www.billnelson.com

What I find astonishing is that following our government's overwhelming defeat to a bunch of no-marks in the local elections, George Osborne did not ask himself why they are so unpopular. Instead, what he has indicated is a more exteme approach to dealing with welfare, NHS etc -- including proposed cuts even his own minister doesn't support -- and boasted about having put money back into the pockets of people of middle incomes.

It seems to me that they have their own agenda, regardless of what the country wants, and we are heading further right of centre.

I don't think what's best for the country - according to the country - matters to the right. It always comes down to what their strict ideology demands. They have a vision/obssession as to the country they want and have this unique ability to be able to ignore everything else. Whereas the left seems to worry greatly about the polls and public opinion, the right only dig in further.

Perhaps seeing that it is their only opportunity to achieve their dream of dismantling the welfare state, reducing taxes for those who work the hardest and spend the most to keep the economy healthy, they stick their heads in the sand and push even harder. Like a protester been led away by police but continues to yell towards the cameras. Or like those terribly old fashioned headmasters who still operate as if living in a Dickesian novel, feeling they know what's best regardless.

The irony being that the right attains power during troubled times, always claiming to be the fix for what ails the country, and voters seem oblivious to the fact that it's ultra-coservative ideology which causes the majority to suffer even more in times of need. A scenario which puts those responsible for damage in the position of damage controllers.

Problem being is that the average person knows very little about their own political theories, much less those of others. They know little, if anything, about economics or the psychology of managing social groups or anything else to understand when they are voting against their own personal, social or class interests. And as sad as that is, neither do the politicians they vote for.

Which always takes us back to the idea that whatever then comes down the road, we deserve. And rather pathetically, we never notice until it's too late. In spite of the occaisional bright moments which happen against these odds, I don't see this ever changing. We are what we are in spite of our deeper nature.

There'll always be an England

Mr Magnatism sing along now

Not sure how how such a comparison can be made really. Sarkozy is centre-right and so not as bad as he could be. Downright affable compared to some. But he's hardly in bed with the people. Now Hollande is talking more like a lover of the people:

"The Socialist candidate has promised to raise taxes on big corporations and people earning more than 1m euros a year. He wants to raise the minimum wage, hire 60,000 more teachers and lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 for some workers."

Sounds perfect. Now let's see it.

I spent most of my life blissfully ignorant of all things political, and I haven't figured out very much past some basics , but I have seen some obvious things since the assignment of Dubya to the throne (and listening to Mrs. D. who read obsessively for several years and reported to me about it all whether I liked it or not ) , and I haven't seen or figured out anythjing that causes me to disagree with any of what you just said above.

We are, collectively, what we manifest in the world as the species, despite whatever deeper nature we as individuals posess, be it spiritual ,religious, intellectual , philosophical, artistic , real or imagined , and what we've managed to manifest so far is a mix of genius and idiocy, love and cruelty , vision and blindness, good and bad and a lot of ugly . Our highest is always tempered by our lowest , and while our computing power doubles every year and a half, our ability to exist as a functional , co-operative group seems as much of a fantasy as a moon rocket would have seemed to a caveman . But hey , if you say the French might be turning the corner , I might just hold out some hope for the rest of us .

DS

Oui! Bonne chance!

Fredrik Erixon, head of the European Centre for International Political Economy in Brussels seems to predict France's Hollande -- likely a cousin of Sarko [Le Clown] -- will likely soon mend fences with Germany's Merkel -- the face of the Euro austerity programme -- because of the economic realities in France and because of the ties that bind The Eurozone's heart [France/Germany].



Okay, now back to some Alan Watts!

Sarkozy is a little man and French. So was Napoleon............

Napoleon was not french he was a Corscican.

From the website of the Fondation Napoléon:

Was Napoleon Bonaparte French or Italian (Genoan)?

On 15 May, 1768, France and Genoa signed a treaty, under the terms of which France was to take possession of Corsica and keep it until Genoa could pay back what it owed to France. In reality, France bought Corsica, spending 40 million livres. Then on 15 August of the same year an edict was passed linking Corsica to France. Some of Napoleon Bonaparte's detractors declared that he was not French because he was born in 1768 and not 1769, and that his date of birth had been falsified, it being unthinkable that the Emperor of the French not be French himself. However, no serious proof has ever been produced to challenge the accepted date of 1769.

It should also be noted that at the time of Napoleon Bonaparte's birth, the idea of "nationality" did not exist in practical terms: one was simply the subject of the King, and certainly not a citizen of the nation. In 1790, with Corsica becoming a département of France, the island's inhabitants became "French citizens".

I'm still not sure of your point. Are you actually confessing to being Tea Party? Erixon is a former employee Of The World Bank, JP Morgan, and Timbro, all organisations which want governments the world over to allow banks complete freedom to do as they please. Just what we need, more of the same. He is the current head of ECIPE, a think tank which attempts to develop sellable concepts to promote these ideas. In other words, someone who would be completely oppossed to any Socialist agenda. Why would his opinion suddenly be honest?