

French politics

The trials of François


See article

Readers' comments



The philosopher Socrates said “people get the politicians they deserve” Holland is only a reflection of the French people.

Old fashioned and backward in there thinking they still don't get that the world has changed, the French are still living in the passed. They can try to resist as they are doing but at the end of the day they will at some point need to move forward or get left behind.

They are already behind so the real question is how fare will they fall before they understand change is needed and elect someone that can drag them into the new world.

Best of luck France you are going to need it.


It is not just the public trust he is losing, it looks like he will leave the country without any way to defend itself:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9955667/French-defence-cuts-could-harm-British-military-partnership.html

Birtnick in reply to Cutters.

As a Brussels-slave technocrat Hollande is probably following orders by cutting France down to size to make way for an "EU People's Militia", like Cameron until he was rumbled.

Eleonore781 in reply to Cutters.

the DT author is fantasing, Patricia Adam never said that cutting spendings in Defense would jeopardise the franco-british Defense cooperation, but that Bercy" (the Finance Ministery) was at "war against" the french Defense budget, which is the department that had to bear most of the cuttings since a few decades, that sparings should be made elsewhere


Actually, all the parliamenters (lft and right parties) are protesting, they don't want to see the french Defense more harmed, if cuts must be done, they should fire off 5500 generals waiting for retirements in offices, we need troops ready to go on grounds









Eleonore781 Mar 26th, 21:56:

Mirino in reply to Birtnick


Birtnick in reply to Mirino







Democracy EU-style.


Savers will be raided to save euro in future crises.

Francois will go along with it.


The crux of the problem & the ensuing disillusionment that Hollande faces, is the fact that neither the politicians nor the public want to acknowledge or address the harsh realities plaguing the country. France is a nation in mass denial.
And unfortunately, this is true of the rest of Europe too. The river DENIAL flows all across the Continent.

@Nirvana - you reply to your own posts?

Regarding denial - not necessarily; I wouldn't speak for the rest of Europe, but regarding France, many books have been printed - and are selling - on the subject of the country's decline, its possible causes, and its effect on people.

The problem, as with so much in politics, is the absence of an informed consensus.

I also talk to myself every so often!! :)
That aside, sure books & articles have been published, but the general polity prefer not to dwell on the unpleasant facts & figures. They'd rather beleive the hogwash the opportunistic politicians keep spewing, promising no austerity measures or spending cuts or tax hikes..ad nauseum.

Yes, but books on decline, on France being "sick" sell well - iow, French readers are buying them.

The political hubris is not so simple. I'd put it down to two things.

- The intoxicating effect of established bad policies. It's very hard to end a social system gone wrong. Think of U.S. pork barrel politics, of Greek administration... It works for some, and to end it is like for an alcoholic to stop drinking. That's the pain that politicians don't want to be responsible for.

- The second poison is just as hard to deal with. French political parties are divided along not one, but two lines: the left - like Hollande currently in power - is liberal on social issues like law and order, but stupidly set against free enterprise, while the right is liberal on economics but not on social issues - stupidly divisive, for example, on the place of migrants in society.

So - IMO - the political swing in France goes from a right that is competent (enough) economically, but makes itself unpopular by hardline policing, cosying up to the Church etc., and a left that leaves people and the press alone, but punishes anyone who dares making a living.

That's best proved by looking at votes since 1981. At every major election - president, deputies (=legislative chamber), mayors, the party in opposition wins. The life expectancy of a political direction is max. 3 years.

The reason why "the life expectancy of a political direction is max 3 years", as you so succinctly pointed out, is primarily because the vying politicians/leaders lie through their teeth, promising miracles/the impossible - especially come election time.
It's the truth, the whole truth & nothing but LIES, that they spew, in their mad scramble for power. But once elected, amnesia kicks in, leaving the greedy & willingly gullible electorate disillusioned & frustrated, yet again.
It's a Catch 22 situation that both sides are equally responsible for. Pathetic..


Judging by the chart, it seems that all recent French presidents have suffered from a free-falling popularity shortly after being elected. And the closer we are to present, the worse it gets (based on this trend, the next French president will face a sharper decline in popularity).

It's tempting to put the blame on French misanthropy rather than failed moves or policies of any particular president. But my uneducated guess is that this phenomenon is (almost) universal and related to the disillusionment of the public after elections and the ever plummeting interest in politics that leads to a superficial debate. Understandably, when the media focus on the wrongdoing of the incumbent, people ain't going to like this person.

ashmash in reply to CharlesGreenwood

Have I missed something?
Mitterrand started popular among around 75% of the polled and 10 months on kept just under 60% of them.
Sarkozy began, as Chirac did, with a bit more than 60% approval rate and after 10 months fell below 40% (chirac had 40%, so he did slightly better).

Some of them did recover after some time, yet the graph clearly shows that after 10 months all the four presidents were less popular than when they started.

ahmed limam

TE writes that “To regain popularity France’s president must explain just what he is up to and why.” That is an impossible task since Hollande has no idea whatsoever of what he is doing and why. He is an accidental president who is still looking around with the same awe usually associated with a virgin in a brothel. His incompetence is such that he kept for many months the budget minister when it was obvious the guy was a crook. Yes, President Hollande chose as the minister in charge of ensuring people paid their taxes a man who cheated on his own taxes. (No different, though, from another false democracy, the US, where Tim Geithner, after being appointed Treasury Secretary, recognized that he made mistakes on his own tax return: yes, the guy in charge of ensuring that people fill out their tax forms can’t even do his correctly and yet Obama kept him!)

I would compare Hollande not to his namesake in the Vatican, but to the previous pope who did the right thing: when he saw he was no longer up to the task Benedict XVI resigned. If Hollande had any modicum of decency in him he would the same thing. Or even better, the French should be out on the streets demanding his resignation. Unfortunately, the morally bankrupt French political class has only one objective: stick to power as long as it can, regardless of what happens to the country. And French citizens are just happy to register their displeasure in opinion polls rather than marching towards the Elysée and kick the rascals out. For history buffs, it’s worth remembering that King Louis XV kept his mistress, the marquise de Pompadour at the Elysée Palace. Two centuries later, his successor François Hollande is doing exactly the same thing. As they say, Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

On my blog, Ahmed’s Universe, you can read a couple of posts: two on the French presidency including a video of Hollande and me where I challenged him to reform the banks “Good Riddance, Sarkozy”, “Real crime, fake justice”), and another on why it is time we move to direct democracy to get rid of the political parasites who only pursue their own interests not the people’s (“The Arab Spring comes to Europe - Time for technology-enabled Democracy 2.0”)

Eleonore781 in reply to ahmed limam

Note that this problem of skipping isn't only a Hollande's these days, Cameron suffers of the fog too, and you wouldn't believe it, even Merkel, if you saw how the whole Elite managed the Cyprus dilemn this past week

The problem is (and it would also be any president of France at the moment), how to fit France into the EZ austerity diktats, if it is a "official" common sense that the euro should survive.

France ain't bankrupted, far from that, just it has the wrong currency, a DM/euro !

Check yourself:


Europ-Ness in reply to Eleonore781

The exchange rate dem/frf that gave the euro rate is not too wide and with (minor?) structural adjustements France can keep on with Germany! It is not like, let's say, the competitive inflation in Spain or Italy where deep economic differences are more acute! Cameron exemple, indeed, proves a deconnexion between party affiliation and unpopularity! It is more linked to the Euro crisis!

ahmed limam in reply to Europ-Ness

You are right, France is not a popular republic - it is a very unpopular one. Obviously you have not read my blog post otherwise you would have realized that your view of democracy is antiquated. The times are gone when people would vote for a president or party and then give them "carte blanche" to rule as they want. It is high time these corrupt and incompetent politicians understood they are here as SERVANTS of the people, to follow our instructions. If they don't we have the right to kick them out. Actually France is very much an immature democracy. In Switzerland most important questions are decided on by citizens in referendums; not in France. In California, if you are unhappy with a governor, you can recall them before the end of their term. Even in Lima, Peru, a mayor can be recalled if Limeños are unhappy with her management of the city. Only in mock democratic France is the president elected and then during five years he behaves like an absolute monarch. This should change, and if after a year or whatever period of time, people are unhappy, they should be able to kick him out. Why put up with somebody we don't like or trust for five years? This is crazy!

Eleonore781 in reply to ahmed limam

Switerland is not bigger than a french province and has six time less inhabitants than France. Referendums are likely easier to be implemented in small democracies for every domestic decisions.
immature democracy? didn't you know? we ALSO grow bananas , but for monkeys, that look at us from their clouds

Dominique II in reply to ahmed limam

There are procedures to remove a President in extreme cases. Otherwise he has to be able to count on a specific period. Being always eager to please in order to stay is a sure recipe for demagoguery of the most destructive kind.

Right now there are rumors that Hollande's strategy is to accumulate most unpopular measures at the start of his mandate, so as to be able to soothe the electorate with the pleasant ones when the time comes for reelection. This may be true, or not. But such a strategy is not a bad one - and it would be made impossible by your suggestion. We'd end up with a Gallic Grillo doing standup comedy for two months before being kicked out.

ahmed limam in reply to Eleonore781

Size is just the excuse, or at least the justification, for representative democracy: since the country's whole population couldn't travel to the capital city to vote on every decision,it was felt it would be better to vote for an elected representative who would then be based out of the national parliament/congress and vote on key issues. Except that those representatives ended up representing themselves and their friends (something that doesn't seem to bother you, probably because you are a politician yourself or a friend of politicians).

And what made sense in the 18th century doesn't in the 21st. We now have internet, and social media, every citizen, if interested, can get involved in national politics from wherever he is without leaving his home town. Referendums can therefore work perfectly well in a small country or a giant one. Only corrupt politicians who are afraid of losing their power refuse this, just like old monarchs refused democracy because that meant they would lose power. Sorry, guys, but you can't stop history: intermediaries are out, people are taking power and making the decisions themselves. You politicians don't like it? Well, you should have thought about it before, and made a better job of it. Now it's too late, you are being consigned to the dustbin of history

ahmed limam in reply to Dominique II

Extreme cases, you say. Why should the people wait for those extreme cases which in practice mean that the president, no matter how ineffectual and unpopular, can stay as long as he feels?

You call it demagoguery? I call it people's power.What's wrong with that? Even if citizens make bad decisions, you know what? I'd rather live with the bad decisions I make than with the bad decisions a corrupt political classmakes for its own interest.

"Right now there are rumors that Hollande's strategy is to accumulate most unpopular measures at the start of his mandate" you write. What measures? Apart from the tax on the wealthy which isn't unpopular since it only concerns a minority he hasn't shown any courage for any truly unpopular measure. People hate him not because he has taken any unpopular measures, but actually because he has taken none that have resulted in unemployment going up and growth down.

As for standup comedy, just look at the circus coming out of the Elysee with that bunch of pathetic amateurs masquerading as ministers: have you seen that idiot of Najat? or the fool of Montebourg? what a shame for France, what used to be a great country

Eleonore781 in reply to ahmed limam

Tell us in which ideal democracy you're living in, and I 'll tell you that you're just self congratuling

Referendum cost money to be organised in a country of 66 millions inhabitants, while in Swiss cantons it's just like a Municipal meeting in a café where votes are made "à main levée"

And tell us why Britain still didn't manage to settle its famous freferendum on EU?

Politicians are like the people, they surf on fashions

ahmed limam in reply to Eleonore781

"Tell us in which ideal democracy you're living in": that's exactly the point. Neither I nor you nor anybody else lives in true democracies. We live in quasi-democracies (Switzerland, Scandinavia), mock-democracies (rest of Europe, US, Some Latin American countries) and non-democracies (rest of the world.) That's why I suggest we move to TRUE democracy, by involving people directly

"Referendum cost money to be organised in a country of 66 millions inhabitants,": well, so much money is wasted by governments on their pet projects or channelled through to their friends or just stolen, that at least the cost of a referendum is justified when the point is to make the people's voice heard. And now with internet-voting the costs can be made even lower than traditional voting

"Politicians are like the people, they surf on fashions": true, but if people want to suffer the consequences of fashion they have the right to do it, it's their decision. But why do they have to suffer the consequences of fashion followed by OTHERS such as politicians?

Nirvana-bound in reply to ahmed limam

You nailed it. But I blame the electorate just as much as the political parasites who rule the country. Its the people who allow the politicians to walk all over them, as they please. And sad to say, the same thing happens all across the West.

ahmed limam in reply to Nirvana-bound

You are right 100%. It's therefore up to us the electorate to tell the parasites that the game's up, we're no longer willing to be used, misused and abused. We're taking charge of our lives and making the decisions. We will retire them and then send riding into the sunset. Goodbye, corrupt politicians!




There is nothing to brag about: it seems like the whole team of Hollande, 38 ministers je vous prie, is mustering all its strenghts, or lack of it, to seem normal. Normalcy, contrary to different is what divides an bureaucrat from an innovator or a leader; in times of crisis when environement is changing one is superfluous!

Dominique II


Europ-Ness in reply to Dominique II

Of course he is not a dog! He cannot bite! What about your sense of logic?
Reading your remark, one wonders whether the President has any existence at all! You must not confound his stated normality, how could he be otherwise, with his nuisance!
Old marxist, to say the least, themes are too present in his ministers' propos, with an incapacity to lead, to not fear an all out attack on business, on middle class, on everyone bureaucracy excepted!

Eleonore781 in reply to Europ-Ness

Hollande isn't a old marxist but a old Bobo socialist whose family votes for far-right Le Pen

Hollande has a problem of identity, he doesn't know where he belongs, the man had dreams that are broken days after days


I translated the article in french.
Don't hesitate to help me out for improving it.



"Initial public support for the military operation in Mali is waning. Five French soldiers have now been killed, and reports suggest that one hostage has been executed"

of course if you still had in the memory the 75% support in mid January, though still 65% think that the job must be done, and that the majority of the French don't want that the Defense budget should bear more cuts, in prevision of next conflicts, and of France's place in the world affairs

shaun39 in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

Sorry for that. I don't see the statement as quite so absurd as you seem to consider it - but that's fine.

Certainly, Sweden is having a far greater impact in many parts of the world - contributing far more to broad availability of contraception & ARV drugs (to combat HIV) and also doing more than almost any other agent to combat Malaria. Does this buy real influence? It might.

Sweden certainly has enormous influence (far more than France) in the UK (Sweden is a Tory obsession - impacting on policy formation especially on schools, health, conditionality of employment benefits, business regulation, etc).

Long before than, Sweden was held up by Schoroeder's SPD government in Germany, inspiring the agenda 2010 reforms which supposedly play a role in Germany's economic resurgence.

And China's CCP send delegations to Sweden almost every year, and repeatedly talk about the Scandinavian model of socialism as an object of aspiration.

Does Sweden have more influence than France (or influence disproportionate to its size)? If restricting the frame of reference to formation of economic policy in significant world economies, Sweden probably does have more influence than France. Likewise in the realms of foreign aid, international public health, developing international trade agreements, etc.

Of course, colonial legacy, the francosphere, the CFA franc zone and French influence over a hundred million people in West Africa might suggest otherwise. The popularity of French culture (food/ music/ theatre) might suggest otherwise. Yet, the assertion of greater Swedish influence in many of the areas that matter most is not so absurd as it might seem.

Military spending doesn't achieve anything (at the margin) in a peaceful corner of the world. Many other forms of investment (domestic and international) - or simply reducing tax burdens to support a more prosperous & creative economy - are probably better routes to expanding influence.

Eleonore781 in reply to shaun39

if it is the Economist that says so, it's true, but only for those that believe into its global NWO religion.
So far when somethings goes wrong into their global dream, the French are requested to make the Gendarme, like the Americans, they have the moral duty to empech that rebels ruining the dream of global corporations to bring "democracy".

Eleonore781 in reply to shaun39

Does it occur to you tht that was a french scientist that isolated the HIV virus? that most of the successful medecine to fight it were french discoveries too?


Oh because Sweden has a certain importance for the tories, it also must have one for the French.... LMAO At the moment, Swedish economy is in recession, their jewel enterprises are collapsing and or sold to Chinese investors. Even Gripen is facing a big loss in orders, while Airbus? it's the jackpot !!!

so much for a inspiring model !!!

Apart in the Holliwood movies the Vikings are domesticated


At the end of the day, it is the civil service which needs to be reformed first. Only then can there be any private sector reform.

E.g. labour laws which affect firms with more than 30 workers should be abolished. But this would likely affect hundreds of civil servants who would find themselves without a raison d'etre. So there really can be no labour reform without civil service reform.

E.g. when civil servants travel and organise functions, do they do on F or Y, and in Sofitel or Ibis?

edwardong in reply to Dominique II

Beg pardon, 50 workers. And I'm not the only one calling for it (see links). An alternative, quite acceptable, is to raise the threshold for all these regulations to kick in from 50 employees to 500 employees. Then we will see more job creation. Which is good for the worker, no?





Eleonore781 in reply to edwardong

where is Norway? digging in the Spitzberg for oil, where rebels are little auks and old graves from basques fishermen, so much to voice at the UN, but only for global warming, and peace Nobel price, with their killer in masse, Breiwik, then Norway gets the first place


What needs to be done:









Rivierarocket in reply to shaun39


Eleonore781 in reply to shaun39










shaun39 in reply to Eleonore781



Eleonore781 in reply to shaun39


NO, that the German propaganda for implementing Austerity on its neighbours.

CDU politicians, LMAO, truths tellers !!!


say France still didn't force them to accept €4 per hour Hartz IV job !


Didn't you know that the nuclear sites have to close from 1 to to 2 months per year for maintenance and for removing used uranium batons? So these maintenance sessions are made by a joint bunch alternatively, my region site is starting its yearly session, in the same time Dunkirk, and a few more sites are too.

Petty nationalism vs petty french bashing, I think that the latter balance is heavier

Dominique II in reply to shaun39

All the armchair economists who pine for a 67 yrs retirement age have yet to come up with a recipe for integrating these senior wage slaves into the workforce. People get fired at 60 at the latest and go on the dole. Rather than harping on lazy workers, why don't you take on deaf and dumb employers.

shaun39 in reply to Dominique II

What the hell is a "wage slave"?
You choose what you do for money - you could be a bus driver, an electrician, a painter, a chef at a local restaurant, a plumber, a tour guide or you could start a small business.
There are thousands of jobs you could easily fill - even at 70 if you are in good health (e.g. my grandfather still drives school buses - and it's one of the highlights in his life).
If nobody will offer you work, question your own approach in exploring (or whether you are discounting many opportunities which might not be so awful in reality). If you still can't find 30 hours/ week of work somewhere, question whether there are institutional barriers or systemic discrimination getting in the way - and do the socially responsible thing by attacking whatever lies at the route of such barriers. Beyond that, you can always make your own work (there are many ways of making money through self employment - most can be very fulfilling in themselves).
Obviously, unemployment is awful - at any age. Yet, 60 is simply too young to retire if you expect to live until 90-95 (the French life expectancy at 65 is already 23.4 years and rapidly increasing). If you can't find work at 60, it's time to retrain and find something else (though realistically you will probably be content with a much reduced income at that age - so will be happy to take a pay cut and work fewer hours).

Dominique II in reply to shaun39

So once again it is the fault of the lazy workers.






Eleonore781 in reply to Dominique II

he is a student and knows nothing on life and economics, apart what he learnt in his neo-liberal schools...
I'm looking for his situation at 6O in his own country, hey, there will not be a EU administration for hiring his superior skills anymore, such a contempt will be funny then !

Vive_chimie in reply to shaun39

Shaun, you suggest several possible actions that you assert would help improve the financial position of France. Several of them are sound (ie, I agree with them). But I would like to take issue with the first two.
"Build more nuclear power stations": in the current political/enviromental climate, that would require courage far beyond that displayed by M. Hollande to date. The Fukushima "incident" has caused real public distrust of things nuclear here. I doubt that French public opinion would tolerate the large-scale construction of new nuclear power stations, at least at present.
"Raise the retirement age to 67": there are in fact two separate points here. One is the age at which one may legally retire and start receiving a pension. That is now 62 for most people, but it seems very likely that it will be increased a little in the fairly near future. The second is the size of the pension that one receives. For most people, there are now strong incentives to work beyond the age of 62, which explains why some correspondents say that the retirement age is 67. It isn't, but they are working in a mind-set that's different from your's (but I guess that you had noticed that already). Both factors have a strong influence on the financial stability of the pension system, which currently is in deficit.
You didn't make any comments about the minimum wage here, which many commentators (outside France) think is too generous: it's currently 9.43 € per hour, before any deductions for Social Security, etc. I don't think that it would be politically possible, at least at present, to reduce that.
You also made interesting points about the widespread use of electricity here for heating. I think that it's almost criminal to use electricity for heating: it's such a high-grade form of energy. Far better to use gas for heating, and accept that some CO2 is produced (but also improve insulation on houses at the same time). Burning gas to produce electricity and then using that electricity for heating is just ludicrous, in thermodynamic terms.

shaun39 in reply to Dominique II

No, it isn't the fault of the unemployed (don't know where your "lazy workers" nonsense comes from).
Real institutional changes are needed to eliminate unemployment - that means removing discrimination, removing the laws that create incentives for employers to discriminate on age (can you think of any in France?), adjusting social expectations, providing government subsidies (and guarantees) for retraining & re-employment (yes - intervention is necessary and in the social interest here), etc.
All of the above is in the interest of the unemployed in France - both old and young. It's also in the interest of French prosperity that the working share of the population avoid collapse as life expectancy rises - we can spend ever longer in retirement, but we also need to work longer as we live longer.
If "wage slave" is a mainstream perception, then many things are badly wrong with the workplace culture in France. In a post industrial economy, working conditions (i.e. the actual experience of working and attitudes/ relations between employees & employers) should be ubiquitously good & friendly and work should be fulfilling. That's not a fairy tale - that's my experience of working in the UK and Germany.

shaun39 in reply to Vive_chimie

Disagreement is healthy. None of us are always right. It isn't as though there is a conclusive list of institutional changes that France absolutely needs - there is merely a wide range of policy reforms, each of which (on balance) would be individually likely to contribute somewhat to general living standards & long run growth (yet, the implications of any particular reform do need to be analysed & criticized over time & with empirical evidence - and every one of them faces its own array of vested interests).
Cutting the minimum wage from €9.43/ is politically impossible - to a far greater extent than almost any other policy, people identify the minimum wage (perhaps rightly; perhaps not) with reducing inequality and socially responsible employment.
Labour costs are a serious problem for low skilled/ entry-level employment. The payroll tax on low income workers in France (47.1% - i.e. even the poorest workers only get to keep 52.9% of what they earn) is third highest in Europe (behind only Belgium and Hungary). A simple (and urgently necessary) re-balancing of tax incidence away from low wage workers would probably have greater positive employment impact than cutting minimum wages (and would be more politically acceptable).
How could this be affordable? Higher retirement ages might be one viable approach (work longer to cut taxes on low income workers and reduce unemployment, is a consistent set of policies that could plausibly be sold to socialist voters).
Another approach might involve raising the payroll-replacement-revenue by abolishing reduced VAT rates (this would boost employment in itself, by encouraging more middle class households to spend in restaurants, hotels & other services with zero-rated substitutes at present).
In France as in most countries, much higher investment (than is prevalent) in energy efficiency offers high returns (especially for new construction). This situation could be improved further by abolishing the reduced VAT rate on domestic energy (an expensive subsidy for energy consumption which discourages investment in energy efficiency).
On retirement age, it is important to ensure that further reforms are equitable, expand individual choice (over when to retire, etc) where possible & socially acceptable, and yet increase the average age of retirement to make the system less unsustainable. Immediately increasing minimum retirement ages & normal retirement ages is only a stop-gap measure (life expectancy just keeps on rising).
A far superior solution (but probably not possible in France) would be for the state to guarantee, say, 18 years of retirement (at, say, 60% of the median net wage - realistic numbers for adjustment based on robust accounting). It would then be up to private insurance businesses to estimate the remaining life expectancy of citizens - they accept the obligation of paying citizens a full pension until death, but only receive payment from the state for the fixed number of years.
This would be far more equitable - since poorer people or manual workers don't live as long, and would be eligible for earlier retirement; while the richest (and those gaining most from rising life expectancy) would have to work or save more in order to retire earlier. This would clearly be far more sustainable for the state too - since it would shift longevity risk onto the people enjoying longer lives, and would remove the political schism that's wrecking the public finances of most states.
On nuclear energy, it might be politically expedient for France to just import far more American coal in future. (Wind can easily provide 30% of French power at 5 times the price of equivalent nuclear output - but that's no substitute for nuclear's 80%+.) Failure to invest in new nuclear (at scale, with political effort to avoid legal costs or delays) would mean that the price of electricity trebles (or more) in the next 15-20 years, killing a non-trivial share of French industry (some of which is built on the comparative advantage of low power costs).
Fukushima is a rather batty red herring: nobody was killed; there is negligible contamination; France is not about to be wrecked by one of the world's largest Tsunamis in the past century (plus earthquake); French nuclear power plants are far better regulated with far better safety records, and actually have robust backup generators (and secondary supplies) so that cooling systems would not shut down even in a natural disaster comparable to Fukushima's. People might be immature; yet this should not affect policy.

Eleonore781 in reply to shaun39

hey, shauny, check what your idol is up too:




the nice people that fill your brain with falsh records so that you become a gentle slave poodle

stay in your farm, you're a good subject, and don't forget, when the merry go round will come, get into it for your paradise (not sure 72 virgins will wait for you, you're too boring)

shaun39 in reply to Eleonore781


Ulenspiegel in reply to shaun39

While I think you have many good ideas, your fixation on nuclear power is strage:

1) The price of 1kW nuclaer power in a modern French reactor is >5000 EUR, therefore, nuclear power is not cheap. For this money wind provides cheaper energy.

2) Even French officials admit that their prodcution costs in the last reactors are around 9.6 cent /kWh. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has run a nice series on the economic situation of nuclaer power in Germany, France and the USA.

3) You do not find any private investors for nuclaer power, it is considered too risky. In contrast, PV and wind attract private money without any problem.

4)The construction capacity of French companies is very likely not sufficient to replace the aging reactors.

Eleonore781 in reply to Ulenspiegel

"For this money wind provides cheaper energy."

that's a windy argument, wind NEED state subsidies, and the clients of wind, pays them on their bill, it's why Germans have one of the most expensive energy costs on their bills today.

"You do not find any private investors for nuclaer power, it is considered too risky"

BS, it's not riskier that a cas and or coal site, except that the basic investment is more expensive, and that it bring benefits in a longer term, a nuclear site is ready to product electricity after 10 years of construction, while wind only need a few months to a couple of years, and don't tell us that for "Greens" that are all mouthy on sparing the planet sites, it's a good aesthetic plan, nor preservation of the faune, how many birds are trapped into these wind wings?

Private investors are difficult to be found for such nuclear sites, as they always prefer short term investments... see, even the banksters deleveraagings are in short term rewards !!!

"4)The construction capacity of French companies is very likely not sufficient to replace the aging reactors."

Yeah, german propaganda, weren't german MP requesting that France should abandon nuclear energy in Cattenom and Fessenheim? and Westerwelle requesting that France nuclear power should be cancelled ?

French companies are building nuclear sites everywhere in the world, with the help of the Chinese, that manufacture nuclear reactors at a cheaper price (less 15% cost)

Soon you, Germans will need to ride on a bicycle to get your electricity for manufacturing your Autos, imagine, the winds aren't blowing regurlarly !

or you're using coal and gas, so much for the global warming religion that Merkel was promoting at the Sokolm summit... hey, she isn't really reliable on her crusades... one day she is a promotor, the next day she is reverting her position, but without advertising her incoherence...

Still nuclear energy in France is the less expensive, because the sites are "amortis" (paid off)

Vive_chimie in reply to Ulenspiegel

"Wind provides cheaper energy", but not all the time! It is not possible to rely on wind turbines for the generation of electricity, since the wind doesn't always blow. Electricity needs to be available ALL the time, everywhere. So wind turbines need to be duplicated by other forms of generation. This extra cost is never considered by those who support wind turbines. In other words, you are simply dishonest to compare the cost of a nuclear station, whose output is available 100% of the time (excluding maintenance, which can be programmed), with that of a wind turbine, whose output is available perhaps 50% of the time, in a completely unpredictable fashion.
Intellectual honesty surely require one to compare apples with apples, rather than grapefruit with grapes.

shaun39 in reply to Ulenspiegel

Nuclear is a scale economies based industry. If done at scale and under a sensible regulatory framework, there is nothing cheaper (nothing close). When looking at the amount of physical capital required for a given power output measured simply by mass, comparing nuclear to solar, the former uses less than one part in 10,000 of the latter. Quite simply, if well managed, nothing can be as cheap as nuclear.
High costs for nuclear power arise where there are protracted political delays, where there are many court cases, where regulatory & safety standards are redefined during construction requiring repeated custom re-engineering, where only a small number of reactors are built for each set of designs (precluding the distribution of fixed development & construction costs over multiple sites), etc.
If the regulatory environment is stable, and if government institutions are firmly committed/ remove legal barriers, and if new nuclear is undertaken at scale (i.e. 15-20 reactors per design iteration - on the scale of France or even France+UK+bits of Eastern Europe), then nuclear is far far cheaper than any alternative.
Wind and solar might be "nicer" in the minds of most people (but dirtier - solar voltaic power capacity does more environmental damage than equivalent nuclear capacity, since solar requires more mining activity & increases background radiation to a greater extent); but they won't do anything for French economic success (whereas nuclear would).
France can continue to be rich without nuclear; but it could be substantially richer with a new wave of nuclear power plants. So could Germany - but that would be flogging a dead horse.

Ulenspiegel in reply to Eleonore781

Do you actually check kW prices?

Wind is around 1500 EUR (3000 FLH), the last French reactors are around 6000 EUR with 8000 FLH, sorry, nuclaer needs more support than wind. :-)

To use the prices of written of reactors is stupid, you have to calculate with actual prices when you replace 40 year old reactors, read papers of your own government. :-)

You still have no example for private investors, all projects in the USA died, sorry you talk nonsense.

The export numbers of last generation French reactors are a joke, get the numbers. Hint: Too high prices cause low export numbers. The Finland project is a desaster, in UK French EDF need 40 year guarantee of 10 cent/kwh, that is pathetic.

Ulenspiegel in reply to shaun39

Sorry in the USA they tried afetr 2003 exactly what you proposed, it failed miserably. MIT study of 2003. Update in 2009 versus reality in 2013. A good discussion of the economic issues from a pro nuclear journal:
Or you could simply check the announced prices for Vogtle blocks 3 and 4, without any work they are alreday around 4500 USD/kW, and increases are sure as the amen in church. And no private investor in sight.:-)
Conclusion: At the moment nuclaer power is not competitive and there are no signs that this will change. Basic economy kills nuclear power, it is that simple.

Eleonore781 in reply to Ulenspiegel





About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."



Eleonore781 in reply to Eleonore781

"Meanwhile Germany spends some EUR 2.5 billion per year subsidising its coal mines to produce 55% of its electricity (cf nuclear 31% to 2011 with no subsidy). Brown coal produces about 1.25 tonnes of carbon dioxide per MWh. Arising from the Kyoto accord, and as part of the differentiated EU "bubble", Germany was committed to a 21% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010."

"In September 2011, a study from KfW Bankengruppe, which supports domestic developments, said that about €25 billion per year will be required to meet the government's Energiewende nuclear phase-out goals. It puts the total investment at €239-262 billion by 2020. This includes up to €10 billion on fossil fuel plant, €144 billion on renewables plant and up to €29 billion on 3600 km of high-voltage transmission lines. The bank noted that large capital-intensive projects have a tendency to go over budget.
In February 2013 the Energy & Environment minister said that the costs of Energiewende - reforming and restructuring Germany's energy sector by the end of the 2030s - could reach EUR 1000 billion. Feed-in tariffs subsidising renewables alone would cost some €680 billion by 2020, and that figure could increase further if the market price of electricity fell, he warned. Hence the government proposes to reduce feed-in-tariffs for new projects, saving up to EUR 200 billion over the next 20 years. Also, in response to the four major German utilities and the Federal Network Agency and grid authority raising the EEG surcharge or Umlage charged to customers by utilities by 47% in 2013, the government is putting a cap on the surcharge until the end of 2014 and then allowing only 2.5% pa increases. It also plans to tighten industry exemptions. The difference between projected feed-in tariffs and market revenues forms the essential part of the EEG surcharge applied to most consumers. The minister said that the federal government and 16 states aimed to agree in March on plans to limit energy price rises.

Germany's decision to shut its nuclear plants will, despite its massive investment in new renewables, create an extra 300 million tonnes of CO2 to 2020 from increased fossil fuel use. That will virtually cancel out the 335 Mt savings intended to be achieved in the entire European Union by the 2011 Energy Efficiency Directive from the European Commission. The Bundesnetzagentur in September 2012 said that 25 new power plants with total 12 GWe were under construction, 67% powered by black coal and 17% by brown coal - 10.1 GWe coal. While gas plants fit better as back-up for expanded renewables, they are less economic and gas supplies are uncertain."


Vive_chimie in reply to Ulenspiegel

You still haven't replied to my point about the unreliability (in the sense of never being able to know when they will be able to provide power) of wind turbines.

You are simply dishonest if you don't acknowledge that wind turbines need to be backed up by something else: gas, nuclear, coal ...


Why do you bug Hollande ? As a socialist,he has already passed legislation for same sex marriage,the cardinal principle of modern socialism.

shaun39 in reply to samarita


MBerg in reply to shaun39

Libertarians are not particularly in favor of the abolition of a discrimination. They are rather in opposition to ANY discrimination. This is a big difference. Libertarians are totally indifferent to the group an individual belongs to. They regard every individual as such.

CharlesGreenwood in reply to shaun39

Once again, you try to understand political differences in France by reference to views held elsewhere. It doesn't work. Would you try to work out what U.S. republicans think by saying they are just like tories?

Libertarianism, or to avoid any heavily connoted words, the defence of liberties, is divided among French party lines between a right that focuses on economic freedoms - enterprise, keeping what you've earnt, spending as you wish - and a left that better defends social freedoms - live with who you want, express your point of view. Very few people seem to publicly value both of these.

And so in that context, upholding gay marriage is a "socialist" (another word that means something different, depending which country you use it in) policy.


So Hollande thinks an attack on children and young families is more appropriate than raising the retirement age to 65-67?
Is France sinking into Italian style gerontocracy & stagnation, or is Hollande just temporarily miss-firing?

shaun39 in reply to Dominique II

According to the article, means testing of childcare and other measures (anti-family) are being considered in order to pay for Hollande's big spending in other areas (the biggest single item was rolling back Sarkozy's much-needed pension reform).
That's called gereontocracy. And it's the single biggest threat that modern democracies face today (it's strangling the once-great nations of Japan and Italy). It's fantastic that people are living longer - but we need checks, balances and generational accounting to combat the creaking wealth-seeking (and attacks on education investment and business) of the grey voter block. In all countries (it's bad in the UK too: severe austerity hasn't touched the old - pensions have even increased in real terms - but tuition fees have been jacked up, capital spending has stopped, R&D has been cut, childcare support has been cut, housing support for young people has been cut, etc).
No generation should be a large net recipient of welfare (over its lifetime) - and we need robust generational accounting to ensure this (otherwise, we risk stagnation).
Hollande probably isn't as bad as the Torries in this regard - but on his record so far, he is clearly moving France in the wrong direction. And that means worse living standards and higher inequality in future.

Dominique II in reply to shaun39

Im all for means testing of "allocations familiales" which are NOT child care. The sums going to the upper income echelons are peanuts to them and still weigh heavily in the overall budget.

The sense of entitlement is not a preserve of the unwashed hordes. The squeals of Neuilly bourgeois families as their tiny monthly gift from the State is threatened are heart wrenching indeed. And that's the noise you choose to hear.

When I was in Africa I was entitled to the local "allocations familiales". The amount was ridiculous and I felt no duty to claim it, even though I dutifully paid all my taxes. Obviously the French well-to-do have more civic spirit (or less decency).

CharlesGreenwood in reply to shaun39

@Shaun, I think you're trying to read French policies by imagining how they apply to British society, and that isn't how to understand somebody else's politics.

"means testing of childcare and other measures (anti-family)"

France has had for many years a very pro-family system of "allocations familiales" that gives large handouts to families. It also counts income taxes per household instead to counting it per head, which give a large advantage to married couples where one parent doesn't work or works part time, and supports working parents with early education.

In that context, to end the handouts for people who don't really need them is probably a least worst choice of how to cut government spending - since everybody agrees that social spending needs to be cut. It isn't so anti-family that people will be put off having children, and it ends social support for people who are best able to do without it anyway.

"Gerontocracy" - the risk is not that old people benefit too much relative to others. It is instead, that population grows old. In other words the problem is not that the old have the power; it is that the old are more numerous than they were, creating whole countries of dependent and inactive populations. The risk affects many OECD countries, and the end of some handouts for some families won't change that.

Your comparison between Hollande and the Tories is completely misguided. The (UK) Tory policy to support childcare is a very different policy in a different context, and UK press muddies the waters by making unresearched comparisons with the continent. Do us all a favour: continue reading the Economist, but drop your subscription to the Sun.

Rivierarocket in reply to Dominique II

Aside from your "when I was here when I was there" rhetoric, I would like to add the following to your hang the rich it's all their fault French PC "lutte des classes" mentality. It is not the rich who asked for these allocations. It is successive French governments who can't get their heads out their "derrières" who didn't have the guts to cut the wealthy off from these gifts (under some thought up French notion of Universalité and social justice) several hundred a month allocations. Hello! now the bankrupt government of France has woken up, but is still under sedation. Now judging by the 33 countries you have lived in I suppose you must have made a pretty good living. Do you have children? Did you receive allocations? If so did you send them back.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange March 14th, 16:43
Democracy in America March 14th, 15:55
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42


Products & events