In case of acute insomnia: Federal Diet Election 2017

[Lexicus]

(I think you must have missed my edit in the previous post)

I did, but I fixed my post too I replied before the edit was live I think.

I'll give those links a read when I have time, appreciate your providing them.

@Hrothbern: definite parallels there with the Democrats in the US abandoning organized labor and embracing market solutions to social problems. The Democratic Party, as an actual organization, is comprised mostly of professional-class people who are largely insulated from the conditions of the working poor, let alone the persistently unemployed or homeless.

 

[AdrienIer]

For my country, NL my impression is;

When the socialist movement gained parliamentary power and after WW2 transformed into Social-Democrats, they were still based on a populist movement targeting the structures of the employers and the rich.
Somebody at the shopfloor and his relatives "knew" their opponent, without an articulated ideology. The red banner was enough. The methods to keep that flock together were populistic !!!

Somehow, since the 70ies, the general development was a shift from being against employers, the rich towards being against "the system", with anti-authoritarian elements, anti-anonymous burocracy elements.
Unions started to lose members, the Social-Democratic party lost connection with the young generations and lost their basic grassroot movements, at the same time making a complex internal party culture, an ivory tower.
Mostof the members having higher educations, civil society or care jobs..... and no physical roots anymore with the ordinary people.... and speaking another non-populistic language as well. No banners... just that decent red rose.
No vision or imagination for the youth, no simplistic message for the masses.

The consequence being that the non-ideological more centre and rightwing parties could easily pick them up, and even pure populist rightwing parties (Fortuin, Wilders, Baudet) could gain voters without doing much more than complain about the gap between "the system" and their practical lifes and worries. Dead-easy.
The Green-Left party, who kept connection to grassroots & imagination, doing quite well last election, although at risk because of high volatility and overstretched expectations easily leading to general disappointments.
The pure Socialist Party, a Maoist splinter of the old Communist party, occupying with small numbers the original socialistric/populistic niche incl red banners.

All in all: the Social Democrats made imo huge mistakes because they were not able to keep up their old analysis, their old and clear enemy thinking towards capitalism (employers and the rich), their old nurturing of the grassroot base for the youth, etc.
They gave room for the neoliberal attack on the "system" and lost their flock to other populists.

What made the left win was the alliance of some highly educated "theorists", with many people from the intellectual world (including teachers, social workers, government employees), and the workers. But the left, as you say, lost the workers (the ordinary people) along the way. The problem here is that the coalition of intellectuals + workers became harder to keep together because the capitalist message of "everyone can make it and be super rich if you work hard enough" is very compelling, and makes many people vote against their obvious interest in order to get the promise that they'll have a shot at getting super rich. It's a lie, just there to lure them in, but it's very efficient. So the left has to walk a thin line, and fell off that line in almost every country.

 

[innonimatu]

What made the left win was the alliance of some highly educated "theorists", with many people from the intellectual world (including teachers, social workers, government employees), and the workers. But the left, as you say, lost the workers (the ordinary people) along the way. The problem here is that the coalition of intellectuals + workers became harder to keep together because the capitalist message of "everyone can make it and be super rich if you work hard enough" is very compelling, and makes many people vote against their obvious interest in order to get the promise that they'll have a shot at getting super rich. It's a lie, just there to lure them in, but it's very efficient. So the left has to walk a thin line, and fell off that line in almost every country.

Those parties did not "lost" the workers, they deliberately evicted them because the people who ran those parties did not want to share power. Because second and third generations "inherited" positions and grew up wealthier, no longer educated as workers but rather as "professionals". That a the danger affecting all institutions as they get older.
The few real remaining leftist parties have actual workers there, not just intellectuals and professionals. And yes the trade unions were important for that because the people on those do usually start as "lowly" workers. Some eventually betray them, but at least they experienced that life. "Professionals" did not, and lack both empathy and understanding of the issues.

 

[uppi]

But the left, as you say, lost the workers (the ordinary people) along the way.

I don't think that this happened all that much, but I think there aren't that many workers (in the classical sense) anymore. The typical social democratic voter was a unionized worker in industry (forgive me for stereotyping here to make the point). Over the years, the social democratic parties and the unions successfully fought for decent wages, good working conditions and job security for these people. This led to an arrangement with the capitalists, where the social democrats would support the system, because their voters profited from this very system. And for those that still have those jobs, this is still true. If you are an unionized worker who is virtually unable to be fired, whose main concern is the upcoming retirement, voting social democrat is still the way to go. They don't want the system to go down, because the system guarantees their well-being.

The problem for the social democrats is, that there are less and less people in these jobs. Those who got laid off (sometimes with help form the social democrats in order to protect the other workers) are left out of the system and have little to gain from supporting the social democratic bubble. Younger people are not getting these classical worker jobs, because either they get jobs without strong union presence, where they have to fight for themselves anyway or they fail to get a stable job at all and have to go from underpaid temporary contract to underpaid temporary contract -- often because companies are hesitant to give regular contracts because of all the protections that come with that.

This ties well with this statement:

No vision or imagination for the youth, no simplistic message for the masses.

Over the years, the social democrats have become too "conservative" -- they're fighting to keep the structures of the past. Where they have given that up, they haven't really developed a vision of their own, but have adopted neo-liberal thought. That is not going to be very appealing to anyone except for those that are still within the structures the social democrats managed to protect.


But the general problems of social democrats aside: The SPD went from over 30% in polls one year ago to about half of that. That cannot be explained with demographics or the general problems of social democracy in Europe. Most of the very recent loss of support is directly tied to the leadership (or lack thereof).

 

[innonimatu]

How is the "young precariat" of now not a reenactment of the typical worker of old? Merely because they have more formal education?

I keep been surprised at how small changes have been regarding the problems, anxieties and desires of the "lower class" when I have looked at biographies, archives and especially at personal correspondence and stories told first hand about life a few decades ago. My research on this was about Lisbon, but I'm guessing I could find similar recurrences in any large city with a long history. Basically I'm seeing now that young people victims of a "labour market" rules designed to deny job security and depress wages and settling back into patterns suffered by their grandfathers: living in rented rooms even beyond the age when people build family and marry, or would build family and marry if they felt secure (the birth rate plunged, but even back in the 50s/60s under similar conditions it was lower in the city than the countryside, even before widespread contraceptives). I've also noticed that the workers of old actually sought information and culture, valued it, quite a lot, and despite often possessing little formal education earned throughout life what trades they could get into (apprenticeships, etc), associated to learn more, paid for night courses, etc. They educated themselves beyond what the "upper classes" believed, those just wanted to keep looking down on them. Even that is not really different now, it's just that the supposedly "overeducated" now are looked down upon for having education in some field that is not supposedly in "marked demand": again, they are considered stupid and victims only of themselves...

On the one hand this gives me hope: society has been in the same kind of hole before, and climbed out. People fight, things don't remain bad forever. But on the other hand... we should not be having to do it all over again. And here at least it was the treason by the leaderships of the political parties that have been in power that has produced this reenactment of past difficulties - past exploitation - upon the newer generation. Laws are not neutral, legislative actions and executive decisions produced this current environment, and enriched those leaders in the process. The owners of several influential businesses that provide "temporary workers" siting parliament as "socialists" and draft labour laws. Former ministers take the revolving door to corporate boards after having favored those corporations with lax regulations or "public-private partnerships." The corruption is everywhere to see. The surprising thing is that the remaining support for these parties are taking so long to collapse. It's not just in science that change comes one funeral at a time, it seems.... The unsurprising thing is that the new generation of "precariat" will absolutely not vote for them.

Germany may be feeling less of this change: those more mistreated are immigrants or their descendants, probably. They are always the first victims (also tools and accomplices to a certain degree, to be honest). But it is spreading, and I'm sure it's also being felt throughout Europe. There are political consequences, of course there are.

Going back more on-topic, is the rank and file of the SPD going to vote against the deal? That would be a signal hard to ignore...

 

[uppi]

How is the "young precariat" of now not a reenactment of the typical worker of old? Merely because they have more formal education?

I don't think its the people that are much different, but rather the situations that these people face. Many would happily take a job like those which the workers of old have secured for themselves, but they likely won't have that opportunity, because such a job will not be offered anymore.

Going back more on-topic, is the rand and file of the SPD going to vote against the deal? That would be a signal hard to ignore...

I don't think anybody knows that. My feeling is that the leaders are going to convince the majority party members to vote for the deal, but only barely. But a narrow defeat wouldn't surprise me either.

 

[Lexicus]

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/01/historic-experiment-left-wing-government-in-portugal/
https://progressivepost.eu/portugals-left-wing-coalition-government-delivering-stability-growth/

IDK what they're worth but their titles seemed appropriate. But Inno probably has more to say on that as well.

(I think you must have missed my edit in the previous post)

Edit : Politico from last year, in the context of the french presidential election :
https://www.politico.eu/article/ant...ean-left-wants-piece-of-portugal-contraption/

I haven't forgotten about these, still intend to read them when I've got time.

 

[Lexicus]

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/01/historic-experiment-left-wing-government-in-portugal/
https://progressivepost.eu/portugals-left-wing-coalition-government-delivering-stability-growth/

IDK what they're worth but their titles seemed appropriate. But Inno probably has more to say on that as well.

(I think you must have missed my edit in the previous post)

Edit : Politico from last year, in the context of the french presidential election :
https://www.politico.eu/article/ant...ean-left-wants-piece-of-portugal-contraption/

Was finally able to read these and am putting my responses here. The first blog article seems to confirm most of my thoughts here - they mention several times that the government has not addressed some of the major issues including the Lisbon Treaty. That seems to support my view that the architecture of the EU itself does or at least can impede the pursuit of left-wing policy goals.

The second one from Progressive Post looks like a press release. I would like more details on how the progressive policies are compatible with the international obligations.

The final piece from Politico is fairly interesting, but it doesn't get much into the nitty-gritty of policy. I am most curious as to how the left coalition has been able to "roll back" austerity even as they have met the budget deficit requirements - 2.1% of GDP is a pretty thin slice. Politico suggestsed tourism revenue as one possible reason for this but I think there must be others - one of the pieces mentioned taxes on higher incomes, which seems promising.

Anyway, thanks for the links, I think I shall have to try to do more research on this question. I also wonder whether any MMT economists have written about Portugal recently. I will try to find out.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yes the problem is the lack of good precise sources in English (or in French, I didn't find any either). But everyone seems to agree that they're left wing, united and successful. I'm surprised Inno hasn't entered the discussion to enlighten us.

 

[Lexicus]

Wait goddamnit I meant to put that post in the future of EU thread.

Well too late to move them now...

 

[innonimatu]

Was finally able to read these and am putting my responses here. The first blog article seems to confirm most of my thoughts here - they mention several times that the government has not addressed some of the major issues including the Lisbon Treaty. That seems to support my view that the architecture of the EU itself does or at least can impede the pursuit of left-wing policy goals.

The second one from Progressive Post looks like a press release. I would like more details on how the progressive policies are compatible with the international obligations.

The EU restrictions on public investment remain, but Portugal was always treated more "leniently" than Greece. I believe because the narrative that Greece was a "bad apple", not a product of a system, would be undermined by extending it to other countries. The pressures exist but this current portuguese government has been able to break with the previous moves to undermine labour laws. They have, however, not undone the damage there caused by the previous government. For the time being Brussels is content with letting thins stay as they are. The budget goals have been met due to a recovery from the recession: the combined effect of discontinuing the budget cuts, lower interest rates due to the ECB's interventions, demand from export markets, and increased tourism. It's a recovery entirely dependent on these external factors, entirely vulnerable to any deterioration of these. Investment levels remain low and concentrated on low-wage, low technology sectors (tourism, catering and some services).

One big problem this government has set and will blow on its hands (I don't see it falling soon) in a few years is immigration policy. Many young portuguese have emigrated in the last few years. Fewer now that people are tentatively optimistic. But the employment created by tourism is using cheaper immigrants, many of whom barely know english and no portuguese. Cafés and restaurants in Lisbon that I know (meaning: I'm seeing this all around) have replaced their local workers with immigrants. The local residents notice and have been mumbling, so does the police and there have been high-profile resignations with warnings that a powered keg is being set up and they won't be saddled with the responsibility for the consequences of the current government policies. You won't see much if you look in the local media but I can see the underground social current forming against immigrants: personally I have witnessed several instances of portuguese low-wage workers (cooks, street sweepers, saleswomen) talking among themselves and complaining against news pieces on TV on delivery of homes to refugees while themselves live worse, last week I saw one policemen buying groceries in a supermarket for a homeless women who was begging from him - and commenting with the cashier "they are giving houses to foreigners and letting this woman living on the street, it's a shame...". It's nothing organized, which makes it worse: its organic. These are not bad people but they feel they are being treated unfairly.

The government has relaxed immigration laws to the point where residence/work authorizations are granted to anyone who comes and can show a work contract, and an "industry" of importing pakistani and indian workers into the EU developed around these new rules: they hold a job in a small restaurant or shop for some 3 months, receive their authorization and an open path to ask for portuguese nationality, and immediately move on to some other EU country. The PS poses as friendly to immigrants and scores points with the smaller "radical left" BE party. While counting on never having to deal with social fallout because those immigrants will all leave. I don't think this is going to keep working for much longer. For one example, I read somewhere that in Northern Ireland most workers in the butchery industry are now East Timorese who entered the EU on portuguese visas or passports. The left is producing the rope that may be used to hang it later... come a new crisis, or a breakup of the Schengen area, and a competent right-wing politician, and don't be surprised if you hear about some new anti-immigration party in Portugal and a sudden fall in popularity for PS and BE.

The final piece from Politico is fairly interesting, but it doesn't get much into the nitty-gritty of policy. I am most curious as to how the left coalition has been able to "roll back" austerity even as they have met the budget deficit requirements - 2.1% of GDP is a pretty thin slice. Politico suggestsed tourism revenue as one possible reason for this but I think there must be others - one of the pieces mentioned taxes on higher incomes, which seems promising.

The left coalition reintroduced three days of holidays that had been eliminated by the previous government, revoked some cuts in wages and this year has finally come around to unfreeze pay rises in the public sector. This was supported by the recovery I mentioned above.
But austerity and bad practices remain: new hospitals are being built in "public-private partnerships", which means unnecessary appropriation of public funds by private economic groups. Ending that would have been the true test of whether the government was a left-wing one. It isn't. Still, it'll retain the acquiescence of the two small left-wing parties (with the occasional vote against in some policies) because the alternative has been shown to be worse. The government is exclusively by the PS, the two small parties have agreed to support it on a case by case basis, they are not part of the government. But neither can they afford to vote against it on anything important (budgets) without starting a crisis they do not wish.

Still, one think I do take out of this experience: minority governments with "unofficial" parliament support can work, and last. Germans have a stage fixation with having majority governments. You won't become Italy just from trying a minority one.
If I had to bet on a guess for Germany now, I'd bet on failed coalition attempt and new elections soon. And no majority again...

 

[luiz]

What made the left win was the alliance of some highly educated "theorists", with many people from the intellectual world (including teachers, social workers, government employees), and the workers. But the left, as you say, lost the workers (the ordinary people) along the way. The problem here is that the coalition of intellectuals + workers became harder to keep together because the capitalist message of "everyone can make it and be super rich if you work hard enough" is very compelling, and makes many people vote against their obvious interest in order to get the promise that they'll have a shot at getting super rich. It's a lie, just there to lure them in, but it's very efficient. So the left has to walk a thin line, and fell off that line in almost every country.

You don't think it's a bit more complex than "the right has a compelling lie"?

You're French. Here the vast majority of the people are against economic liberalism, but they still don't vote for the left. Why? You think people are that stupid, to vote against their interests consistently for the last decades?

Here is a hint: maybe the fact that the Left treats workers as imbeciles who require simplistic populist messages and the leadership of intellectuals or they will vote against their interests is part of the problem. Maybe you ought to consider that many platforms of the modern left are completely hostile to workers. Let me name some : laxism towards crimimals and anti-social behavior, support for mass immigration and multiculturalism, hostility to cars and drivers. Parisian bobos support all of that, steel workers from the Nord don't. And not because they're dumb and don't know what's good for them.

 

[AdrienIer]

You don't think it's a bit more complex than "the right has a compelling lie"?

Frankly, no. The countries that are the most to the right economically are the ones where the poor have the worst conditions.

You're French. Here the vast majority of the people are against economic liberalism, but they still don't vote for the left. Why? You think people are that stupid, to vote against their interests consistently for the last decades?

Not stupid no. Lured by the fake promises of the right. BTW I don't think economic liberalism is bad for everyone. Which explains why the left doesn't do better. It's just absolutely awful for the poorest parts of the population. Do you realize that part of the reason why Marine Le Pen did so well with workers is that she included some leftist rhetoric in her message ? And covered her obvious right wing economic ideas with left wing "protect the workers" noises. The workers want those policies and she knew she'd have more votes if she included them.

Here is a hint: maybe the fact that the Left treats workers as imbeciles who require simplistic populist messages and the leadership of intellectuals or they will vote against their interests is part of the problem. Maybe you ought to consider that many platforms of the modern left are completely hostile to workers. Let me name some : laxism towards criminals and anti-social behavior, support for mass immigration and multiculturalism, hostility to cars and drivers. Parisian bobos support all of that, steel workers from the Nord don't. And not because they're dumb and don't know what's good for them.

The left treats the workers like people worthy of respect and good working conditions. It always has. And it often delivered.

The laxism thing is a lie, and I'm sorry you buy into it.

The car thing is not a parisian thing. It's a polluted city thing. See Grenoble. It's true that the left has decided to do something about the pollution problem that is killing thousands of people every year, and it's not going well with some people. I hope one day they'll realize that thousands of lives vs a small part of your comfort is a good trade.

 

[luiz]

Frankly, no. The countries that are the most to the right economically are the ones where the poor have the worst conditions.

Well that's clearly not true. I don't think the poor of Singapore or Japan (very right-wing by any standard) are doing worse than the poor of Venezuela (or most European countries for that matter). But that was not my point.

My point is that you insist in believing in that workers vote against the left because they're easily manipulated by a simple lie, which is just not the case. And despite essentially accusing them of idiocy (you see through a lie that they don't! Poor peasants clearly need some college educated intellos to lead them or they'll keep voting wrong) you think you respect them. More below.

Not stupid no. Lured by the fake promises of the right. BTW I don't think economic liberalism is bad for everyone. Which explains why the left doesn't do better. It's just absolutely awful for the poorest parts of the population. Do you realize that part of the reason why Marine Le Pen did so well with workers is that she included some leftist rhetoric in her message ? And covered her obvious right wing economic ideas with left wing "protect the workers" noises. The workers want those policies and she knew she'd have more votes if she included them.

Yes, clearly part of the success of the FN is due to a "populist" economic agenda, which is not that different from the Greens or France Insoumise in many aspects. But that's just part of it. If the FN was getting all their votes just due to economic policy, then its voters would vote for the Greens or FI instead. No, the success of the FN is that it is aware of the obvious fact that workers don't care just about economic policy. They care as much (if not more) about other stuff - and in that other stuff, they see the left-wing parties as openly and violently opposed to their interests. This is not some new insight, BTW.

The left treats the workers like people worthy of respect and good working conditions. It always has. And it often delivered.

No, the left refuses to hear the workers when the latter talk about subjects the left finds troubling, such as immigration or cars. Then the left accuses the workers of being manipulated by the right, of falling for idiotic lies, and voting against their interests like rebellious teenagers. Oh, and also of being racist and meanies.The attitude of the left is that the workers have failed the Great Leftist Cause, not the other way around. And to add insult to injury, the same college-educated, well-off leftists that are ultimately responsible for the platforms of traditional left-wing parties don't live up to their own ideology. They're all for mass immigration and diversity, but of course not for their own kids. "Diverse" schools for kids of workers who can't pay private, non-diverse Catholic schools for the well-off leftists.

The laxism thing is a lie, and I'm sorry you buy into it.

So you're saying that tougher punishment for criminals is a banner of the left?
France is so laxist it doesn't even deport foreigners convicted of serious offenses such as rape because that would be "double punishment". Who speaks out against "double punishment"? The FN? Fillon? No, the left.
And what about anti-social behavior? Who is against a heavier hand against these? The left.

Here's the thing: workers like living in safe, quiet and clean streets too. Defending anti-social elements is not defending workers, it is actually infuriating workers and disrespecting them - because of course they bear the blunt of the insecurity, dirtiness, and community breakdown that are caused by anti-social elements.

The car thing is not a parisian thing. It's a polluted city thing. See Grenoble. It's true that the left has decided to do something about the pollution problem that is killing thousands of people every year, and it's not going well with some people. I hope one day they'll realize that thousands of lives vs a small part of your comfort is a good trade.

The car thing is a rich urbanite thing, with rich Parisians being the top offenders. Here's the thing: outside of Paris' "Little Crown", and the core urban centers of other big cities, public transportation is just not sufficient in France (or any other non-tiny country). Millions of people need cars, it's not some bourgeois luxury, it's a working man's necessity. In fact the people who really don't need cars are the bourgeois who live close to the metro situations.

The arrogance and heavy handedness that Hidalgo and her ilk pursue their anti-car policies will of course alienate working voters. The closing of yet another Seine bank for cars was a typical example. Done without offering any alternative. No more parking places outside of Paris, no extra transport link, just a ban. And screw those suburbans who will face even more traffic and be even more miserable. And BTW, there was not even a clear environmental case for it: France's pollution measuring agency found a decrease of pollution in the immediate region affected by the car ban, and a corresponding increase in the East of Paris where traffic got worse. Who could say?!

 

[AdrienIer]

they see the left-wing parties as openly and violently opposed to their interests.

Such violence. Much wow.

No, the left refuses to hear the workers when the latter talk about subjects the left finds troubling, such as immigration or cars. Then the left accuses the workers of being manipulated by the right, of falling for idiotic lies, and voting against their interests like rebellious teenagers. Oh, and also of being racist and meanies.The attitude of the left is that the workers have failed the Great Leftist Cause, not the other way around. And to add insult to injury, the same college-educated, well-off leftists that are ultimately responsible for the platforms of traditional left-wing parties don't live up to their own ideology. They're all for mass immigration and diversity, but of course not for their own kids. "Diverse" schools for kids of workers who can't pay private, non-diverse Catholic schools for the well-off leftists.

WTF ? Left wingers are on average less religious, and therefore go to catholic schools far less than right wingers. Also the right wingers don't need to go to a private school to be in a white-only environment, they build those environment themselves in order to have white-only public schools. You're projecting on the left pretty hard here, using the actions of a few left wingers that act like most right wingers to point fingers.

So you're saying that tougher punishment for criminals is a banner of the left?
France is so laxist it doesn't even deport foreigners convicted of serious offenses such as rape because that would be "double punishment". Who speaks out against "double punishment"? The FN? Fillon? No, the left.
And what about anti-social behavior? Who is against a heavier hand against these? The left.

Here's the thing: workers like living in safe, quiet and clean streets too. Defending anti-social elements is not defending workers, it is actually infuriating workers and disrespecting them - because of course they bear the blunt of the insecurity, dirtiness, and community breakdown that are caused by anti-social elements.

The right's solution to every misdemeanor is to put the culprit in jail. That's probably the most inefficient way to go about it. The countries with the least recidivism are doing the opposite.

The car thing is a rich urbanite thing, with rich Parisians being the top offenders. Here's the thing: outside of Paris' "Little Crown", and the core urban centers of other big cities, public transportation is just not sufficient in France (or any other non-tiny country). Millions of people need cars, it's not some bourgeois luxury, it's a working man's necessity. In fact the people who really don't need cars are the bourgeois who live close to the metro situations.

The arrogance and heavy handedness that Hidalgo and her ilk pursue their anti-car policies will of course alienate working voters. The closing of yet another Seine bank for cars was a typical example. Done without offering any alternative. No more parking places outside of Paris, no extra transport link, just a ban. And screw those suburbans who will face even more traffic and be even more miserable. And BTW, there was not even a clear environmental case for it: France's pollution measuring agency found a decrease of pollution in the immediate region affected by the car ban, and a corresponding increase in the East of Paris where traffic got worse. Who could say?!

You've avoided addressing the health issue I mentioned. As long as so many people refuse to recognize the problem, there will be a heated debate on the subject of cars. And people will die.
You mention "no more parking places outside of Paris". I agree. But that has more to do with the region, which would rather shoot themselves in the foot than work with Hidalgo on this.

I remember the first time there was alternate car usage in Paris. People with odd numbered plates were not allowed to use their cars for a day because of the pollution. On the news they followed a guy who couldn't use his car. He looked online and found out that he could take a bus a few meters from his house for 20mn to go to work. It's just that he never bothered to ask himself if taking his car every day was the most efficient way. It doesn't mean that it's true of everyone that uses their car in Paris. But there's room for progress there.
There are also many people who decide to live away from public transportation. That's their choice, but if that choice kills people they can't be expected to do it without cost.

 

[innonimatu]

There are also many people who decide to live away from public transportation. That's their choice, but if that choice kills people they can't be expected to do it without cost.

And if the poor die of hunger for lack of bread, it is their choice not wanting to eat brioche. Right?

Luiz has a point here. Lack of security and lack of public transportation disproportionately affects the "working class", just as improvements tend to be concentrated in urban centers that are getting too expensive for this working class, or for the children of this working class, to live in. They feel the pain and know they are being neglected. The "institutional left" (which I do not consider left anyway, the PSF has long ago put socialism away, under Mitterrand) has dug the hole they are in. And a sizeable portion of the non-institutional left keeps digging...

 

[AdrienIer]

Luiz has a point here. Lack of security and lack of public transportation disproportionately affects the "working class", just as improvements tend to be concentrated in urban centers that are getting too expensive for this working class, or for the children of this working class, to live in. They feel the pain and know they are being neglected. The "institutional left" (which I do not consider left anyway, the PSF has long ago put socialism away, under Mitterrand) has dug the hole they are in. And a sizeable portion of the non-institutional left keeps digging...

Paris has one of the, if not the best transportation network in the world, so there isn't a lack of public transportation. When you buy a piece of land in the region and you have to take a half hour bus to get to the nearest train station it means that you chose to live away from public transportation. There is enough land closer to the stations.

 

[luiz]

WTF ? Left wingers are on average less religious, and therefore go to catholic schools far less than right wingers. Also the right wingers don't need to go to a private school to be in a white-only environment, they build those environment themselves in order to have white-only public schools. You're projecting on the left pretty hard here, using the actions of a few left wingers that act like most right wingers to point fingers.

Well of course poor left-wingers will send their kids to public schools, just like poor right-wingers. The issue I was trying to highlight (or rather, Libération, which is a solidly left-wing newspaper) is that well-off left-wingers are sending their kids to "non-diverse" private schools, despite preaching diversity for everyone else. And guess what, it's the rich leftists who are making the policies of the left-wing parties, not the poor ones. There is a reason why leftist elites see no problem with insecurity, persecution of cars or mass migration. They live in safe, clean neighborhoods just besides the metro! And their kids don't have to live with the "diversity" they claim to love so much.

The right's solution to every misdemeanor is to put the culprit in jail. That's probably the most inefficient way to go about it. The countries with the least recidivism are doing the opposite.

I don't know, draconian Singapore is probably the safest place on Earth. Even a poor and unequal country like China manages to be pretty safe with a tough approach to crime (contrast to slightly richer but laxer countries such as Mexico or Brazil).
Certainly violent crime is low in France (though not nearly as low as in Japan or Singapore), but petty crime is rampant. Why? Because it pays. Petty criminals don't risk much here.

You've avoided addressing the health issue I mentioned. As long as so many people refuse to recognize the problem, there will be a heated debate on the subject of cars. And people will die.
You mention "no more parking places outside of Paris". I agree. But that has more to do with the region, which would rather shoot themselves in the foot than work with Hidalgo on this.

I remember the first time there was alternate car usage in Paris. People with odd numbered plates were not allowed to use their cars for a day because of the pollution. On the news they followed a guy who couldn't use his car. He looked online and found out that he could take a bus a few meters from his house for 20mn to go to work. It's just that he never bothered to ask himself if taking his car every day was the most efficient way. It doesn't mean that it's true of everyone that uses their car in Paris. But there's room for progress there.
There are also many people who decide to live away from public transportation. That's their choice, but if that choice kills people they can't be expected to do it without cost.

No, I did address it. I said that there was not even a good health / environmental case for Hidalgo's latest more against drivers. Pollution got better in the regions near the car ban but worse in others due to increased traffic.

Your anecdotes are just anecdotes. As I said, outside of the Petite Couronne public transportation is not that great in the Paris area. In fact, in many places it outright sucks. People need their cars. And guess what, the people who live far away from public transportation don't do so because they're meanies who hate the Earth, or imbeciles who don't understand that pollution is bad for health, they do so because they can't afford to be closer.

Paris has one of the, if not the best transportation network in the world, so there isn't a lack of public transportation. When you buy a piece of land in the region and you have to take a half hour bus to get to the nearest train station it means that you chose to live away from public transportation. There is enough land closer to the stations.

Yes, Paris has awesome public transportation. Inside the Périphérique. About 2 million people live in Paris intra-muros, compared to a metropolitan area of 10-12 million depending on how you count. It's one of the most expensive places to live on Earth. For these privileged 2 million, cars are indeed a non-essential luxury (well, if you exclude the elderly for whom the metro stairs might be brutal, people with mobility impairments, people with multiple small kids, etc etc). But for the other 8-10 million "Parisians", cars are often a necessity. Asking them "why don't they just move closer to the metro?" is exactly like asking someone demanding better public education "why don't you just send your kid to a private school?" or someone asking for better public healthcare "why don't you do like every responsible person and buy a private insurance plan?"

This urban, insular left is not getting the votes of workers because it doesn't even understand workers. In fact they secretly despise them (often not that secretly either).

 

[AdrienIer]

First : this'll be the last post I'll make on this topic in this thread. We've hijacked it long enough.

Well of course poor left-wingers will send their kids to public schools, just like poor right-wingers. The issue I was trying to highlight (or rather, Libération, which is a solidly left-wing newspaper) is that well-off left-wingers are sending their kids to "non-diverse" private schools, despite preaching diversity for everyone else. And guess what, it's the rich leftists who are making the policies of the left-wing parties, not the poor ones. There is a reason why leftist elites see no problem with insecurity, persecution of cars or mass migration. They live in safe, clean neighborhoods just besides the metro! And their kids don't have to live with the "diversity" they claim to love so much.

I don't know many (any ?) elite leftist. Maybe they're as awful as you describe them (so about half as awful as the right wing elites ) but they don't represent "the left". I'm often surprised at your hatred for "the left", perhaps it's because you just hate a subset of the leftist elites ? Or maybe just an image that you've created of what a leftist is.

I don't know, draconian Singapore is probably the safest place on Earth. Even a poor and unequal country like China manages to be pretty safe with a tough approach to crime (contrast to slightly richer but laxer countries such as Mexico or Brazil).
Certainly violent crime is low in France (though not nearly as low as in Japan or Singapore), but petty crime is rampant. Why? Because it pays. Petty criminals don't risk much here.

On the other hand sending petty criminals to jail has been the best way to make them meet the big criminals and become far worse when they come out. If you, or anyone on the right has a plan that addresses this problem I'd like to hear it. In the end it's possible that a solution could be attained, but the debate needs to be less hysterical.

No, I did address it. I said that there was not even a good health / environmental case for Hidalgo's latest more against drivers. Pollution got better in the regions near the car ban but worse in others due to increased traffic.

Your anecdotes are just anecdotes. As I said, outside of the Petite Couronne public transportation is not that great in the Paris area. In fact, in many places it outright sucks. People need their cars. And guess what, the people who live far away from public transportation don't do so because they're meanies who hate the Earth, or imbeciles who don't understand that pollution is bad for health, they do so because they can't afford to be closer.


Yes, Paris has awesome public transportation. Inside the Périphérique. About 2 million people live in Paris intra-muros, compared to a metropolitan area of 10-12 million depending on how you count. It's one of the most expensive places to live on Earth. For these privileged 2 million, cars are indeed a non-essential luxury (well, if you exclude the elderly for whom the metro stairs might be brutal, people with mobility impairments, people with multiple small kids, etc etc). But for the other 8-10 million "Parisians", cars are often a necessity. Asking them "why don't they just move closer to the metro?" is exactly like asking someone demanding better public education "why don't you just send your kid to a private school?" or someone asking for better public healthcare "why don't you do like every responsible person and buy a private insurance plan?"

The latest decisions have had mixed results, but the right had the same kneejerk reaction with the previous city decisions on cars despite being in the wrong and proposing no solution whatsoever. In the end there needs to be less cars in Paris, period. How to make that happen is an interesting debate, but only one side is willing to have it.

Is it Paris city or the petite couronne you're talking about ? The petite couronne is much larger than 2m, the Grand Paris is 7m and even if you discount the places which have less public transportation availability it still probably leaves at least 5m people with good to excellent transportation.
In the end how many poor people have to take their car to go to Paris every day ? How many non poor people ? Looking at the population of the buses metros rer and trains I know where the poor people are, and they're not in their car.
Poor people may not always have the opportunity live near a metro but they're usually not far from a rer or a train. The TVM is full every day to make people get to those lines. The immense majority of poor people take the public transportation, and pro-car policies mostly favor the rich.

This urban, insular left is not getting the votes of workers because it doesn't even understand workers. In fact they secretly despise them (often not that secretly either).

Yes, the left created paid leave, the 40h->39h->35h work week, social security and worker protection laws because it despises workers. And the right wants to give their boss the ability to fire them at will because they love the workers.

 

[dutchfire]

One big problem this government has set and will blow on its hands (I don't see it falling soon) in a few years is immigration policy. Many young portuguese have emigrated in the last few years. Fewer now that people are tentatively optimistic. But the employment created by tourism is using cheaper immigrants, many of whom barely know english and no portuguese. Cafés and restaurants in Lisbon that I know (meaning: I'm seeing this all around) have replaced their local workers with immigrants.

Funny thing is that so many restaurants and bars in Amsterdam now have Portuguese, Spanish and Italian staff...