from the JTA btw.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/105847.html

Well, if things aren't going too well, it's always a good idea to use some sort of diversionary tactic to distract prying eyes from seeing your lack of policies...or the failure of those policies. The whirlwind marriage of Sokrazy to Carla Wotsit (former shag of a certain M. Jagger) has provided the perfect diversion. Already Sarko is down in the polls and the voters want more than some photos for his Hello! wedding album. He wants the publicity but wants his "privacy" too. has anyone spotted the hypocrisy?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2251818,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=media

Meanwhile, amidst this media circus, he's found the time to condemn the Chadian rebels. Let's remember that there's oil in Chad and France wants some of it.

The honeymoon is over for Sarkonazi, The Times of India reports.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...rity_sinks_to_new_low/articleshow/2754376.cms

He seems alright to me, as far as politicians go...








I'll be the first to admit I don't know a LOT about French politics though

That's what people in this country said about Mussolini in the 20's.

Compare all that to the standard of living in this country and you'll see that France under Sokrazy will be come a Francophone version of this country...complete with its dehumanising treatment of those on benefits and its hatred of cyclists.

Thing is, That Indian Times article seems to comment more on his fading popularity due to speculation over his inability to control the economy or improve spending power and suchlike - I don't see much criticism for anything he's actually done, other than marrying that new woman in his life.

Sarko seems hell bent on public reform and he's arguably right to be doing it as France has one of the most expensive administrative systems in Europe. The economy is a global issue too - he'll take the flack in part but there's a wider global issue here which he only has limited control over.

I still don't see the massive deal with him. What am I missing? Honest question.

I think there are people on this thread who are giving Sarko too much latitude. But then, I would suggest, that these people never lived under Thatcher...or have a rose-tinted view of the 80's.

You seem to be only able to view him through rose-tinted specs. Did you live through Thatcher...perhaps I should rephrase that question: how old were you when Thatcher was PM?

I hate Thatcher and the Tories for the damage they DID to Britain. I didn't hate them before they did anything wrong (Thatcher was in power before I was born anyway). I don't get what Sarkozy has done yet - other than propose to do a lot of the things he campaigned to do.

From Liberation

This is hardly a ringing endorsement for Sarko. I've no idea what the other papers are saying yet.

How odd then that you would give someone like Sarkozy latitude. Je suis perdu.

The same excuse could be given for Thatcher...or do you really see no connection?

What damage did Thatcher and the Tories do to 'britain' and how did they do it? How did they go about it?

What is the difference between Thatcher and the Tories plans and those of Sarkozy/french capital?

I don't really. Most of the blame I see directed at Thatcher was for failing to distribute the wealth created from public service reform and indirect taxation (amongst other reforms) evenly throughout the country which led to heavily under invested public services, health and social housing, and loss of jobs without adequate measures being taken to combat the decline in areas of social degeneration. Remember homelessness doubled under the Tories - yet Britain became richer as an economy. Thats a big fail in my book.

Even if you put that down to a long-term overall good policy which labour have simply continued to champion - it is specifically for the lies of the tories that I hate them for. The promises to reduce taxes each year before the 1992 election, and then consistently raising them by the largest amount in peacetime history. Yet I didn't judge them before they royally fucked up. Then I voted with my feet (when I was old enough to).

I'm simply affording the same 'latitude' to Sarkozy - if he fucks it, then he gets the axe (or the guillotine!) but I don't get what the flack is all about after he's been legally voted in on a mandate to do what he campaigned to do and then he sets out a plan. I'm still confused.

First you contradict yourself and then you produce this post, which doesn't say a lot. I have to say that you don't have much of a point beyond "He's a politician". You even admitted that you "don't know much about French politics". So why keep digging even bigger holes for yourself?

Oh and this "give him a chance" nonsense is exactly that: nonsense. Sarko stated what he was going to do, as did Thatcher. She didn't suddenly become an ogre overnight; she was like that already. At least the French don't take shit lying down; they fight back. As for Thatcher, her declared intention was to "destroy socialism" and she used a variety of strategies to eliminate her political rivals. One such method was the use of her parliamentary majority to push through legislation that abolished the metropolitan councils. Sarko won't be able to do that since it goes against the very principle of the revolution.

Your point, if that's what it is, is a non-sequitir.