The French election has been framed as a significant defeat for Marine Le Pen and her National Rally party. The BBC’s Paul Kirby in an article titled ‘What just happened in France’s shock election?‘ explained:
Nobody expected this. High drama, for sure, but this was a shock.
When the graphics flashed up on all the big French channels, it was not the far Right of Marine Le Pen and her young Prime Minister-in-waiting Jordan Bardella who were on course for victory.
It was the Left who had clinched it, and Emmanuel Macron’s centrists – the Ensemble alliance – had staged an unexpected comeback, pushing the far-Right National Rally (RN) into third.
Of course, the BBC wasn’t alone in proclaiming the second round an unexpected victory for the far-Left, Left and centrists over the forces of the “Right”, sorry, the “far Right”, as I must get used to calling any party without an open borders policy.
Likewise, the Telegraph described how:
National Rally had been beaten by a ragtag alliance called the New Popular Front – comprising Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-Left France Unbowed, Communists, Greens and Socialists.
But even more humiliatingly Le Pen’s party appeared to have been beaten by Mr. Macron’s centrist Together alliance, which polls had predicted would founder in third place.
However, for anyone with even a passing familiarity with French politics this was exactly the outcome we’d expected. It wasn’t a shock. The Leftist alliance didn’t stage an unexpected comeback. And Le Pen’s party wasn’t beaten into third place by Macron’s centrist Together alliance. To understand the consequences in terms of Parliamentary seats Robert Kogon’s recent Daily Sceptic article explains the vagaries of the outcome very succinctly. However, I thought a look at how and why the election is misreported would be of interest.
Of course, regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will be familiar with this tactic of the mainstream media (MSM). Set up a false position. See the false position not come about. Declare a disaster for the person or party you wish to smear. In this case, the MSM set up the position that Le Pen would win the second round of the French elections. An outcome that, once it was clear that Macron had done a deal with Mélenchon – and it was always inevitable that he would do a deal – then Le Pen couldn’t win.
Let’s look at the actual data rather than rely on the BBC’s in-house analysis.
Somewhat surprisingly, Le Pen’s RN Party saw the largest second-round percentage increase in its vote share of any of the political parties or groupings.
Mélenchon’s Left Alliance lost 2.4% in vote share while RN’s share increased by 3.8%, not an outcome you would have guessed from the BBC.
In terms of total votes cast, all the parties and groupings saw fewer votes cast in their favour in round two in comparison to round one. In fact almost 4.8 million Frenchmen who had voted in the first round didn’t vote in the second round. So much for Macron mobilising the forces of democracy!
As can be seen in Figure 2, the Left Alliance lost over two million voters between rounds one and two. This was not a victory for any thing other than the voting system designed to do what it did: prevent (Right-wing) populists getting near the levers of power.
Self-evidently, this wasn’t a rout of the Right. So why is it presented as such? Well, we all know the answer to that one: the ‘Establishment’ wants to frame the “far Right” as a threat. A threat that can only be defeated by the plucky voters of France coming together to see them off. The wish is to show the Right suffering a defeat. It’s exactly the same tactic as we saw the BBC adopt in choosing a Question Time audience devoid of Reform supporters. Or Channel 4 in its use of highly questionable tactics to smear Reform. Take your pick: Andrew Tate, Russell Brand, Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Nigel Farage, each framed as a threat to “good order”.
One of the things that we plebs learnt from the Covid pantomime is to never accept any news story at face value. It’s often relatively easy to find the data that allow you to answer that nagging question that comes to mind after any BBC news item: “Am I being taken for a fool?”
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Equality” —–A cautionary tale.—– “Equality” according to who? Does “equality” mean the same to a black person who are convinced they are oppressed as to white person who does not feel like an oppressor? Does “equality” mean the same to someone on minimum wage as it does to a billionaire? Do people want “equality” of opportunity or do they think we should have “equality of outcomes? —–I suggest “equality” is in the eye of the beholder.
Vernal looks like a total mincer to me, what do you think Varmint?
Not by looking at his face. Only by listening to his words and looking at his actions. The whole “equality” business is just like every other commie scam.
Vernal look rather effete to my gimlet eye. Why are we giving non jobs to such utterly mediocre mincers?
If you give someone a well-paid job with prestige and power, and you call it “Head of Equality”, they have no incentive to increase “equality” because if they did then they’d be out of a job.
Exactly
Like SAGE, who only exist when there’s an “emergency”, or the WHO who peddle “pandemics”, or pharma companies who may prefer us to rely on their “treatments” instead of looking after ourselves.
Orwell prediction comes true, yet again!!!
And what a surprise he’s not Mother’s Pride.
Any organisation with an ‘Equality Officer’ deserves to be shut down in its entirety.
Off-T
Slightly.
https://thenewconservative.co.uk/islam-demands-labour-will-comply/
Even Frank Haviland is issuing words of warning as sectarian politics pushes in to the space vacated by the Uniparty.
How precisely does expressing oppositon to the policy and actions of the state of Israel in the middle-east compromise the safety of Jewish students at Oxford?
Are you actually serious? I’d guess you are just plain stupid but hey, maybe you think you are right and there is nothing to see here just like 1936.
I guess that you don’t have an answer to the question and that’s why you’re trying to insult me instead.
The excerpt mentions two demands of the protestors:
Professor Goldman asserts that this would compromise the safety of Jewish students […] at Oxford. However, he doesn’t state why he believes so and you calling me names and waving Nazi tokens doesn’t demonstrate that, either. Hence, so far, there’s no reason for this assertion. I can think of a meta-reason, namely, both Goldman and you really want someone powerful to shut these protests down, nat-con style.
I actually find it impossible to believe you said that to be honest. Does it not occur to you what “From the River to the Sea” means? How would you feel if a bunch of your co-workers chanted, day after day, a slogan which meant they wish to kill you?
Seriously, does it really not compute that they are deliberately and knowingly targeting Jewish students? I cannot, for the life of me, see how you can not see this.
Does it not occur to you what “From the River to the Sea” means? How would you feel if a bunch of your co-workers chanted, day after day, a slogan which meant they wish to kill you?
I “feel” you’re making an incoherent statement. “From the River to the Sea” refers to the country between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea which is supposed to be liberated from Israeli control. This doesn’t express a wish to kill aynone, not even necessarily for someone to be killed there, as a peaceful solution is perfectly conceivable and not really more unlikely than any other, ie, totally unlikely, as Israel is the military great power in this area and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
BTW, my position on that is that I resent being dragged into the petty squabbles between J-semites and M-semites in a “distant country I know (next to) nothing of” and couldn’t care less about. Except maybe a bit of Schadenfreude that our former enemies (ie, enemies of the central powers) in this region are still at each other throats fighting for the spoils of 1918.
I did think this was funny, mind. The terrorist-supporting, Jew-hating rape-apologists won’t see the humour though. To them every word reported by actual terrorist organizations, who can’t stop declaring how much they hate, well, everyone who isn’t them, is the Gospel;
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1788257560182571464
Many years ago the leftie nutcases stood solidly behind the Jews at the Battle of Cable Street. Today they are the Nazi’s. Socialism does not really change much, it just has a change of clothes now and again. The sad thing is that people like this fool, and those in the camps, do not even realise who they are.
The Black Shirts of Oswald Mosley were fascists but not antisemitic, at least until their marches were sabotaged by Communists & Jews.
The rise of Oswald Mosley:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4ZZkPTTkrM
Maybe Nigel Biggar, the Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology at Oxford should resign as he has obviously lost his “moral” compass by supporting the Jewish slaughter of the indigenous Palestinians.
Do please look up some history and remove the “indigenous” bit. Also, did you know that Israel has the best record in the world for not killing civilians? They make a point of warning exactly where they are going to attack and give civilians time to move.
Perhaps the terrorist-supporting Jeremy Corbyn fan club on here could remind us of a time when Israel actually initiated a conflict in the Middle East, in comparison to their many hate-fueled, barbarian jihadist neighbours that surround them. I’d rather be surrounded by a load of Jews than live in a Muslim majority neighbourhood any day of the week.
You are hilarious.
Love the satire.
This is hilarious:What are the conspiracy theories MPs have been warned about? (msn.com)
Good grief. More taxpayers money wasted. So if the usual “fact checkers” – ‘trusted news initiative’ FFS – declare a conspiracy theory then we are supposed to believe it.
Yeah right.
So there is no ‘reset?’
There is no ‘replacement?’
We really are living through ‘1984’ and 2 + 2 definitely equals 5.
I thought this letter written by Jewish students to the community of Columbia University was excellent. I will never ever, for as long as I live, understand why people would wish to deny these people their fundamental right to self-determination in their homeland. Muslims have 50+ nations, many of which they got rid of Christians and Jews from, and if there are any still left in some of those places they live like second class citizens, persecuted and murdered every single day. And yet they have the absolute audacity to begrudge and war over a tiny piece of land, approx the size of Wales, which is the only place the Jews get to call ”home”. There is no sense, no rational to that sort of mindset, none.
And yet these ‘useful idiots’, these cheerleaders of terrorists have the temerity to show their ignorance by accusing Israel of ”ethnic cleansing”?! LOL Well I think opening a history book might be a good place to start before you accuse Jews of ethnic cleansing, because the Muslims know a thing or two about being ‘colonizers’, to put it mildly. Approx 2 million Muslims/Arabs live peacefully, enjoying equal rights in Israel. How many Jews and Christians can say the same living in the majority Muslim countries?
”Many of us sit next to you in class. We are your lab partners, your study buddies, your peers, and your friends. We partake in the same student government, clubs, Greek life, volunteer organizations, and sports teams as you.
Most of us did not choose to be political activists. We do not bang on drums and chant catchy slogans. We are average students, just trying to make it through finals much like the rest of you. Those who demonize us under the cloak of anti-Zionism forced us into our activism and forced us to publicly defend our Jewish identities.
We proudly believe in the Jewish People’s right to self-determination in our historic homeland as a fundamental tenet of our Jewish identity. Contrary to what many have tried to sell you – no, Judaism cannot be separated from Israel. Zionism is, simply put, the manifestation of that belief.
Many of us are not religiously observant, yet Zionism remains a pillar of our Jewish identities. We have been kicked out of Russia, Libya, Ethiopia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Poland, Egypt, Algeria, Germany, Iran, and the list goes on. We connect to Israel not only as our ancestral homeland but as the only place in the modern world where Jews can safely take ownership of their own destiny.
The evil irony of today’s antisemitism is a twisted reversal of our Holocaust legacy; protestors on campus have dehumanized us, imposing upon us the characterization of the “white colonizer.” We have been told that we are “ the oppressors of all brown people ” and that “the Holocaust wasn’t special”. Students at Columbia have chanted “we don’t want no Zionists here”, alongside “death to the Zionist State” and to “go back to Poland” where our relatives lie in mass graves.”
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRQgyDhIjZupO2H-2rIDXLy_zkf76RoM-_ZIYsOfn9FkI7TETgRtOfXK9VobMvGh6iEZfDPgALXJTCR/pub
Well 10 out of 10 for consistency, at least. 0 out of 10 for common sense, decency or democracy.
He managed to mess up the police then move on to Oxford? His credentials must be brilliant because from Essex to Oxford is quite an upgrade. Whoever appointed him should be ashamed. Mind you, these days every HR department has to kowtow to Stonewall. Diversity champion my foot!