Socialists set to gain a majority in French parliamentary elections - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18388273[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]President Francois Hollande's Socialists and their allies are set for a majority following the first round of voting in French parliamentary elections, final results show.[/B] Left-wing and green parties won a total of around 46% of the vote compared to 34% for the centre-right UMP party, interior ministry figures showed. The outcome of the polls is expected to determine the extent and pace of reform under the newly-elected French leader. Run-offs are to be held next week. The turnout nationwide was a modest 57%. France's 46 million eligible voters have been picking representatives for 577 seats in the National Assembly. TNS Sofres, Ipos and OpinonWay pollsters agreed that the Socialists and their Green allies might win as few as 283 seats or potentially as many as 347. However, potential allies in the anti-capitalist Left Front would take 13-20 seats and ensure a majority. The communist-backed Left Front, led by Jean-Luc Melenchon, won 6.9% of the vote. The election also saw a surge in support for Marine Le Pen's far right National Front, which won almost 14% of votes - way beyond the 4% it achieved in the last parliamentary election of 2007. However, under France's first-past-the-post system, that would give the party only three parliamentary seats at best and possibly none at all. The BBC's Christian Fraser, in Paris, cautions that it is hard to predict accurately what the final tallies will be before next week's decisive round of voting. In many constituencies there will be a three way run-off. But with the Senate already under the control of the Socialists, it appears that Mr Hollande will also have a majority in the lower house - even if only with the support of allies - which would give him unprecedented power to force through his reform programme. Mr Hollande's government is due to present a revised budget plan to parliament next month. The result of the parliamentary election will determine the pace of reform and how radical it becomes, our correspondent says. "It's a good result tonight... but we have to remain mobilised for the second round," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, an influential Socialist, was quoted by news agency AP as saying. It was a big night for Ms Le Pen on a personal level, our correspondent says. The firebrand leader of the hard left Jean Luc Melenchon had challenged Madame Le Pen for the seat in the nothern town of Henin Beaumont. In the end he finished third and last night withdrew from the second round race. "It is normal to be disappointed but we must not be defeated," Mr Melenchon said as he bowed out. The far right has not held any seats in parliament since the 1980s. The electoral system may yet deny them a seat - but, adds our correspondent, the National Front is now by some margin the third biggest party in French politics.[/quote]

awesome

Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.

[QUOTE=draugur;36279846]Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.[/QUOTE] Yeah god bless the USA

[QUOTE=draugur;36279846]Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.[/QUOTE] how are they extremists?

I doubt these guys are genuinely socialist

[QUOTE=smurfy;36279986]Yeah god bless the USA[/QUOTE] first the socialists take america and now they're taking europe? god damn obama

[QUOTE=draugur;36279846]Wellp, France is screwed. Extremists are never good news.[/QUOTE] "Today, a terrorist plot by French liberal extremists was foiled when scornful artistic critique was overheard. A cache of 100 berets and baguette's filled with art house propaganda were seized."

[QUOTE=Valdor;36280059]first the socialists take america and now they're taking europe? god damn obama[/QUOTE] When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.

[QUOTE=draugur;36280134]When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.[/QUOTE] didnt realize you're also smurfy

[QUOTE=draugur;36280134]When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but you didn't explain why you think they're extremists.

[QUOTE=draugur;36280134]When did I ever say anything like that? Extremists are never good, doesn't matter what it's about.[/QUOTE] Granted - how are these guys extremists?

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;36280066]"Today, a terrorist plot by French liberal extremists was foiled when scornful artistic critique was overheard. A cache of 100 berets and baguette's filled with art house propaganda were seized."[/QUOTE] "Luckily, said terrorists surrendered before any engagement began"

Looks like you people don't understand what socialism stands for, it's all commys for you brain dead -snip-. I rather live in a country where basic needs are nationalized rather than sold to me by money making companies that care about the profit first.

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280342]Looks like you people don't understand what socialism stands for, it's all commys for you brain dead americans. I rather live in a country where basic needs are nationalized rather than sold to me by money making companies that care about the profit first.[/QUOTE] As I said earlier, these guys are definitely not socialist socialist

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280342]Looks like you people don't understand what socialism stands for, it's all commys for you brain dead americans. I rather live in a country where basic needs are nationalized rather than sold to me by money making companies that care about the profit first.[/QUOTE] Wow, sweeping generalizing insult much? Hate to break it to you, but every system, even your "glorious" socialism is horribly flawed and corrupt, so don't go talking to everyone from one country like they're all complete retards, they realize that any extreme, even the extreme-left, is a bad thing and will lead to oppression, corruption, and an overall shitty country, unlike you who seems to be blinded by a title you think can do no wrong.

You're calling Canada, Sweden and Finland overall shitty countrys for using this system?

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280447]You're calling Canada, Sweden and Finland overall shitty countrys for using this system?[/QUOTE] If you think Canada's been socialist since the '90s then you know nothing of the recent political history of the country. Having a few attributes from a system doesn't make it a part of that system. Canada has a mixed economy, and in my opinion it's not mixed enough. Jean Chretien was just as much a friend of big business as Harper, he was just a friend of some different kinds of business, and him selling Petro Canada probably made him Big Oil's biggest friend because there's no ability for the government to fix gas prices anymore. The only things "socialist" about Canada are healthcare, welfare, elementary education, and gun control, and even that's fairly moderate in comparison to some places. I'm not calling moderate socialist policies terrible, I'm calling extremist socialism, like Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea terrible. Wealth distribution doesn't work like you seem to think it would, and state control over many aspects of life isn't necessarily a good thing. I can agree there are merits in a socialist system, there are merits in a capitalist one too, and that's why I advocate a mixed economy. Nations that stray too far from a mixed economy historically end up shitty, no matter what side of the political spectrum you look at.

China and North Korea are not socialist states. They don't follow the economic ideals of socialism at all. It's like saying Congo is a democratic republic. It may be in the name but we all know it's a load of arse. Also Stalinism was fucking terrible no matter how you looked at it.

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280342] you brain dead americans. [/QUOTE] Hey guess what, it turns out, calling people "brain dead" isn't going to make them listen to you. Instead, you begin to look more and more like a stuck up cunt, who's head is rammed so far up their ass it seems like what they say is the truth. Goddamn, not only do you have to insult my countrymen but you also have to jump to some bullshit conclusion that the United States and other countries are autocratic plutocracies due to non-socialized healthcare.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36280420] they realize that any extreme, even the extreme-left, is a bad thing and will lead to oppression, corruption, and an overall shitty country[/QUOTE] what the founding fathers were extremist anti-royalists

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36280420]Wow, sweeping generalizing insult much? Hate to break it to you, but every system, even your "glorious" socialism is horribly flawed and corrupt, so don't go talking to everyone from one country like they're all complete retards, they realize that any extreme, even the extreme-left, is a bad thing and will lead to oppression, corruption, and an overall shitty country, unlike you who seems to be blinded by a title you think can do no wrong.[/QUOTE] I like how you answer a sweeping generalising insult with a sweeping generalising insult.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36280810]I like how you answer a sweeping generalising insult with a sweeping generalising insult.[/QUOTE] All he said is that all systems go downhill one way or another. Wanksta called Americans "brain dead". There's a difference.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36280602]I'm calling extremist socialism, like Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea terrible.[/QUOTE] were they terrible because they were extremist socialists? i don't think anyone would say that social ownership of economic production was what made those countries terrible, it was probably the murdering that turned everyone off.

[QUOTE=wanksta11;36280342]Looks like you people don't understand what socialism stands for, it's all commys for you brain dead americans. I rather live in a country where basic needs are nationalized rather than sold to me by money making companies that care about the profit first.[/QUOTE] Socialism stands for reduced freedoms, reduced productivity, reduced choices, reduced progress, and the state controlling your life. There is little incentive in socialism to invest in new and innovative business ventures that drive technological progress (no profit), no accurate signals with which to set prices on goods and services (profit does this job in capitalism), and less variety of goods and services to choose from due to a lack of competition in the market (no profit to compete for). It stands for abolition of private property and outright theft (by the state) of the resources (i.e. money) that people have worked hard to earn, to be redistributed to people who have done nothing to earn it. There is no incentive to work harder and earn more money because it will all just be taken away (stolen by the state). There is however, incentive for individuals to consume more resources while trying to contribute less, effectively leeching off of society. In that regard it's an unsustainable system that will go broke at some point when people's "needs" exceed what is being produced.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36280810]I like how you answer a sweeping generalising insult with a sweeping generalising insult.[/QUOTE] You know, I was going to argue this point, but you're basically right now that I think about it. I suppose now I could try to defend it based on degrees of offensiveness, or that I didn't insult a specific group of people but rather an idea, but that would spur another argument unrealted to the topic.

Socialism in thread title and the thread goes down the shitter 2 posts later. Facepunch never change

[QUOTE=Noble;36280950]Socialism stands for reduced freedoms, reduced productivity, reduced choices, reduced progress, and the state controlling your life. There is little incentive in socialism to invest in new and innovative business ventures that drive technological progress (no profit), no accurate signals with which to set prices on goods and services (profit does this job in capitalism), and less variety of goods and services to choose from due to a lack of competition in the market. It stands for abolition of private property and outright theft (by the state) of the resources (i.e. money) that people have worked hard to earn, to be redistributed to people who have done nothing to earn it. There is no incentive to work harder and earn more money because it will all just be taken away (stolen by the state). There is however, incentive for individuals to consume more resources while trying to contribute less, effectively leeching off of society. In that regard it's an unsustainable system that will go broke at some point when people's "needs" exceed what is being produced.[/QUOTE] jeez who needs ayn rand when you have this dude

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36280650]China and North Korea are not socialist states. They don't follow the economic ideals of socialism at all. It's like saying Congo is a democratic republic. It may be in the name but we all know it's a load of arse. Also Stalinism was fucking terrible no matter how you looked at it.[/QUOTE] Actually, North Korea is as close to a socialist dystopia as possible.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36280602]If you think Canada's been socialist since the '90s then you know nothing of the recent political history of the country. Having a few attributes from a system doesn't make it a part of that system. Canada has a mixed economy, and in my opinion it's not mixed enough. Jean Chretien was just as much a friend of big business as Harper, he was just a friend of some different kinds of business, and him selling Petro Canada probably made him Big Oil's biggest friend because there's no ability for the government to fix gas prices anymore. The only things "socialist" about Canada are healthcare, welfare, elementary education, and gun control, and even that's fairly moderate in comparison to some places. I'm not calling moderate socialist policies terrible, I'm calling extremist socialism, like Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea terrible. Wealth distribution doesn't work like you seem to think it would, and state control over many aspects of life isn't necessarily a good thing. I can agree there are merits in a socialist system, there are merits in a capitalist one too, and that's why I advocate a mixed economy. Nations that stray too far from a mixed economy historically end up shitty, no matter what side of the political spectrum you look at.[/QUOTE] I think I misplaced my anger for people blindly saying something is bad for reasons they don't know themselves. I am aware of the movement to the right starting from the 80s in Canada and couldn't agree more with your point of view. [QUOTE=Noble;36280950]Socialism stands for reduced freedoms, reduced productivity, reduced choices, reduced progress, and the state controlling your life. There is little incentive in socialism to invest in new and innovative business ventures that drive technological progress (no profit), no accurate signals with which to set prices on goods and services (profit does this job in capitalism), and less variety of goods and services to choose from due to a lack of competition in the market (no profit to compete for). It stands for abolition of private property and outright theft (by the state) of the resources (i.e. money) that people have worked hard to earn, to be redistributed to people who have done nothing to earn it. There is no incentive to work harder and earn more money because it will all just be taken away (stolen by the state). There is however, incentive for individuals to consume more resources while trying to contribute less, effectively leeching off of society. In that regard it's an unsustainable system that will go broke at some point when people's "needs" exceed what is being produced.[/QUOTE] Did you take all that from the official republican website?