Segolene Royal Plays the Left’s Oh-So-Typical Final Card
Having failed to make up ground in the final debate before this weekend’s French election (”polls showed that a majority of viewers rated Sarkozy ‘more convincing’ than Royal”), out of options, and apparently out of ideas, Segolene Royal is playing up the “possibility” of violence:
Socialist Segolene Royal warned Friday that France could slide into violence if Nicolas Sarkozy wins the presidency as the rightwinger extended his poll lead on the final day of the hard fought campaign.
Royal, seeking to become France’s first woman leader, said she was “issuing an alert” that a Sarkozy victory could “trigger violence and brutalities across the country.”
“His candidacy is dangerous. That is why I am asking voters to think twice,” Royal told RTL radio in one of her final declarations of one of the most hotly contested elections in decades.
I say she’s inviting it, and she wants it. Classy (/sarcasm).
___________________________
UPDATE: NixGuy has more, including a reminder about the 751 “no go” zones.
UPDATE 2: Good sports, as long as they win — Taranto at Best of the Web linked to this WaPo article, which had the following quote (bold is mine) –
Tony Essono, 32, an unemployed economist whose parents emigrated from Cameroon before he was born, said that despite years of anger and discrimination, people in La Courneuve were willing to put their faith in the ballot box “because they understand they can change something” by voting. But, he added, “if Sarkozy is elected, it means we haven’t been heard, and we’ll trash everything.”
UPDATE 3: Last Tuesday, the Times of London noted that Royal’s last-ditch attempts to demonize Sarkozy were getting plenty of French media assistance.
Same thing happened in Mexico with that dingbat leftist as well. Threaten violence unless they get their way.
Comment by dave — May 5, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
#1, I’m a little surprised that the Mexican demos didn’t work.
Comment by TBlumer — May 5, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
[…] Bizzyblog: I say she’s inviting it (the violence), and she wants it. […]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » French Elections: Threats of Violence for a Sarkozy Win — May 5, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Now hold on. Don’t confuse the “Left”, which describes American progressives with “Leftists”, which are Socialists.
Comment by Kevin — May 5, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
#4 Kevin, I generally agree with the distinction. Though I could chronicle near-misses here, I’ll resist.
Comment by TBlumer — May 5, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
I see the following driving force behind potential Sarkozy’s win.
The ECB and Banque de France are responsible for the high unemployment in France since 1995 when a limit on monetary supply was introduced – 4.5% per year (citation)
Bank de France. (2004). Definition of the single monetary policy. Retrieved January 10, 2007 from
http://www.banque-france.fr/gb/instit/sebc/1d.htm
The reference value for monetary growth must be consistent with—and serve—the achievement of price stability. Furthermore, the reference value for monetary growth must take into account real GDP growth and changes in the velocity of circulation of money. The derivation of the reference value is based on the contributions to monetary growth resulting from the achievement of the ultimate objective of price stability (year-on-year increases of below 2%), and from the assumptions made for potential GDP growth (2-2.5% per annum) and the velocity of circulation (a trend decline of about 0.5-1% each year).
Taking account of these two factors, the Governing Council decided to set the first reference value at 4.5%.
There is an intrinsic trade-off between inflation and unemployment as both are driven by labor force change (same as in the USA):
In France,
GDPdeflator(t) = 4*dLF(t-4)/LF(t-4) - UE(t-4) + 0.095
LF is the labor force level; t-4 – current time lagged by 4 years; UE – unemployment rate.
This relationship works after 1970 and gives R**2 of 0.92 between the predicted and measured inflation. Root mean square forecasting error for the period is of 1% at four year horizon. Because of nonstationarity of the involved time series the relationship is tested for cointegration and shows the existance of one cointegrating relation, as presented in
http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/2736.html
When one of the terms (inflation) in the equation is fixed by monetary authorities, the increase in labor force (which is exogenous driving force independent on inflation and unemployment) is channeled through the second term – unemployment. It should be around 4.5% with inflation about 8% during the last seven years. So, France has what it has.
Comment by Ivan Kitov — May 6, 2007 @ 7:41 am
#6, you may be right, but I doubt very much that it’s a major factor in Sarko’s win. You also should try to explain things at a level that readers can more easily comprehend (that would include me).
Comment by TBlumer — May 6, 2007 @ 9:14 am
My point is a simple one. Some events during the last two years related to the riots in outskirts were primarily inspirated by high unemployment. Sarkozy played a crucial role in showing the state power and got some important points for this year elections.
This high rate of unemployment was (unintentionally, by mistake may be) organized by the Banque de France in its wrong monetary policy (only in terms of high unemployment). The bank could replace the unemployment with high inflation, if did not establish this artificial reference value of 4.5% .
(In my opinion, no level of inflation harms real economic growth, and inflation has to be as high as defined by the country-specific dependence on labor force increase, according to the relationships I put in previous post).
All in all, the Banque de France created conditions and gave this big chance to Sarkozy. Among other important sources, I have to admit.
Comment by Ivan Kitov — May 6, 2007 @ 10:31 am
I think France’s inflexible labor markets and generous benefits to those who choose not to work are larger factors in driving the unemployment rate than anything B de F has or hasn’t done. Given the structural problems, 8% unemployment may be France’s definition of “full employment.”
Comment by TBlumer — May 6, 2007 @ 11:31 am