As the afternoon votes in the French Presidential election are counted, it seems that it will be extremely likely that Presidential incumbent Nicolas Sarzoky will face off against socialist contender Francois Hollande in the second round on May 6th.
In the French constitution, unless any contender has a clear 50% of the votes in the first round, a second round is required when the two main contenders are pitted against each other for the spoils. With those contenders rumoured to be virtually level-pegging, the significant factor could be far-right contender Marine Le Pen's monstrous 20% share of the first round vote.
It is amazing to think that less than a century after France was humbled by the war machine of Nationalist Germany during WWII, one in five French people can be found voting for a nationalist French party linked to fascists and extremists. Having said that, at least the French contenders cover the entire political spectrum, giving voters a far better range of choices than that offered to us here in the UK.
Far-left contender Jean-Luc Melenchon has already come out in support of Mr Hollande, who favours a 75% rate of tax for high earners as one of his major planned policies should he win on May 6th. In order to avoid becoming the first single-term president since the early 1980s, Sarzoky will now have to convince Le Pen's far-right voters that he is the man to tackle major issues such as national debt and immigration. In doing so, he must be careful that he does not alienate his central-right supporters by adopting a racist anti-Muslim stance.
As in England with it's narrow, incestuous three-party politics, it is the small number of those in the middle of the voting spectrum which may have the decisive say. The final reckoning in the election may be decided by the 6 - 8% of people who voted for centrist candidate Francois Bayrou. The future of politics in Europe could decide whether those small number of potential swing voters land on the left or the right side of the fence.
France has the fifth biggest economy in the world and is one of Europe's two remaining economic powerhouses. The outcome of this election will be felt worldwide, not just within the Gallic borders. It's most pertinent for the United Kingdom that while we have opted for a conservative stance that sees us heading into double-dip recession, favouring lower taxes for the rich and reduced opportunities for everyone else, France may provide us with a comparitive position that would allow us to learn from our mistakes.
Whether our position improves or not, Hollande is a key step closer to ending the toxic austerity program in the heart of Europe and perhaps offering hope of an alternative to progressives everywhere.
This is the personal blog of Kris Holt, an award-winning writer based in the UK.
Showing posts with label left-wing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label left-wing. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 April 2012
Monday, 1 August 2011
Model for a New Start

I also know people who would clearly fall within the remit of the traditional Tory voter who nonetheless baulk at the notion of supporting the good ship Camerlegg. We are all middle-class these days, and we know that it is no longer socially acceptable to sneer at people who we regard as being a step or two down the evolutionary scale. Furthermore, even if you're a worth a million pounds, you won't be buying a yacht or a house in Chelsea any time soon. It's no good having millions when the billionaires can soon price you out of any neighbourhood that they don't want your penny-pinching, hat-doffing type in.
What we have is a government of confusion and dissatisfaction, and we are not alone. In nations all across the world, the global debt crisis is seeing people move towards small-government, Conservative and nationalist agendas. In short, we are moving at speed towards the interests of those very people whose self-interested machinations started the crisis in the first place.
It seems that when it starts to get cold, sheep will choose to desert their lazy, careless shepherds and instead make their way to the warmth of the slaughterhouse. You only have to look across the pond to where US President Barack Obama has had to make a deal with the Tea Party Republicans that effectively sees the American economy driven over a cliff while Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich laugh maniacally from behind the wheel. So do you vote for the lunatics, or the people who have no choice but to pander to them?

So what can we do?
I feel the time has come for a clean slate. We need to do away completely with the restrictive tags of Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat. All of us hold views on separate issues that fit across the political spectrum, and we are now faced with nightmarish concepts like Blue Labour, or Green Socialism, etc. It's time to pick some new names and write a manifesto for the laymen.
Modern politicians primarily come through a small select number of education establishments and this gives rise to a feeling among the rest of us that politicians do not understand their own constituents.
The particular kind of political 'inbreeding' that I alluded to earlier means that we tend to be led by a people from a narrow range of backgrounds and with an extremely limited exposure to a range of human experiences. It is time that our Lords were abolished and our Commons became truly representative. A representative government should include all minority groups, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual persuasion, and so on. Critically, it should contain a representative number of MPs from comprehensive school backgrounds and there should be also be a representative number of disabled MPs too.
Next, any MPs who were involved in the MPs expenses scandal should be debarred from Government. For example, our friend from yesterday, Oliver Letwin, claimed £2000 in Parliamentary expenses to repair a leaky pipe under his tennis court. The argument that this was allowable under the rules at the time completely misses the point. In order to be respected by those who elect it, a government has to strictly regulate its own behaviour. Only then will people believe that they can trust government to act in the best interests of the nation at large, and the public perception of a self-perpetuating 'old boys network' can then be quashed.
Donations to political parties should be strictly limited to small amounts (say £20,000 per year) and should all be declared publicly and published in the mainstream media. All parties with a seat in the House of Commons would be guaranteed a set number of hours of TV time for their election campaigns, and no more than this could be purchased. Transparency of political activity should become the accepted norm.
Taxation needs to be reviewed from the top down by government and corporation tax is ripe for an overhaul. It is disgusting that companies such as Barclays have been able to get away with paying the equivalent of 1% corporation tax on their vast profits. A pound earned in Britain should mean tax paid to Britain. The stated aim of reviewing taxation should be the reduction of inequality, with the need for redistribution of wealth above a certain limit, to be decided by the new Parliament.

Foreign policy would link to social policy with regard to the creation of sustainable energy as a massive priority, so the need to involve ourselves in foreign conflicts and our reliance on the likes of the US and Russia could be reduced. We would utilise our existing budgets and the money saved by reducing troop numbers stationed abroad to explore ways in which we could make genuine contributions to improving life in other parts of the world. We should aim to be involved in building and social development projects rather than simply lending out or giving vast sums to other countries.
Immigration policy also needs to be reviewed, with the aim of creation of a policy that reflects the value that immigrants bring to society rather than Daily Mail-induced hysteria. This is not a suggestion that the doors of the UK should be flung open to anyone who wishes to be here, but there should be honest, open debate where those who have genuine concerns about the integration of communities are allowed to have their say as well as representatives of ethnic minority groups themselves. This reduces the risk of the issue being hijacked by the 'us vs them' politics of the odious far-right movement.
Most importantly of all, government needs to be accountable to people and I suggest a reduction in the period between general elections to three years, with compulsory referendums on major national policy issues. There would be no more under-the-radar changes to the NHS.
Okay, there we go. I've had my say; now it's your turn.
Labels:
agenda,
asset bubbles,
Barack Obama,
civil service,
Conservative,
expenses,
immigration,
Labour Party,
left-wing,
Liberal Democrat,
Newt Gingrich,
Republican,
Sarah Palin,
Tea Party,
Tony Blair,
Tory
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)