France
France’s Marine Le Pen has been hoisted upon her own petard. At the National Rally’s annual convention in 2015 she stood at the podium and declared that any politician found guilty of a crime should be barred from office.
Of course, she wasn’t talking about herself. She was referring to the long parade of French political leaders who had fallen foul of the law and been convicted of everything from incitement to hate crimes to pimping to old-fashioned corruption. They included her own father (Jean-Marie Le Pen) and two French presidents (Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy).
Most of them got off fairly lightly, heavy fines and mostly suspended sentences. Only one senior French politician in recent memory has been barred from office—former prime minister Alain Juppe who in 2004 was found guilty of an almost identical crime as the one committed by Ms Le Pen: misusing public funds for political purposes.
In the case of Ms Le Pen and her 24 co-defendants in the National Rally, they were found guilty of taking $4,412,000 earmarked for European Parliamentary business and using the money to pay people working for National Rally. Ms Le Pen was responsible for $520,000 of the money.
The parallels with the legal travails of Donald Trump are obvious. But the American courts took the position that they should go easy on him because he was on the cusp of becoming president. Ms Le Pen is also leading the polls. But the French judges have argued the opposite to their American counterparts.
They judged that because Ms Le Pen was a leading candidate for the presidency of France she should receive a harsher sentence. To do otherwise, argued the court, “would cause a major disruption to democratic public order.”
Ms Le Pen and Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Vladimir Putin, Giorgia Meloni, Viktor Orban and just under half of French voters think that the sentence is unacceptable interference by the courts in the political process. Everyone else thinks that it is important that the law be upheld—a law which Ms Le Pen herself supported.
Canada
It’s called the “Trump Factor” in Canada and it is defined as the out-sized impact that the American president is having on the Canadian elections scheduled for 28 April.
The focus of Canadians is not surprising as Trump has taken it upon himself to threaten Canadian sovereignty by calling for it to become the 51st state and is about to slap tariffs on Canada which will destroy the country’s economy and tens of thousands of jobs.
Which brings us to Canada’s conservative leader Pierre Polievre who has been referred to as “Trump light.” He favours private enterprise; wants some immigration controls; is an anti-vaxxer; is so-so on the issue of climate change; has promised the biggest crackdown on crime in Canadian history; and is seriously anti-woke.
Back in January—before Trump launched his anti-Canadian crusade—Polievre’s policies were enough to put him an apparent shoe-in for the premiership as his party polled 25 points ahead of the governing Liberals.
As of this week, the Liberals are 25 points ahead of Polievre’s conservatives.
The complete reversal is partly down to the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. After nine years in office, the pretty boy of Canadian politics, had run out of steam and was deeply unpopular.
He was replaced by technocrat Mark Carney whose impressive cv includes stints as the governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. Carney then played the card that was the second, bigger reason for the reversal in political fortunes—the Canadian public’s growing hatred of Donald Trump.
Carney has broken with diplomatic convention and refused make his first visit to Washington. Instead he flew to London and Paris. He has been adamant that Canada will never be part of the United States. He will retaliate against any Trumpian tariffs and work to reorganise Canada’s trading patterns away from America. “Our relationship with America will never be the same,” Carney declared.
He doesn’t need any policies other than being firmly anti-Trump.
Australia
The Trump factor is also playing a role in Australian elections scheduled for 3 May. Although in the case of Australia Trump is more the elephant in the room while in Canada he is a thundering herd.
Australia is facing a choice between the governing Labour Party led by Tony Albanese and the Liberals (who are misnamed and actually conservative) led by ex-policeman Peter Dutton.
Australia is not being threatened with annexation and the Trump-imposed tariffs are in the lowest category—ten percent. But Australians feel justifiably hard done by because their trade deficit with the US is $63.5 billion in America’s favour.
So Australians—like Canadians—are not feeling well disposed towards Donald Trump. And Australian politician who espouse Trumpian values and policies are likely to suffer. Ex-policeman Dutton is the Australian Trump. He opposes immigration, climate change policies, wokeism and called for White South African farmers to be given refugee status because “they need help from a civilised country.” He even wants to create a Ministry of Government Efficiency—a MOGE– as the Australian version of the Musk-run DOGE.
Dutton’s policies are having the same positive impact on the prospects for the Australian Labour Party as they have had for Canadian Liberals. In January, Dutton’s Liberal Party were ten points ahead. This past week the two parties were neck and neck.
The lesson to be learned? Trump is having a positive impact on political parties espousing liberal, centrist, centre-left and left-wing policies.
China
The Chinese are laughing into their dim sums. Alright, Trump has slapped a 67 percent tariff on them. But there is an upside and it is very up indeed.
One of the main reasons is the impact American tariffs will have on the rest of the world. Already major American trading partners are looking for alternatives to the US market. China, as the second largest economy in the world, is a logical alternative, especially for China’s near neighbours such as all of Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea.
And, as British imperialists discovered, the flag follows trade. If trade shifts towards China from America then political allegiances will not—by necessity—be far behind. The United States could easily see the web of Asian alliances that successive administrations have carefully constructed to contain China start to unravel under the weight of Trumpian tariffs and redirected trade patterns.
The Chinese economy, however, does have systemic problems which could hold it back from taking full advantage of Trump’s brave new world. The property bubble is still bursting and demographically-speaking, China has the serious problem of an ageing population. On top of that there is the dead hand of statism and suspicion of Chinese motives.
But on the other hand, Xi Jinping’s policy of economic and technological self-sufficiency means China thrashes the US on the production of everything from electric cars to drones. It has even challenged the supremacy of Silicon Valley with its own version of AI—Deep Seek.
United States
A rather attractive 31-year-old woman named Laura Loomer recently visited Donald Trump at the White House. She was there to tell him that three senior members of his National Security Council were not sufficiently Trumpian. He promptly fired them.
So who is Laura Loomer? For a start she is a self-confessed “White Nationalist” (“nationalist, not supremacist,” she insists). She is also a devout Islamophobe.
Ms Loomer is behind a number of conspiracy theories. She was, for instance, the origin of the story that Haitian immigrants were eating the pets belonging to long-time residents of Springfield, Illinois.
She also claimed that the attack of 9/11 was “an inside job” organised by the American government and that the 2018 shootings at the school in Parkland, Florida and in Santa Fe, Texas, were staged by actors.
The snowstorm which disrupted the Iowa Republican presidential caucus, according to Laura Loomer, was created by the American “Deep State” to help the campaign of Nikki Haley.
The conspiracy theorist said that October 13, 2023 was “Global Day of Jihad” and that Muslims around the world would rise up to attack non-Muslims. This led to a 71-year-old Illinois stabbing to death a six-year-old Muslim boy.
Laura Loomer has been banned from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, although Elon Musk allowed her back on Twitter. She has also been barred by several web-based payment sites, Uber and Lyfft websites and, for some strange reason, food delivery websites. Basically, her name is toxic within the social media community.
In September 2024, Ms Loomer started appearing at Trump’s side on the campaign trail and travelled with him on his plane. There was talk of him hiring her for the campaign, but Susie Wiles (who became Trump’s White House Chief of Staff) blocked her. She appears to have sneaked back in.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of The Liberal Democrat Voice. He is also a regular contributor to “The New World” (formerly “The New European”) and the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
University of Dundee Tower Building #dundeewestend
What is the tipping point in Palestine Action arrests?
"Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned, they therefore do as they like"
expats
Simon McGrath
Andrew Melmoth
ANDERS LARSON
John McHugo
18 Comments
I do find it concerning when the courts in so-called democratic countries are barring candidates from standing for election. Romania is probably the worst example when they decided to cancel an election after the first round when they realised a far-right candidate was likely to win…and then barred him from running in the re-run. Now France has barred the far-right candidate who looked very likely to win the next Presidential election.
I wonder if Nigel Farage is sleeping easy at night?
@Mike Peters: The Romanian presidential election was annulled because of unlawful foreign interference in the election campaign, not because of the politics of the first-round victor. Similarly, Le Pen has been banned from standing for election because she, wait for it, broke the law.
That being said, the extent to which a democratic system should tolerate groups that seek to overthrow it is a legitimate question. There do need to be limits to such tolerance. Romania has indeed banned one candidate from standing in the rerun election for her opposition to democratic norms.
@Alex Macfie
Romania has so far barred two far-right candidates: previous front-runner Calin Georgescu was confirmed banned from being a candidate on 11th March for ‘violating the obligation to defend democracy’ – he then made a statement calling on supporters to choose another candidate in a peaceful and democratic way. Four days later, a second far-right candidate who may have picked up his vote, Diana Sosoaca, was also banned for making statements ‘contrary to democratic values.’
Not a good look….
Mike,
In Great Britain you are disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament if you
– hold a post that is disqualified from becoming a Member of Parliament.
– You are the subject of a bankruptcy restrictions.
– You have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or detained for a year or more and are detained anywhere in the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, or are unlawfully at large.
– You have been disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (which covers corrupt or illegal electoral practices and offences relating to donations).
– You have been convicted of an intimidatory criminal offence motivated by hostility towards a candidate, future candidate or campaigner or holder of a relevant elective office.
The effect of a disqualification order is that the person will be disqualified from standing for, being elected to, and holding any relevant elective office for five years.
Hardly a rabid rightwinger, but Yannis puts it into perspective in this excellent piece. Alex and Joe take note.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/liberals-should-be-outraged-by-calin-georgescus-election-ban/
“hoist by one’s own petard” means “blown up by your own bomb”. not lifted by ropes and pulleys, for example. A petard is a bomb used in siege warfare.
You’re welcome 🙂
@Mike Peters: Are you saying that candidates for democratic election should *not* have to defend democratic values? OK, but then you can’t say you weren’t warned when someone is elected who then dismantles democracy. It happened in Germany in the 1930s.
Back to your earlier comment, the next French Presidential election is 2 years away. It’s premature to say anyone is “highly likely” to win it.
@Craig Levene: Mr Varoufakis seems to take at face value the Putin / Vance propaganda narrative about the banning of Cǎlin Georgescu from running for president. Just to be clear, Georgescu was banned because his first campaign broke the law. Everyone, political candidates included, have to observe the law. We cannot go easy on a lawbreaker because they wish to run for office, much less because they are likely to win. We can see now the consequences of such indulgences in the present US administration.
Alex ; What about the second banned candidate ? Was polling around 40% and banned for having anti democratic values – which included the threat she would pose to the country’s position in the EU and NATO.
As a liberal are you not at all troubled by that ?
Or does democracy only extend to those who’s views align with one another …
If courts are banning candidates from standing then it may lead to the politicisation of the Courts (partisan selection etc), it could also lead to violent revolution if enough of the populace feel they are being disenfranchised because their candidates thinks things that the elite do not approve of.
It could also make the establishment appear undemocratic or scared of the electorate. I personally think that the Court Cases against Trump helped trump portray a martyr complex and helped him get re-elected.
Also we cannot always assume that the Judges will be progressive and only banning right wing candidates. If we cheer the banning of right wing candidates it will be difficult to object when progressive candidates are banned by right wing Judges.
Similar with the 2 Labour MPs banned from Israel, I don’t recall the howls of objection when Geert Wilders a sitting Dutch MP was banned from the UK.
@Alex Macfie
Forgive me for believing in democratic values, but I don’t like the idea that candidates may only be allowed to run for office if judged that their values align with ‘democratic values’, in Romania’s case interpreted to mean that the candidate supports Romania’s continued membership of the EU and NATO.
You don’t protect democracy by denying it.
Is this conversation based on reality? I did a bit of Googling and as far as I can make out, the candidate who was banned from the Romanian election re-run is Călin Georgescu – and that appears to be due to evidence of Russian interference plus likely crimes (It’s notable that Wikipedia reports that, Police found 10 million USD buried inside his bodyguard’s house along with plane tickets to Moscow). His support appears to have largely transferred to George Simeon, who has similar politics and has not been banned. I can’t see any reports of any serious candidate having been banned solely because of their policies. What have I missed?
@Craig Levene, @Mike Peters: You have both seized on opposition to NATO and EU membership as a reason given for Diana Șoșoacă being banned as if that’s the defining factor in the decision. It is true that membership of both is written into the country’s constitution; however don’t forget that Romania was for 45 years a Soviet satellite state and membership of the Euro-Atlantic international organisations can be considered as protection from the increasingly aggressive Russia today. Far more troubling about Șoșoacă is her spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda and support for Russia against Ukraine. It’s not just membership of organisations. It’s protection of Romania’s status as a democracy, against return to the orbit of the Kremlin.
@Mike Peters says “You don’t protect democracy by denying it,” but surely the ultimate denial of democracy is the election of a government pledged to dismantling it.
@Sladmac: Who said anyone only expected far-right politicians to be banned from running for office? As the OP has noted, a mainstream centre-right politician, Alain Juppé, was also banned from running for office for the same sort of crime that Le Pen was. I would not have any problem, under a fair process, with a “progressive” politician being banned from office for breaking the law. And in a system based on the rule of law, we should not give politicians who break the law a free pass for fear that punishing them might incite violent disorder.
Comparing the 2 Labour MPs kicked out of Israel with Geert Wilders is really apples and oranges.
BTW Șoșoacă was never polling at 40%. That appears to be a misreading of articles stating that Georgescu was polling at 40% in the original election before its annullment. Șoșoacă’s rating before she was banned was ~11%.
Will Hutton has a interesting interview saying he expects to see “the emergence of a kind of rules based kind of trading area” between Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia and the EU. “I think the Republican Party would split over it New trading bloc will split Republican party
If a mainstream politician is embroiled in scandal, their stock falls and their political career is over (look what happened to François Fillon). If it happens to an ostensibly “anti-establishment” politician, then they can be martyred by their supporters as @Sladmac implies. The difference is whether they have the kind of cult following that someone like Trump has. However, it’s only the die-hard supporters that will rally behind someone in this way. The reason it worked for Trump is that he has the assured support of about 40% of the US electorate. What martyrdom will not do is lead people to vote for the “martyr” who otherwise would not do. I doubt Le Pen has the assured support of 40% of French voters, nowhere near it. Her “martyrdom” will galvanise her supporters and enemies in equal proportion.
I don’t think that people should be banned from LDV just because they do not know what they are talking about.
However, I would recommend a bit of self-denying humility when it comes to opining incontinently, ignorantly, and self-importantly about Romanian and French politics.
Regarding Le Pen, she has been highly vocal in the past about cleaning up domestic politics: those found guilty of the corruption offences she has bern found guilty of to be banned from standing for elected office.
She doesn’t have a leg to stand on: she has rightly been banned for serious corruption.