The RN (far-right, brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl) was projected to win pretty big in this election. Not enough to form a majority in the National Assembly but more than anyone else (The National Assembly is the French equivalent of Congress). The NFP (Coaliton of Leftist parties, Purple) and the Ensemble (Coalition of Centrist parties, Yellow) were able to work together to stop them. Broadly, they did this by dropping out of the races for any seats where they were coming 3rd and endorsing the other group over RN.
To put it simply, this has been an unexpected victory over the far-right, so any who oppose them are very happy with this outcome.
The threeway split seen here is also a very rare outcome in French Politics, with no party being able to form an effective majority. As such how their government is going to function going forward is kind of up in the air.
Essentially it's just a very interesting time in French and European politics as a whole, for those who are interested.
There was ancient collaborators and the main force behind the creation of the party was Ordre Nouveau, which was a fascist movement.
But the main thing to denounce is that the father of the current leader of the party, Jean Marie Le Pen is very much a Nazi in addition to being a war criminal. He tortured Algerians during the war, was a anti-gaullist (while the party claim to be De Gaulle inheritor), defended the French Volunteer under the SS who fought the soviets and proud to know a few of them as his friends, defended Pétain, only refused to join the OAS, organization famous for killing over 2000 people through terrorism, because of "legality", is a firm believer of the Great Replacement theory.
He was the president of the party until 13 years ago and now his daughter is leading the party.
The Rassemblement National is neonazi party.
Labour won very convincingly and has a full majority. They won’t need to make concessions with the LibDems or anyone else, at least for now.
In this case the NFP and Macrons coalition will probably have to strike a deal in order for things to work. But they don’t see eye to eye on basically anything except that they hate the right. It’ll be interesting to watch.
But only made possible by the gamble of calling snap elections.
The alternative was the RN staying at 80 seats until 2027. They're's no way to spin that as a win for Macron.
Powerful how? The next national election was 2027. Plus they were not suddendly on the rise, they've been hovering around 30% for years.
Meanwhile they doubled their seats which means, would you guess it, that they doubled their state subsidies.
So the net result is more seats, more money, and more power to the far right. How is that any good?
it aint that easy! Meanwhile french rabbis advise young jews to leave france, because of rising antisemitic behavoir. The left socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon is also antisemetic and populist
Absolutely not.
He had a relative majority (this may be what you call a minority, I'm not familliar with the english term), which he has not anymore (the left has that now).
If his gamble was to lose seats, it worked.
What he actually set out to do, was calling quick elections so that the left run divided, qualify in most second rounds, and beat the far right in the second round.
But the left managed to mount an electoral alliance in a few days, which meant that the path to the second round became much harder
At the end of the day, he lost more than 80 seats and he lost his ability to govern. Before, he could easily find 50 MPs to form a majority on a specific bill. Now he needs 130, which he isn't likely to find.
He wanted to call the right’s bluff and run elections before letting them gain power. I’m not sure there’s another reason why he would do this. He’s still very unpopular in France and I’m not sure he’s running for a third term.
> He wanted to call the right’s bluff
What bluff? The far right almost doubled their seats, so that sure isn't a win.
> I’m not sure there’s another reason why he would do this.
Then read my previous post. The goal was to gain a majority by gambling that the left wouldn't assemble, it failed.
> He’s still very unpopular in France and I’m not sure he’s running for a third term.
He can't, the constitution forbids it.
These were parliamentary elections. Meaning only the new parliament was elected. Macron is the president for which there are extra elections for it called the presidential elections.
Macron is not going out of office, though his prime minister most likely, since now a new government needs to be formed. Macron the president though stays the same until the next presidential election
I’m from the UK. I wouldn’t say Labour won “very convincingly”. They hardly increased their share of the vote from 2019. They won because the Tory party made so many mistakes, Reform UK set themselves up and took away 1/3 of their usual votes and Labour didn’t contest the Lib Dems in places where they were stronger and had a better chance of winning.
They did win very convincingly, they got their joint second highest seats ever, and the second largest party(Conservatives) got their lowest seats ever, and Labour have won one of the biggest majorities ever. If you don't think they won convincingly then you don't understand British politics.
It is true that their vote share is actually quite low for such a huge number of seats but that's how British politics works. The aim isn't purely to get the most votes but to have consistency and get a strong number of votes throughout the country not just in specific areas the party is strong like London, Liverpool, Manchester and South Wales.
Also there are several important factors reducing Labours vote total. Firstly everybody knew Labour were winning comfortably, this encourages people to vote for 3rd party or independents because it doesn't matter Labour will win anyway, particularly if that consistency is almost guaranteed to go Labour. For some people they didn't bother to vote, turnout was low, what's the point voting if you know Labour will win anyway, even if you are a Labour supporter. Also there was large amount of tactical voting. Tons of Labour supporters in areas that Labour never win voted Lib Dems and Green, Lib Dems got more seats than they have in 80 years and Greens went from consistently getting 1 seat to getting 4. If you look at areas which were strong Tory seats and Labour were seen as more likely to win than Lib Dems or Greens the Labour vote went up massively in those places. A lot of Essex/Kent/Cornwall. Jacob Rees-Mogg' s seat and Liz Truss seat I think I saw was the largest swing in votes between elections ever. She had one of the safest seats in the country and Labour managed to overturn it.
Where Labour needed to increase their votes they mostly did, where they didn't they mostly dropped in votes. That was quite literally the plan and a side effect of tactical voting and polls showing Labour had a massive majority the whole campaign. Labour absolutely won very convincingly
What an arrogant reply. What are you overcompensating for?
In 1997 Labour won about the same amount of seats but had 43% share of the national vote. In 2024 they get 34%.
Maybe read this article for some enlightenment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I’m afraid that’s only your opinion. I hope you’re aware of that or are you just as arrogant too? And they wonder why parties like Reform UK do so much better now than they did in the past…
No, it's not "my opinion" - their reply was pretty factual, explaining what happened pretty fairly. What facts are you refuting? If it's arrogant to you to be on the side of facts, then I'm very happy to be arrogant.
Poster: Argues why he thinks Labour won convincingly.
Reply: Why so arrogant?
Me: wtf
Why so out-of-the-blue condescending when they are just explaining why they disagree or did I miss something? They were hardly rude about it but that's Reddit I guess.
Yeah, Corbyn got more of the country's votes when he was leader, but he didn't win as many seats.
From what I've seen of the UK, this election was a kind of fluke, freak statistical chance.
The thing with Corbyn is that while he was apparently more popular amongst Labour voters (or at least had a more enthusiastic following than Starmer), he was also an easy bogeyman to galvanise the right into voting to keep him out.
I mean, I think this is a simplistic view. Labor didn’t run in every seat they could (they were also tactical- this alone could easily shave a few percentage points from their vote share), and in a system with so much tactical voting, labor’s large lead could arguably also depress turnout for them naturally (people who in the past voted tactically for labour as opposed to Tories, felt more free to vote ideologically given the threat of tories were gone). It’s flawed to analyse so superficially.
If they got the same vote share in this election, given these factors working for them I’d honestly say it’s a win.
What do you mean they didn’t stand in every seat? The only ones they didn’t stand in were NI. Agree about the large lead suppressing their vote numbers & tactical voting for Lib Dem’s in the south though.
It’s not simplistic, these are the headlines. The previous commenter provided the simplistic view, not me. Of course there’s more to it than that, but are you expecting me to write an essay on Reddit?
Even analysing deeper. If we include the greens new voters that's only an additional 3.8% which would give a Labour vote of 37.5% which is still lower than their 2017 result of 40% in which they lost. Realistically, there's no other party Labour voters would go to as the Lib Dems hardly increased their vote share (11.6% to 12.2%) and the lower turnout is much more from usual conservative voters just not voting. Labour even gained a huge number of Scottish voters which still did not push them up very much.
All of this combines with the fact that in 1997, before the election Labour was expected to win big and they got 43.2% of the vote and roughly the same number of seats. So, as many in the UK would agree, this is an empty/hollow victory "by default" and if this is ignored, expect Labour to lose at the next election.
Uh, you’re erroneously assuming that no reform voters come from labor, and also forgetting some of the labour voters that labour lost on account of Palestine thing. Plus people like corbyn.
Independents which weren't all left wing were on 2% so the party would be roughly on par with Corbyn's first lost. And yes, a significant number of Labour voters moved to Reform, however, these are the same voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 and voted Reform not because of the failure in the conservatives but because they want Reform. If you look at the votes in the red wall, you can see this clearly that Labour's vote remained roughly the same from 2019 but significantly lower than 2017.
Also, their failure with the Palestine thing was a loss for Labour. They were in safe Labour seats with no risk of Conservatives in the first place and likely would have gone independent whether Labour was winning or not.
I would argue they did not win very convincingly. In fact, they won much like the left and centre did in the French election gaining many more seats than their votes. Labour got only 33% of the votes (with the second lowest turnout ever) which translated into 63% of the seats. This is the greatest discrepancy of votes to seats in the UK ever and they even lost votes from the last election which was a Conservative majority and a lower percentage of the votes since 2017 which they also lost.
In conclusion, Labour did not win big because of their success but FPTP and the failure of the Conservatives.
For the past 14 years, the UK has been under the guide of the conservative right-wing government, and Rishi Sunak has the charisma of puddle. Europe is shifting right, while the UK veers left. Nigel Farage's Reform Party further muddies the waters for the Tories. Meanwhile, in Germany, the AfD poses a similar threat, albeit far more extreme in their fascist views and disturbingly reliant on the crop of 16 year old voters.
TBF that's pretty historically on-point.
For all the UKs shit-talking and colonizing, when it gets down to it, they've consistently been on the right side of history for the past century.
Likewise, for all of Germany's reserve and talk of getting over the past, they're often far less stable (and more prone to violent authoritarianism) than they'd like to admit.
And France is usually the messy bitch in the middle, although leaning towards conservativism.
I wouldn’t necessarily say this but German ethnocentric heel turn based on external economic forces isn’t exactly new.
As for France - the entire Sahel region cut those snobby leeches off so there’s hope for New Caledonia.
That’s not quite true.
Labour won with fewer votes than they received the past two elections. And they shifted the party platform significantly to the right in order to do that (immigration, benefits and tax policies all firmly on the right).
With the reform party getting 14% of total votes, they gained more voters than any other party by a large margin. More people voted for them than the Liberal Democrat’s (12%).
Overall the U.K. took a large and worrying step to the right.
Labour did receive less votes but this was due to a much reduced turnout, their vote share actually went up, albeit by a small amount.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections-vote-share-by-party-uk/
And you have to take into account the different dynamics in this election. Both with labour being more tactical (running less of a campaign in Lib Dem seats), and also the fact that their large lead meant that you probably had more voters voting “ideologically” than in the past (if you know labour is going to win regardless, you don’t have to vote as tactically and can vote your mind).
Labour won in the UK but that was mainly due to nigel farages party splitting the Conservative vote. Whilst labours slide to centre right may have made farage comfortable to do so, it certainly didn't pick up right wing votes like they hoped.
Here the party most aligned with the uks labour is macrons, which called this election, and whilst it finished 2nd, it's been an embarrassing state of affairs for them.
The real test is now macron (the equivalent to starmer) gets to pick who he wants to form a coalition with, the broad left or the far right.
Not as momentous but also bigger overall. For comparison if Reform UK is very close to RN in stance.
This is liberal Democrats stepping down from running certain seats to let labour win (and visa versa) to ensure reform UK doesn't form parliament.
Labor did not win.
**The Conservatives lost**
Labor's votes received declined. 10,269,051 in 2019 vs 9,731,363 in 2024.
Its percentage of votes marginally increased from, 32.1% to 33.8%. .
Labor has in many ways purged its left wing, and looks like the Conservationrs without without the right wing nutcases.
Scottish National Party also lost, and Labor took numerous of those seats. Labor decline from resurgent SNP splitting and taking Labor votes in Scotland was a significant aspect of Labor losing a majority in Parliament 14 years ago.
Economic troubles make UK government capability to finance and change policies in the UK limited.
The minority right of center Liberal Democratic party also gained greatly from Conservative Party disaffection.
It is a fragile win for Labor, without the vote gain and enthusiasm of Tony Blair's win in the 1990s.
The Reform UK had a vote count win, and was a big source of wounding the Conservative party, splitting the vote, though gaining few seats.
Trouble ahead with the resurgent right wing at the next UK election.
Similarly, the French centrists are hollowed out and lost, with both wings left and right gaining.
A fragile Coalition government with big egos will result in a paralyzed National Assembly. Maccron's prima donna ego is a source of Centrist decline.
The French electoral result is a precarios ad-hoc electoral Coalition without underlying philosophical principles to unite highly divergent parties, some of whom have programs proposed that will have to be walked back, because they do not have support for major budgetary and taxation change from partner coalition parties.
Trouble ahead for the next election for President and Assembly from the resurgent right wing in France.
Labour is honestly still a moderately conservative party, just not compared to the morons that ran the UK into the ground over the last 14 years they've had power
I think they're considered a moderate party
Liberals hold back a lot of things, including progress.
You can read it similarly, either a huge win for the centre and left. Or a pants shittingly frightening future.
In the UK labour won a wide but shallow victory. Massive majority, but fewer total votes and a lower % share of votes than 2019. The Conservatives lost mostly due to the fact that the Reform (far right) got 14.3% of the popular vote coming out of nowhere from last election.
RN in France has had a similar trajectory in the last few years.
Next elections will be a tipping point, either the leftish parties can produce change or we'll be facing fascistic right wing governments around the world. People want change, need change, and they're starting to get less picky about who offers it.
The Labour vote share percentage was higher this time around than in 2019, please don't share disinformation.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections-vote-share-by-party-uk/
Sorry, you're right. I must have been using older data.
| Year | Votes | Percentage |
|------ |------------ |------------- |
| 2019 | 10,269,051 | 32.08% |
| 2024 | 9,704,655 | 33.69% |
| | | |
The point still stands, in 2019, Farage's Brexit Party, UKIP and BNP combined didn't break 700k votes. And this time Reform got just over 4.1 million votes, while Labour lost 500k.
Brown for 2 reasons :
- dark blue is going to be for the conservatives calling themselves "The Republicans" (at least the share of them who did not yet ally themselves with the far right).
- because they are the far right, brown is very fitting.
>far-right, brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl
Might be the source being left wing? German "Taz" also coloured the AfD brown in the European election results, while they are actually navy blue as well.
If the Right had won, they would have drifted from NATO and weakened the Western Hegemony and their (Nuclear) Bulwark against Rising Autocratic Unethical Regimes
So, can we say this result is relatively Good for the Earth (not World and its humans)?
Who knows? Some have said this snap election was a disaster for him because his party lost so many seats. Some have said this was a great piece of manoeuvring on his part since it was likely the party was going to lose the seats regardless and this way he ensured they weren't lost to RN and took some of the wind out of their sails. I'm inclined to believe the latter, I can't imagine this was just entirely an accident
Collectively, the people who lived in these seats decided not to vote for RN. RN didn't drop out of the race in these seats nor were they forced not to run somehow, they simply lost them because they didn't get enough votes. Even if the party they actually wanted to vote for dropped out in their respective seat, as is the party's right, they were still presented with the choice "RN" or "Not RN" and they chose "Not RN". Welcome to democracy
While I'm not an expert, it looks like the top two parties have joined forces "temporarily" for this election to prevent the right from gaining a stronghold. It's likely that this alliance will fall apart after the election. If the right can stay united and play their cards right, they have a strong chance of winning the next election.
For anyone wondering what it means for the next year to come :
- Left wing promised way too much and will have to betray itself because if they don't, their government will fall day 1 (other parties can vote to demote the government)
- Macron will most likely try to form a larger coalition with the less radical lefties and fighters, but ultimately won't do much because, same, any government can fall super fast
- RN and allies will do what they do best : do nothing
See you next year, we're wasting a year here.
Best hope for the RN is the left is openly anti Macron and causes a divide between the center and left. It seems the only thing this coalition will have for them is "We aren't far right". This is a good strategy for votes but how will they actually pass anything. I can't see center and center right liberals getting along well with socdems and democratic socialists. The left will be mad at liberals for blocking any left leaning economic policy, and the centrists will be upset at a disorganized coalition. If the RN plays their cards right they could win big in 2029 by pointing out how disastrous the coalition is. Also if the NPF actually goes through with their immigration reform plans it could really hurt them. That said I also could totally see some r-tard ruining it. French nationalists have a habit of screwing themselves. The country is more right wing than ever before yet the government is more left wing talk about massive fumble very embarrassing
Next presidential election is 2027, not 2029.
And yes, this is a blocking situation, the left agenda is openly anti-macron, there's no majority for retirement at 60 or increasing minimum wage by 10%, there's a majority against.
Im talking about legislative election not Presidential I don't think RN will win the presidential election in 2027. It will probably just be another center-center right liberal imo
Next legislative election will be most likely next years, after another dissolution, and definitely after 2027.
The current assembly is super cursed an makes it super ungovernable : it will be disolved quickly, especially after presidential elections where a newly elected president wants a clear majority.
The left people are precisely relieved that marcon might have a more difficult time passing anything, but it is not like he was really consulting anyone before. The power of the parliament has already been greatly reduced these last decades. Pus, if there is a tiny bit of civil unrest he will vote himself full power.
Inclined to disagree, if the left enters a coalition with Macron that doesn't at a minimum involve the repeal of the pension reform and immigration laws their supporters would never forgive them, and it's hard to imagine Macron compromising on either of those. Likewise if there is a split between LFI and the center-left parties that is also massively to the benefit of the RN. Essential that the left bloc holds together for 2027.
Even with the vote percentages representing the seats this would be a an electoral gridlock.
NFP 31,2% of seats but 28,2% and 25,2% of votes 1st and 2nd round.
ENS 27,6% of seats but 21,3% and 24,5% of votes 1st and 2nd round.
RN+UXD 24,6% of seats but 33,2% and 37,1% of votes 1st and 2nd round.
Case 1 :
Government : *presents a law to the Assembly*
Assembly : you don't have the majority, so no
Case 2 : (named 49.3)
Government : "Here's a law, but we're adopting it without presenting it to the Assembly. Instead, you guys can vote if you're cool to have us ruling"
Assembly : ok, we're not, bye.
The case 2 worked in the previous government because the government didn't have the majority, but there were a few groups of nearby political ideas that value stability that were reluctant to vote to overthrow the government. But now, it's no longer an option, because both the left and the right are too powerful and want the power.
Completely valid points, but I look at this from the U.S. and have an appreciation of the heterogeneity in France’s politics. Do French have the same appreciation or does it cause more hangups than a two party system?
This is the first time under the current constitution (adopted in 1958) that there has been no majority in parliament so we're kind of in uncharted waters here. I don't think there's really anyone who would prefer to have *less* choice however.
The entire point of the two-round electoral system is already to "rationalize" politics by favoring larger blocks; the 1946-58 constitution had a proportionally-elected parliament which was viewed as too unstable (ofc they had to deal with post-war reconstruction and war in Vietnam+Algeria so hard to imagine any system being very stable). So what exists now is sort of a compromise.
>This is the first time under the current constitution (adopted in 1958) that there has been no majority in parliament so we're kind of in uncharted waters here.
What? No party won a major in the 2022 legislative elections as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_French_legislative_election
I'm not saying it's critized by people, I'm saying they're criticized by other parties, whose votes are necessary to pass anything.
You want 1600 euros minium wage? Sure, with who? Macron's side is pretty against, and siding with RN looks bad.
You want retirement at 60? Sure, with who? Macron just made it to 64 and LR / RN won't go as low as 60, and certainly not without massive compromises.
The left made promises it can't hold, not because of how possible they are but because there's just not enough people to vote them.
37% voted for RN, 23% for the Left block, is it really that much of a win in that regard?
Keep in mind that the biggest party in the left block supports the annexation of Crimea by Russia, wants to leave the EU and leave NATO.
> 37% voted for RN, 23% for the Left block, is it really that much of a win in that regard?
Keep in mind that the left and ensemble opted out when they were 3rd in the first round. Comparing scores as a national percentage doesn't make much sense in this case. What can be said is that roughly 60% voted against the RN.
> Keep in mind that the biggest party in the left block supports the annexation of Crimea by Russia, wants to leave the EU and leave NATO.
None of this is true.
Yup, 37% of the people voted for RN, they have 141 seats. 23% for the left block, they have 177 seats.
I think you'd be pissed if it was the other way around.
Re-read and try to understand this time. 37% means nothing.
Their actual national score in the first round is 31%. They got less seats than that because they're a polarizing party and between 50 and 60% of the population voted against them. The system is designed to limit polarizing and fringe parties, and it works.
Yeah, whereas the RN got their campaign directly funded by russia and support what exactly ? Ah but it is OK, now that the far right is raising in the EU, they do not talk "frexit" anymore.
"But what about"
What about them? Why would one extremist party excusing Russia be preferable over the other extremist party that excuses Russia?
At least RN says they will still support Ukraine and not allow Russia to take it, but don't want to send men and don't want Ukraine to use French long range weapons on Russian territory.
Where as jean-luc Mélenchon considers Russia a preferable partner to the US, wants to leave NATO, praises the annexation of Crimea and considers NATO the cause of this war.
I think there is a big step between "excusing russia" as people like saying it, and actually taking russian money and advice to get power.
-> I do not remember mélenchon meeting putin for example, whereas le pen did multiple times in order to strengthen the relationship and openly show support.
Note for the sake of intellectual honesty than when macronists decide to give russia a fuckton of money for its uranium "just in case it ends up lacking", and are being called out for it, they answer "well it is what it is, we really like nuke". They also resumed commercially supporting ukraine by suspending importation rights on its agricultural products in order to pacify french cereal producers, where other alternatives existed.
So it seems that how appalling russian support is strongly depends on the party involved. It seems like the people who are actively lobbying for putin, plus the people who are being very cynical about it and play a double game, are very quick to reverse the blame and put it on the party which talks but actually did nothing.
And yet, they gained massively in support and we have to rely on a coalition of parties whose only uniting factor is hating Le Pen.
You are just kicking the can down the road. The people haven’t won at all, they got like the second worst option and have to hope that the coalition can turn things around because if not Le Pen will come back stronger than ever in 2027.
Pretty sure centrists won because they'll get most of their agenda through. The left wing points with the left-wing party, the right wing points with the right-wing party.
Some of that is true. But there is an insane amount of far left Nazis in France. Arguably the most antisemitic country outside of the places like Syria, Iran, etc. They have too many members in the far left who openly hate Jews and are celebrated for it. The leader of their party Jean-Luc Melenchon, in a 2017 speech called French Jews “an arrogant minority that lectures to the rest.” France is becoming a scary place with unsettling politics at all levels.
OK, I don't see what all the doomy stuff about not being able to assemble a government comes from. After some knocking of heads together, IMO any of the three big blocks could assemble a working minority in coalition with the smaller parties. Presumably the centrists (Macron) are best able to do this, providing Jupiter comes down from Mount Olympus.
What an american comment. You know nothing about French politics to think the left doesnt hate macron and is completely against his policies. They just all hate the extreme right more.
I’m not that clear on how French politics works, but with a three way split like this are they not effectively heading into another election right away? So celebrating or crying seems a bit premature at this point.
Most European parliaments look a little like this. Parties/blocs can form coalitions to get a majority. That's why Germany currently has three governing parties.
Coalitions obviously come with their own problems (parties have to give up some of their promises, etc), but it's better than immediate and perpetual re-elections, I guess.
A lot of people, especially Americans, are really used to a two party system, but these sort of things do happen in a system with more than two relevant parties. If anyone wants to get things done, two of the three make a compromise and gang up on the third. It can be really chaotic or really effective, depending on how desperate people want things done.
All the parties in the NFP group have significant disagreements but somehow they managed to work together to form the group. If they could talk through all thier issues to find consensus they can also work with the Liberals to form a government.
There are a bunch of unlikely stuff that the NFP and the RN actually agree with as well.
**The new government will face pressures from the EU on public finances.**
**Given the weak public finances in France, the European Commission has officially proposed to open an excessive deficit procedure (EDP) against France** together with six other EU countries. The EDP can ultimately result in fines to France of up to 0.05% of GDP to be paid every six months, up to cumulative fines of 0.5% of GDP (EUR 14 billion in 2024). Currently, it is premature to talk about fines, as there is a long political process before it could be actual.
The next step is that the new French government will submit budgets and reform proposals on how to correct the deficit in September. If a new government is not formed quickly, the Commission can grant France more time. Then, the Commission will decide whether to officially open an EDP against France.
Given the fragmentation in the National Assembly and the fact that a new government will likely be fragile, we expect that it will be difficult for France to come up with structural reforms and spending cuts that can satisfy the commission. Hence, there is a significant chance of the Commission officially opening an EDP against France. Yet, it depends on the new government, especially as a technocratic government might have a greater chance of making unpopular decisions.
**If the Commission opens an excessive deficit procedure against France, we can estimate that the new government will have to show an increase in the structural balance, of around** ***0.5 percentage*** **points per year**. This will be the case if France is granted the 7-year adjustment period, while the four-year adjustment period would require an improvement of 0.9 percentage points per year. Given its size and power in the European Council, France could most likely negotiate a seven-year adjustment period by committing to investments in EU priorities like the green transition and digitalization. However, in either of the cases, there is no room for much spending.
But overall the population supports left leaning politics. A very good sign. The left chose not to split their vote to defeat the right. Smart. Had the left vote split neither would have enough to beat the right even though overall voter numbers would have been left leaning. Now the only problem is the first past the post voting.
I have no idea how this makes the electoral college look good, where some peoples votes are up to 4 times stronger (or never matter because you are not in a Swingstate/District). The electoral college and First Past The Post is the reason you get amazing choices like Biden and Trump.
Here in Germany, if I could only vote between CDU and SPD I would go crazy. Instead I can vote for people who are incompetent, but I like their program. As long as my party gets more than 5% of the vote, my vote always matters. Sure, sometimes they have coalitions that get nothing done, but that happens in the USA as well, when the Senate, President and House are not aligned.
>sometimes they have coalitions that get nothing done, but that happens in the USA as well, when the Senate, President and House are not aligned.
Actually, that happens literally always in the USA because if the minority party has 41 Senate seats, then they can filibuster everything they want to, except budgets.
Here you go: Electoral college is bad, first-past-the-post voting is bad.
About why first-past-the-post voting is bad: just look at the UK election that also happened this week. The winning party got 30% of the votes, but won 60% of seats.
About why electoral college is bad: it can actually be compared to France’s presidential election (not this election, but the ones with Macron), and their 2 rounds voting with popular votes. The people’s votes were able to keep the far right at bay, unlike the US falling for Trump right the first time.
The American system is definitely worse. In America you have massive states where people's votes are irrelevant. Every single republican in Califronia, New York and Illinois essentially have no vote. It makes no difference whether they vote of not, the entirety of the state will go for the Democrats no matter what. Every single Democrat in Montana, Kentucky, North and South Dakota, their vote is irrelevant, granted those states don't have an insane population like the previous mentioned ones. In the French and British systems there are definitely people who's votes don't matter because their area will always vote one way but these are small areas of small population not states of millions. The American president is decides between Wisconsin, Michigan, Pensylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. Literally every single other states votes are irrelevant. And every 12 years or so one or two other states might join that list and one or two might leave the list. Georgia will surely go back to being solid red for example, last election was likely a one off
no matter how fucked things get in chile, we can always rely on Servel being the best institution in the country, hands down. military takes over all schools about a week in advance, people doing the work during election day is randomly selected among legal voters and where you vote is predefined by where you live. all ballots are serialized, yet we all go to vote at 9, vote count in the news and results are by dinner. for presidentials is first regular business then next day is the two highest candidates
Because it's not a national election, but a 2 turns, winner takes all, district by district.
District 1:
RN 45%
NFP 55%
District 2:
RN 45%
LREM 55%
In that tiny, 2 districts wide France, the RN has :
Nationwide : 45% of the votes
Seat won : 0
Governments commonly have to work together. That’s their intended purpose and it’s not very common for just one party to control the entire government.
I’m not gonna act like I have any clue what this means, so good for them?
The RN (far-right, brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl) was projected to win pretty big in this election. Not enough to form a majority in the National Assembly but more than anyone else (The National Assembly is the French equivalent of Congress). The NFP (Coaliton of Leftist parties, Purple) and the Ensemble (Coalition of Centrist parties, Yellow) were able to work together to stop them. Broadly, they did this by dropping out of the races for any seats where they were coming 3rd and endorsing the other group over RN. To put it simply, this has been an unexpected victory over the far-right, so any who oppose them are very happy with this outcome. The threeway split seen here is also a very rare outcome in French Politics, with no party being able to form an effective majority. As such how their government is going to function going forward is kind of up in the air. Essentially it's just a very interesting time in French and European politics as a whole, for those who are interested.
Ohh... we know why they're brown. They were going with their proverbial true colors here.
Brown shirts
my first thought was the color of shit but that’s far more clever the way you two meant it
One of the founders of the RN was member of the SS
There was ancient collaborators and the main force behind the creation of the party was Ordre Nouveau, which was a fascist movement. But the main thing to denounce is that the father of the current leader of the party, Jean Marie Le Pen is very much a Nazi in addition to being a war criminal. He tortured Algerians during the war, was a anti-gaullist (while the party claim to be De Gaulle inheritor), defended the French Volunteer under the SS who fought the soviets and proud to know a few of them as his friends, defended Pétain, only refused to join the OAS, organization famous for killing over 2000 people through terrorism, because of "legality", is a firm believer of the Great Replacement theory. He was the president of the party until 13 years ago and now his daughter is leading the party. The Rassemblement National is neonazi party.
I was speaking of course of Pierre Bousqet who served in SS-Wafen, unrepentantly so.
My skin is brown...
Unacceptable to the RN
I think there are quite some brown skins there
How does this compare to Labour winning in the UK? Seems the liberals in Europe are holding back the conservatives.
Labour won very convincingly and has a full majority. They won’t need to make concessions with the LibDems or anyone else, at least for now. In this case the NFP and Macrons coalition will probably have to strike a deal in order for things to work. But they don’t see eye to eye on basically anything except that they hate the right. It’ll be interesting to watch.
Macron already had a minority government before the election so nothing new there. His gamble worked out fine in the end.
Considering he lost his relative majority, no, his gamble didn't work out at all.
Holding back Nazis is always a win.
But Macron's gamble resulted in the nazis gaining 60 more seats . That's not holding back. That's not a win.
A lot better than them getting a majority. Which was possible.
But only made possible by the gamble of calling snap elections. The alternative was the RN staying at 80 seats until 2027. They're's no way to spin that as a win for Macron.
They were on the rise. He needed to make the elections now before they got too powerful.
Powerful how? The next national election was 2027. Plus they were not suddendly on the rise, they've been hovering around 30% for years. Meanwhile they doubled their seats which means, would you guess it, that they doubled their state subsidies. So the net result is more seats, more money, and more power to the far right. How is that any good?
Had no idea there were fascist German nationalists in French Parliament. When will they be calling for Lebensraum?
Wouldn't that be Espace vital?
No.
it aint that easy! Meanwhile french rabbis advise young jews to leave france, because of rising antisemitic behavoir. The left socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon is also antisemetic and populist
But what do you mean… His gamble DID work out because he already had the minority in the government. What happened was what he set out to do.
Absolutely not. He had a relative majority (this may be what you call a minority, I'm not familliar with the english term), which he has not anymore (the left has that now). If his gamble was to lose seats, it worked. What he actually set out to do, was calling quick elections so that the left run divided, qualify in most second rounds, and beat the far right in the second round. But the left managed to mount an electoral alliance in a few days, which meant that the path to the second round became much harder At the end of the day, he lost more than 80 seats and he lost his ability to govern. Before, he could easily find 50 MPs to form a majority on a specific bill. Now he needs 130, which he isn't likely to find.
In English, we would say the party with the most votes but not a majority has a plurality.
TIL, thanks!
He wanted to call the right’s bluff and run elections before letting them gain power. I’m not sure there’s another reason why he would do this. He’s still very unpopular in France and I’m not sure he’s running for a third term.
> He wanted to call the right’s bluff What bluff? The far right almost doubled their seats, so that sure isn't a win. > I’m not sure there’s another reason why he would do this. Then read my previous post. The goal was to gain a majority by gambling that the left wouldn't assemble, it failed. > He’s still very unpopular in France and I’m not sure he’s running for a third term. He can't, the constitution forbids it.
So does that mean, Macron would come back in Power?
These were parliamentary elections. Meaning only the new parliament was elected. Macron is the president for which there are extra elections for it called the presidential elections. Macron is not going out of office, though his prime minister most likely, since now a new government needs to be formed. Macron the president though stays the same until the next presidential election
Thanks for the detailed response
I’m from the UK. I wouldn’t say Labour won “very convincingly”. They hardly increased their share of the vote from 2019. They won because the Tory party made so many mistakes, Reform UK set themselves up and took away 1/3 of their usual votes and Labour didn’t contest the Lib Dems in places where they were stronger and had a better chance of winning.
They did win very convincingly, they got their joint second highest seats ever, and the second largest party(Conservatives) got their lowest seats ever, and Labour have won one of the biggest majorities ever. If you don't think they won convincingly then you don't understand British politics. It is true that their vote share is actually quite low for such a huge number of seats but that's how British politics works. The aim isn't purely to get the most votes but to have consistency and get a strong number of votes throughout the country not just in specific areas the party is strong like London, Liverpool, Manchester and South Wales. Also there are several important factors reducing Labours vote total. Firstly everybody knew Labour were winning comfortably, this encourages people to vote for 3rd party or independents because it doesn't matter Labour will win anyway, particularly if that consistency is almost guaranteed to go Labour. For some people they didn't bother to vote, turnout was low, what's the point voting if you know Labour will win anyway, even if you are a Labour supporter. Also there was large amount of tactical voting. Tons of Labour supporters in areas that Labour never win voted Lib Dems and Green, Lib Dems got more seats than they have in 80 years and Greens went from consistently getting 1 seat to getting 4. If you look at areas which were strong Tory seats and Labour were seen as more likely to win than Lib Dems or Greens the Labour vote went up massively in those places. A lot of Essex/Kent/Cornwall. Jacob Rees-Mogg' s seat and Liz Truss seat I think I saw was the largest swing in votes between elections ever. She had one of the safest seats in the country and Labour managed to overturn it. Where Labour needed to increase their votes they mostly did, where they didn't they mostly dropped in votes. That was quite literally the plan and a side effect of tactical voting and polls showing Labour had a massive majority the whole campaign. Labour absolutely won very convincingly
What an arrogant reply. What are you overcompensating for? In 1997 Labour won about the same amount of seats but had 43% share of the national vote. In 2024 they get 34%. Maybe read this article for some enlightenment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o.amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c886pl6ldy9o)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Ah yes, making an educated, explanatory reply that disagrees with you is "arrogant"... That comment says more about you than the other person.
I’m afraid that’s only your opinion. I hope you’re aware of that or are you just as arrogant too? And they wonder why parties like Reform UK do so much better now than they did in the past…
No, it's not "my opinion" - their reply was pretty factual, explaining what happened pretty fairly. What facts are you refuting? If it's arrogant to you to be on the side of facts, then I'm very happy to be arrogant.
Poster: Argues why he thinks Labour won convincingly. Reply: Why so arrogant? Me: wtf Why so out-of-the-blue condescending when they are just explaining why they disagree or did I miss something? They were hardly rude about it but that's Reddit I guess.
Yeah, Corbyn got more of the country's votes when he was leader, but he didn't win as many seats. From what I've seen of the UK, this election was a kind of fluke, freak statistical chance.
The thing with Corbyn is that while he was apparently more popular amongst Labour voters (or at least had a more enthusiastic following than Starmer), he was also an easy bogeyman to galvanise the right into voting to keep him out.
In real terms they lost a significant number of voters
I mean, I think this is a simplistic view. Labor didn’t run in every seat they could (they were also tactical- this alone could easily shave a few percentage points from their vote share), and in a system with so much tactical voting, labor’s large lead could arguably also depress turnout for them naturally (people who in the past voted tactically for labour as opposed to Tories, felt more free to vote ideologically given the threat of tories were gone). It’s flawed to analyse so superficially. If they got the same vote share in this election, given these factors working for them I’d honestly say it’s a win.
What do you mean they didn’t stand in every seat? The only ones they didn’t stand in were NI. Agree about the large lead suppressing their vote numbers & tactical voting for Lib Dem’s in the south though.
Sorry meant they didn’t campaign in every seat (they greatly reduced campaigning in certain seats that the Lib Dem’s were more competitive in)
It’s not simplistic, these are the headlines. The previous commenter provided the simplistic view, not me. Of course there’s more to it than that, but are you expecting me to write an essay on Reddit?
Even analysing deeper. If we include the greens new voters that's only an additional 3.8% which would give a Labour vote of 37.5% which is still lower than their 2017 result of 40% in which they lost. Realistically, there's no other party Labour voters would go to as the Lib Dems hardly increased their vote share (11.6% to 12.2%) and the lower turnout is much more from usual conservative voters just not voting. Labour even gained a huge number of Scottish voters which still did not push them up very much. All of this combines with the fact that in 1997, before the election Labour was expected to win big and they got 43.2% of the vote and roughly the same number of seats. So, as many in the UK would agree, this is an empty/hollow victory "by default" and if this is ignored, expect Labour to lose at the next election.
Uh, you’re erroneously assuming that no reform voters come from labor, and also forgetting some of the labour voters that labour lost on account of Palestine thing. Plus people like corbyn.
Independents which weren't all left wing were on 2% so the party would be roughly on par with Corbyn's first lost. And yes, a significant number of Labour voters moved to Reform, however, these are the same voters who voted for Johnson in 2019 and voted Reform not because of the failure in the conservatives but because they want Reform. If you look at the votes in the red wall, you can see this clearly that Labour's vote remained roughly the same from 2019 but significantly lower than 2017.
Also, their failure with the Palestine thing was a loss for Labour. They were in safe Labour seats with no risk of Conservatives in the first place and likely would have gone independent whether Labour was winning or not.
It still drains voters from labor, and i think those votes may have arguably gone to labour in a different climate
A “hollow victory”, with a whopping majority in the only metric that actually counts.
I would argue they did not win very convincingly. In fact, they won much like the left and centre did in the French election gaining many more seats than their votes. Labour got only 33% of the votes (with the second lowest turnout ever) which translated into 63% of the seats. This is the greatest discrepancy of votes to seats in the UK ever and they even lost votes from the last election which was a Conservative majority and a lower percentage of the votes since 2017 which they also lost. In conclusion, Labour did not win big because of their success but FPTP and the failure of the Conservatives.
For the past 14 years, the UK has been under the guide of the conservative right-wing government, and Rishi Sunak has the charisma of puddle. Europe is shifting right, while the UK veers left. Nigel Farage's Reform Party further muddies the waters for the Tories. Meanwhile, in Germany, the AfD poses a similar threat, albeit far more extreme in their fascist views and disturbingly reliant on the crop of 16 year old voters.
TBF that's pretty historically on-point. For all the UKs shit-talking and colonizing, when it gets down to it, they've consistently been on the right side of history for the past century. Likewise, for all of Germany's reserve and talk of getting over the past, they're often far less stable (and more prone to violent authoritarianism) than they'd like to admit. And France is usually the messy bitch in the middle, although leaning towards conservativism.
I wouldn’t necessarily say this but German ethnocentric heel turn based on external economic forces isn’t exactly new. As for France - the entire Sahel region cut those snobby leeches off so there’s hope for New Caledonia.
That’s not quite true. Labour won with fewer votes than they received the past two elections. And they shifted the party platform significantly to the right in order to do that (immigration, benefits and tax policies all firmly on the right). With the reform party getting 14% of total votes, they gained more voters than any other party by a large margin. More people voted for them than the Liberal Democrat’s (12%). Overall the U.K. took a large and worrying step to the right.
Labour did receive less votes but this was due to a much reduced turnout, their vote share actually went up, albeit by a small amount. https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections-vote-share-by-party-uk/
And you have to take into account the different dynamics in this election. Both with labour being more tactical (running less of a campaign in Lib Dem seats), and also the fact that their large lead meant that you probably had more voters voting “ideologically” than in the past (if you know labour is going to win regardless, you don’t have to vote as tactically and can vote your mind).
Labour won in the UK but that was mainly due to nigel farages party splitting the Conservative vote. Whilst labours slide to centre right may have made farage comfortable to do so, it certainly didn't pick up right wing votes like they hoped. Here the party most aligned with the uks labour is macrons, which called this election, and whilst it finished 2nd, it's been an embarrassing state of affairs for them. The real test is now macron (the equivalent to starmer) gets to pick who he wants to form a coalition with, the broad left or the far right.
Not as momentous but also bigger overall. For comparison if Reform UK is very close to RN in stance. This is liberal Democrats stepping down from running certain seats to let labour win (and visa versa) to ensure reform UK doesn't form parliament.
Labor did not win. **The Conservatives lost** Labor's votes received declined. 10,269,051 in 2019 vs 9,731,363 in 2024. Its percentage of votes marginally increased from, 32.1% to 33.8%. . Labor has in many ways purged its left wing, and looks like the Conservationrs without without the right wing nutcases. Scottish National Party also lost, and Labor took numerous of those seats. Labor decline from resurgent SNP splitting and taking Labor votes in Scotland was a significant aspect of Labor losing a majority in Parliament 14 years ago. Economic troubles make UK government capability to finance and change policies in the UK limited. The minority right of center Liberal Democratic party also gained greatly from Conservative Party disaffection. It is a fragile win for Labor, without the vote gain and enthusiasm of Tony Blair's win in the 1990s. The Reform UK had a vote count win, and was a big source of wounding the Conservative party, splitting the vote, though gaining few seats. Trouble ahead with the resurgent right wing at the next UK election. Similarly, the French centrists are hollowed out and lost, with both wings left and right gaining. A fragile Coalition government with big egos will result in a paralyzed National Assembly. Maccron's prima donna ego is a source of Centrist decline. The French electoral result is a precarios ad-hoc electoral Coalition without underlying philosophical principles to unite highly divergent parties, some of whom have programs proposed that will have to be walked back, because they do not have support for major budgetary and taxation change from partner coalition parties. Trouble ahead for the next election for President and Assembly from the resurgent right wing in France.
Labour is honestly still a moderately conservative party, just not compared to the morons that ran the UK into the ground over the last 14 years they've had power I think they're considered a moderate party
Liberals hold back a lot of things, including progress. You can read it similarly, either a huge win for the centre and left. Or a pants shittingly frightening future. In the UK labour won a wide but shallow victory. Massive majority, but fewer total votes and a lower % share of votes than 2019. The Conservatives lost mostly due to the fact that the Reform (far right) got 14.3% of the popular vote coming out of nowhere from last election. RN in France has had a similar trajectory in the last few years. Next elections will be a tipping point, either the leftish parties can produce change or we'll be facing fascistic right wing governments around the world. People want change, need change, and they're starting to get less picky about who offers it.
The Labour vote share percentage was higher this time around than in 2019, please don't share disinformation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections-vote-share-by-party-uk/
Sorry, you're right. I must have been using older data. | Year | Votes | Percentage | |------ |------------ |------------- | | 2019 | 10,269,051 | 32.08% | | 2024 | 9,704,655 | 33.69% | | | | | The point still stands, in 2019, Farage's Brexit Party, UKIP and BNP combined didn't break 700k votes. And this time Reform got just over 4.1 million votes, while Labour lost 500k.
Higher voting share, despite less incentive to vote tactically, and less seats they ran in. That’s honestly a victory.
Marginally Higher percentage in 2024 vs 2019 for Labor.
Sorry, you're right. I must have been using older data. | Year | Votes | Percentage | |------ |------------ |------------- | | 2019 | 10,269,051 | 32.08% | | 2024 | 9,704,655 | 33.69% | | | | |
Brown for 2 reasons : - dark blue is going to be for the conservatives calling themselves "The Republicans" (at least the share of them who did not yet ally themselves with the far right). - because they are the far right, brown is very fitting.
>The RN (far-right, brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl) Because Nazis are brownshirts.
Ahh I see- makes sense, thanks for the info!
["a very interesting time"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times)
Brown to match their shirts.
I think brown as color for RN is historically well chosen. And thank you France, for doing the right thing *before* all other options are exhausted.
Ah yes, the democratic party with a huge part of the votes is the *wrong* vote... Who are you to tell those people they voted wrong?
>far-right, brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl Might be the source being left wing? German "Taz" also coloured the AfD brown in the European election results, while they are actually navy blue as well.
If the Right had won, they would have drifted from NATO and weakened the Western Hegemony and their (Nuclear) Bulwark against Rising Autocratic Unethical Regimes So, can we say this result is relatively Good for the Earth (not World and its humans)?
They still got 37% of votes (10 million voters), more than the left (7 million) and Macron (6 million)…
Given the results, and the fact that a lot of third candidate stepped down, you can see that they have about 63% who voted for 'anyone but them'.
>brown in this graph for some reason, navy blue irl Nah, those shirts are brown as hell IRL too.
Will this most likely end up a two party system if these tactics continue to be used in future elections?
Was this a calculated move by Macron? Did he have this scenario in his mind when he called the election?
Who knows? Some have said this snap election was a disaster for him because his party lost so many seats. Some have said this was a great piece of manoeuvring on his part since it was likely the party was going to lose the seats regardless and this way he ensured they weren't lost to RN and took some of the wind out of their sails. I'm inclined to believe the latter, I can't imagine this was just entirely an accident
Yeah same, it seems it would have required a lot of communication and coordination to make this happen.
TY for the explanation! Real quick - has France had a 'coalition' government in recent times? If so - how did that fare?
RN (far-right) won 10.1M votes while Macron’s party won 6.6M votes and NPF (socialist) won 7M votes.
Are these colors aligned from left to right to represent political ideology from left to right as well?
They are, yes
Ah, so backroom deals. Very democratic.
Collectively, the people who lived in these seats decided not to vote for RN. RN didn't drop out of the race in these seats nor were they forced not to run somehow, they simply lost them because they didn't get enough votes. Even if the party they actually wanted to vote for dropped out in their respective seat, as is the party's right, they were still presented with the choice "RN" or "Not RN" and they chose "Not RN". Welcome to democracy
As usual the only proposal that these parties have is "we're scared of the right wing please vote for us 👉👈"
It was one of the biggest plot twists of politics history
While I'm not an expert, it looks like the top two parties have joined forces "temporarily" for this election to prevent the right from gaining a stronghold. It's likely that this alliance will fall apart after the election. If the right can stay united and play their cards right, they have a strong chance of winning the next election.
For anyone wondering what it means for the next year to come : - Left wing promised way too much and will have to betray itself because if they don't, their government will fall day 1 (other parties can vote to demote the government) - Macron will most likely try to form a larger coalition with the less radical lefties and fighters, but ultimately won't do much because, same, any government can fall super fast - RN and allies will do what they do best : do nothing See you next year, we're wasting a year here.
Best hope for the RN is the left is openly anti Macron and causes a divide between the center and left. It seems the only thing this coalition will have for them is "We aren't far right". This is a good strategy for votes but how will they actually pass anything. I can't see center and center right liberals getting along well with socdems and democratic socialists. The left will be mad at liberals for blocking any left leaning economic policy, and the centrists will be upset at a disorganized coalition. If the RN plays their cards right they could win big in 2029 by pointing out how disastrous the coalition is. Also if the NPF actually goes through with their immigration reform plans it could really hurt them. That said I also could totally see some r-tard ruining it. French nationalists have a habit of screwing themselves. The country is more right wing than ever before yet the government is more left wing talk about massive fumble very embarrassing
Next presidential election is 2027, not 2029. And yes, this is a blocking situation, the left agenda is openly anti-macron, there's no majority for retirement at 60 or increasing minimum wage by 10%, there's a majority against.
Im talking about legislative election not Presidential I don't think RN will win the presidential election in 2027. It will probably just be another center-center right liberal imo
Next legislative election will be most likely next years, after another dissolution, and definitely after 2027. The current assembly is super cursed an makes it super ungovernable : it will be disolved quickly, especially after presidential elections where a newly elected president wants a clear majority.
no new parliament election can happen within the year
Well someone has to be the optimist I guess...
New presidents generally dissolve the parliament after they are elected, The same will probably happen in 2027 as well no matter who wins
The left people are precisely relieved that marcon might have a more difficult time passing anything, but it is not like he was really consulting anyone before. The power of the parliament has already been greatly reduced these last decades. Pus, if there is a tiny bit of civil unrest he will vote himself full power.
Inclined to disagree, if the left enters a coalition with Macron that doesn't at a minimum involve the repeal of the pension reform and immigration laws their supporters would never forgive them, and it's hard to imagine Macron compromising on either of those. Likewise if there is a split between LFI and the center-left parties that is also massively to the benefit of the RN. Essential that the left bloc holds together for 2027.
Why aren't they far left? Le Pen is far right because why exactly? She doesn't want to import millions of people who actively call for Sharia law?
Even with the vote percentages representing the seats this would be a an electoral gridlock. NFP 31,2% of seats but 28,2% and 25,2% of votes 1st and 2nd round. ENS 27,6% of seats but 21,3% and 24,5% of votes 1st and 2nd round. RN+UXD 24,6% of seats but 33,2% and 37,1% of votes 1st and 2nd round.
33,2% of votes, woah! The electoral system really works against them.
I have no idea how French government works atm, why can the government fall at any moment?
Case 1 : Government : *presents a law to the Assembly* Assembly : you don't have the majority, so no Case 2 : (named 49.3) Government : "Here's a law, but we're adopting it without presenting it to the Assembly. Instead, you guys can vote if you're cool to have us ruling" Assembly : ok, we're not, bye. The case 2 worked in the previous government because the government didn't have the majority, but there were a few groups of nearby political ideas that value stability that were reluctant to vote to overthrow the government. But now, it's no longer an option, because both the left and the right are too powerful and want the power.
Completely valid points, but I look at this from the U.S. and have an appreciation of the heterogeneity in France’s politics. Do French have the same appreciation or does it cause more hangups than a two party system?
This is the first time under the current constitution (adopted in 1958) that there has been no majority in parliament so we're kind of in uncharted waters here. I don't think there's really anyone who would prefer to have *less* choice however. The entire point of the two-round electoral system is already to "rationalize" politics by favoring larger blocks; the 1946-58 constitution had a proportionally-elected parliament which was viewed as too unstable (ofc they had to deal with post-war reconstruction and war in Vietnam+Algeria so hard to imagine any system being very stable). So what exists now is sort of a compromise.
>This is the first time under the current constitution (adopted in 1958) that there has been no majority in parliament so we're kind of in uncharted waters here. What? No party won a major in the 2022 legislative elections as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_French_legislative_election
Only if you count MoDem and Horizons separately from Macron which honestly there's no reason to do.
Nope I am counting them as well Ensemble as a whole got 245 not just RE
Thats pretty biased and inaccurate ngl. Left wing ideas work on paper but are criticized because its a huge change to what people know.
I'm not saying it's critized by people, I'm saying they're criticized by other parties, whose votes are necessary to pass anything. You want 1600 euros minium wage? Sure, with who? Macron's side is pretty against, and siding with RN looks bad. You want retirement at 60? Sure, with who? Macron just made it to 64 and LR / RN won't go as low as 60, and certainly not without massive compromises. The left made promises it can't hold, not because of how possible they are but because there's just not enough people to vote them.
Fair enough good explanation
*Disjointed Government spirit is activated*
Daily Political Power Cost: +0.8
So nobody won. Wow. And each of those big color blocks is itself a coalition of parties.
the people won
37% voted for RN, 23% for the Left block, is it really that much of a win in that regard? Keep in mind that the biggest party in the left block supports the annexation of Crimea by Russia, wants to leave the EU and leave NATO.
> 37% voted for RN, 23% for the Left block, is it really that much of a win in that regard? Keep in mind that the left and ensemble opted out when they were 3rd in the first round. Comparing scores as a national percentage doesn't make much sense in this case. What can be said is that roughly 60% voted against the RN. > Keep in mind that the biggest party in the left block supports the annexation of Crimea by Russia, wants to leave the EU and leave NATO. None of this is true.
The Left has 177 seats while RN has 141.
Yup, 37% of the people voted for RN, they have 141 seats. 23% for the left block, they have 177 seats. I think you'd be pissed if it was the other way around.
The left and centre opted out when they were 3rd in the first round. Looking at national percentages doesn't make much sense in this case.
Broken democracy where 37% of the population is not represented by a equal number of elected representatives. Glad we don't have that here.
Re-read and try to understand this time. 37% means nothing. Their actual national score in the first round is 31%. They got less seats than that because they're a polarizing party and between 50 and 60% of the population voted against them. The system is designed to limit polarizing and fringe parties, and it works.
Yeah, whereas the RN got their campaign directly funded by russia and support what exactly ? Ah but it is OK, now that the far right is raising in the EU, they do not talk "frexit" anymore.
"But what about" What about them? Why would one extremist party excusing Russia be preferable over the other extremist party that excuses Russia? At least RN says they will still support Ukraine and not allow Russia to take it, but don't want to send men and don't want Ukraine to use French long range weapons on Russian territory. Where as jean-luc Mélenchon considers Russia a preferable partner to the US, wants to leave NATO, praises the annexation of Crimea and considers NATO the cause of this war.
I think there is a big step between "excusing russia" as people like saying it, and actually taking russian money and advice to get power. -> I do not remember mélenchon meeting putin for example, whereas le pen did multiple times in order to strengthen the relationship and openly show support. Note for the sake of intellectual honesty than when macronists decide to give russia a fuckton of money for its uranium "just in case it ends up lacking", and are being called out for it, they answer "well it is what it is, we really like nuke". They also resumed commercially supporting ukraine by suspending importation rights on its agricultural products in order to pacify french cereal producers, where other alternatives existed. So it seems that how appalling russian support is strongly depends on the party involved. It seems like the people who are actively lobbying for putin, plus the people who are being very cynical about it and play a double game, are very quick to reverse the blame and put it on the party which talks but actually did nothing.
What a meaningless statement
when fascists are denied control the people win
And yet, they gained massively in support and we have to rely on a coalition of parties whose only uniting factor is hating Le Pen. You are just kicking the can down the road. The people haven’t won at all, they got like the second worst option and have to hope that the coalition can turn things around because if not Le Pen will come back stronger than ever in 2027.
Unless the coalitions figure out some way to address immigration, etc
And the uniting factor of hating Trump and the maga voters is good enough for me:)
Strategic achievement for the centrists
Pretty sure centrists won because they'll get most of their agenda through. The left wing points with the left-wing party, the right wing points with the right-wing party.
Will be an interesting time…a theme echoing across many western democracies right now…
Nazis failed, that was the main goal
Some of that is true. But there is an insane amount of far left Nazis in France. Arguably the most antisemitic country outside of the places like Syria, Iran, etc. They have too many members in the far left who openly hate Jews and are celebrated for it. The leader of their party Jean-Luc Melenchon, in a 2017 speech called French Jews “an arrogant minority that lectures to the rest.” France is becoming a scary place with unsettling politics at all levels.
So I'm assuming the poopy colored seats are the poopy ones?
Yes, fascists love poop colours for some reason. Brown shirts
Birds of the same poop , poop together
It’s just “National Assembly” in English.
When we elected Trump then the UK elected Boris Johnson I was scared at the trend. Now I'm praying the trend will last until November at the least.
Disgusting
OK, I don't see what all the doomy stuff about not being able to assemble a government comes from. After some knocking of heads together, IMO any of the three big blocks could assemble a working minority in coalition with the smaller parties. Presumably the centrists (Macron) are best able to do this, providing Jupiter comes down from Mount Olympus.
What an american comment. You know nothing about French politics to think the left doesnt hate macron and is completely against his policies. They just all hate the extreme right more.
Is it indeed a pronouncement from Jupiter himself? Certainly good that YOU know how this turns out. You will be interested in r/eurotwat sub.
What makes you think I’m european, you can put your finger anywhere on a globe except the US and find someone who actually knows things.
sorry my mistake r/nonUStwat is the one for you.
I’m not that clear on how French politics works, but with a three way split like this are they not effectively heading into another election right away? So celebrating or crying seems a bit premature at this point.
Most European parliaments look a little like this. Parties/blocs can form coalitions to get a majority. That's why Germany currently has three governing parties. Coalitions obviously come with their own problems (parties have to give up some of their promises, etc), but it's better than immediate and perpetual re-elections, I guess.
The assembly is locked for a year. Then Macron can dissolve it again, if he deems it necessary.
A lot of people, especially Americans, are really used to a two party system, but these sort of things do happen in a system with more than two relevant parties. If anyone wants to get things done, two of the three make a compromise and gang up on the third. It can be really chaotic or really effective, depending on how desperate people want things done.
I like the variety
Vichy France 2.0 avoided.... For now.
Macron is just genius
There’s gonna have to be a coalition government.
So.....who is this one misc and why aren't they included in indis or regionalists?
Awesome, great! Now let's see what's inside this NFP block to understand how relevant they really are.
Love the party colours!
Not colour-blind friendly? Check.
In the first place, why there are 2 phases of election? Its not presidental election, where u have to choose one person...
I just want to know who's the good one so I can get this out of mind
Reminder that Macron's coalition is far-right-lite.
Disgusting
You need that many people to run a country the size of France which is smaller than Texas - no wonder they revolt.
I look at that graphic and think how will anything get done?
Get Fucked Le Nazi's
Aren't only people fucked? Now there won't be any government but pure chaos
All the parties in the NFP group have significant disagreements but somehow they managed to work together to form the group. If they could talk through all thier issues to find consensus they can also work with the Liberals to form a government. There are a bunch of unlikely stuff that the NFP and the RN actually agree with as well.
**The new government will face pressures from the EU on public finances.** **Given the weak public finances in France, the European Commission has officially proposed to open an excessive deficit procedure (EDP) against France** together with six other EU countries. The EDP can ultimately result in fines to France of up to 0.05% of GDP to be paid every six months, up to cumulative fines of 0.5% of GDP (EUR 14 billion in 2024). Currently, it is premature to talk about fines, as there is a long political process before it could be actual. The next step is that the new French government will submit budgets and reform proposals on how to correct the deficit in September. If a new government is not formed quickly, the Commission can grant France more time. Then, the Commission will decide whether to officially open an EDP against France. Given the fragmentation in the National Assembly and the fact that a new government will likely be fragile, we expect that it will be difficult for France to come up with structural reforms and spending cuts that can satisfy the commission. Hence, there is a significant chance of the Commission officially opening an EDP against France. Yet, it depends on the new government, especially as a technocratic government might have a greater chance of making unpopular decisions. **If the Commission opens an excessive deficit procedure against France, we can estimate that the new government will have to show an increase in the structural balance, of around** ***0.5 percentage*** **points per year**. This will be the case if France is granted the 7-year adjustment period, while the four-year adjustment period would require an improvement of 0.9 percentage points per year. Given its size and power in the European Council, France could most likely negotiate a seven-year adjustment period by committing to investments in EU priorities like the green transition and digitalization. However, in either of the cases, there is no room for much spending.
But overall the population supports left leaning politics. A very good sign. The left chose not to split their vote to defeat the right. Smart. Had the left vote split neither would have enough to beat the right even though overall voter numbers would have been left leaning. Now the only problem is the first past the post voting.
I don't ever want to hear redditors complain about the electoral college system again
It is literally the worst electoral system imaginable, an anti-democratic nightmare.
You voted for: EVERYONE You get: NOTHING
I have no idea how this makes the electoral college look good, where some peoples votes are up to 4 times stronger (or never matter because you are not in a Swingstate/District). The electoral college and First Past The Post is the reason you get amazing choices like Biden and Trump. Here in Germany, if I could only vote between CDU and SPD I would go crazy. Instead I can vote for people who are incompetent, but I like their program. As long as my party gets more than 5% of the vote, my vote always matters. Sure, sometimes they have coalitions that get nothing done, but that happens in the USA as well, when the Senate, President and House are not aligned.
>sometimes they have coalitions that get nothing done, but that happens in the USA as well, when the Senate, President and House are not aligned. Actually, that happens literally always in the USA because if the minority party has 41 Senate seats, then they can filibuster everything they want to, except budgets.
Here you go: Electoral college is bad, first-past-the-post voting is bad. About why first-past-the-post voting is bad: just look at the UK election that also happened this week. The winning party got 30% of the votes, but won 60% of seats. About why electoral college is bad: it can actually be compared to France’s presidential election (not this election, but the ones with Macron), and their 2 rounds voting with popular votes. The people’s votes were able to keep the far right at bay, unlike the US falling for Trump right the first time.
The American system is definitely worse. In America you have massive states where people's votes are irrelevant. Every single republican in Califronia, New York and Illinois essentially have no vote. It makes no difference whether they vote of not, the entirety of the state will go for the Democrats no matter what. Every single Democrat in Montana, Kentucky, North and South Dakota, their vote is irrelevant, granted those states don't have an insane population like the previous mentioned ones. In the French and British systems there are definitely people who's votes don't matter because their area will always vote one way but these are small areas of small population not states of millions. The American president is decides between Wisconsin, Michigan, Pensylvania, New Hampshire, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia. Literally every single other states votes are irrelevant. And every 12 years or so one or two other states might join that list and one or two might leave the list. Georgia will surely go back to being solid red for example, last election was likely a one off
no matter how fucked things get in chile, we can always rely on Servel being the best institution in the country, hands down. military takes over all schools about a week in advance, people doing the work during election day is randomly selected among legal voters and where you vote is predefined by where you live. all ballots are serialized, yet we all go to vote at 9, vote count in the news and results are by dinner. for presidentials is first regular business then next day is the two highest candidates
The french voting system is scuffed af With almost 35% you get less seats than with 25% 💀
Because it's not a national election, but a 2 turns, winner takes all, district by district. District 1: RN 45% NFP 55% District 2: RN 45% LREM 55% In that tiny, 2 districts wide France, the RN has : Nationwide : 45% of the votes Seat won : 0
Then there is UK where 34% gives you 60+% lol
And 14.5% vote share gets you less than 1% of the seats (Reform UK)
At least it's a parliamentary system, not one with two useless parties everyone hates.
Yeah, in europe we get to have tons of parties that everyone hates, we aren't restricted to just 2
What I wouldn't give to have this system in Bulgaria right now where we've been in a stalemate for 4 years
They will have a hard time to govern
Governments commonly have to work together. That’s their intended purpose and it’s not very common for just one party to control the entire government.