French presidential election 2017

It's the same all across government. Try convincing people to spend £1 million on schools rather than £10 million on policing, or £2 million on preventative public health campaigns, versus £20 million on heart surgery. We're not very good at the pre-emptive stuff. You'd think that the point of representative government would be to do that sort of thinking for us, but it doesn't seem to happen like that.
Considering that Education is the second highest budget in France (first being taxes reductions/reimbursements) and is half bigger than defense + police put together, I'm afraid you really completely messed up your argument.

(BTW : the third-highest budget is also about education, it's universities and the like)
 
Absolutely - schools are expensive. But you'll never hear people clamouring to increase that budget as a response to crime. Nor will you hear people clamouring to increase the foreign aid budget in response to international terrorism. Both of those would do much better to reduce the problem than policing and bombing.
 
Absolutely - schools are expensive. But you'll never hear people clamouring to increase that budget as a response to crime.
What ?
Either you lived under a rock, or UK is a pretty different place.
Education is usually the number one answer to about everything here (in arguments at least - practice is, as usual, slightly more problematic). Repression is a distant second - French tend to be culturally defiant, and repression is seen as suspect by a large part of the population.
Nor will you hear people clamouring to increase the foreign aid budget in response to international terrorism.
It's not an argument unheard of. The problem here is more about the perception (which is, sadly, too often true) that aid is simply usurped by local rulers to increase their own wealth instead of being used to help people.
 
There is no reason why we couldn't have helped Greece. Even the bloody Financial Times thought Merkel's obsession with austerity was stupid and counterproductive. It's pretty standard economics, but Merkel ignored it for political reasons. I'm glad she took a braver stand on refugees.
The refugees aren't European, one way or the other.
This would be too OT but since you have offered an example... to keep it simple, lets take infrastructure.

The western Europe were developed countries then. It was more about restoring, rebuilding and improving. The roads existed before, people had knowledge, had data how it worked, where was heavy traffic and where was not, feedback from factory owners and therefore also should think of improvements and with the new technologies.

Soviet part of Poland was nothing like this. It was mostly agricultural area where were few (rail)roads connecting inland Poland and few manufactories. Lot of people died in war or sent to gulags. Soviet engineers now had to get idea how to build the roads to connect new area to USSR, connect it with their cities and with the newly build heavy-industry factories in new economical system.
Where would be money spent more efficiently?

Except Eastern Germany and western Czechoslovakia there was no industry and knowledge. Sure the communism made it worse, skilled people not killed by war and nazis run away or were jailed and sent to uranium mines/gulags. But the idea that Soviets were just pillaging its satellites is too simple, they had much harder job from the start.

The amount of money spent by Italy to its south during the decades is another example with less ideological/economical influences. Wouldnt it be better if would south just adopt without any Italian/EU subsidies and incentives? In fact, one user told us about need of less tariffs to third countries in this thread. First victims would be agricultural EU countries, not these wealthy ones. Because they live like in laboratory, dependant on state money and regulated market.

And now take what money would mean to improve Ukraine with its oligarchs, Russian influence and corruption. And there is still relatively good education, no religious fanatics and quite limited armed conflict. I would be willing to spend my taxes to help them to keep them independent from Russia, but I do not think that any my money would be spend effectively. I would help mandkind much more if I would spend same money to just adopt/sponsor some child.
I know that it's a simplification and I made it a simple post so as not to derail us too much.

Since we are discussing agricultural subsidies: how much does France depend on them? If it's anywhere remotely comparable to the situation in England, voting for Le Pen to take the country out of the EU would have been a completely suicidal option.
So, what's next for the Vichy gov? :)
*gapes in surprise at screen*

*re-checks results of last elections*

*is relieved*
It's the same all across government. Try convincing people to spend £1 million on schools rather than £10 million on policing, or £2 million on preventative public health campaigns, versus £20 million on heart surgery. We're not very good at the pre-emptive stuff. You'd think that the point of representative government would be to do that sort of thinking for us, but it doesn't seem to happen like that.
Well, we have one of two options: either the current ruling class sitting in Parliament does not represent the feelings, emotions and opinions of those whom they rule, or it does. And I cannot fathom which one is scarier.
Absolutely - schools are expensive. But you'll never hear people clamouring to increase that budget as a response to crime. Nor will you hear people clamouring to increase the foreign aid budget in response to international terrorism. Both of those would do much better to reduce the problem than policing and bombing.
Except that the places in which it was done now have show an improvement regarding those areas. Well, this is the era for disregarding experts and reality, isn't it? :(
 
Since we are discussing agricultural subsidies: how much does France depend on them? If it's anywhere remotely comparable to the situation in England, voting for Le Pen to take the country out of the EU would have been a completely suicidal option.

Completely suicidal indeed.
 
Le Monde released their large poll for the legislative election.
En Marche : 31%
LR : 22%
FN : 18%
FI (melenchon) : 11.5%
PS : 8.5%
PC : 2%

More interesting is the rough estimate for the number of seats.
En Marche : 400
LR : 100
PS : 30
Melenchon + PC : 15
FN : 10

Macron's good foreign policy start seems to be offsetting the Ferrand scandal. But either way 400 MPs is huge and almost unprecedented
 
Gotta admit, Macron has been pretty good with his early presidency. A more deferential take on the role (less awkward than the "regular Joe" from Hollande and more dignified than the definitely crass bling from Sarkozy), and his foreign policy has been rather brilliant so far, especially with the two big bullies (Trump and Putin).

I don't know if it's calculated, but it seems to allow him to get ahead for the legislative elections, getting a large majority so he can pass the actual divisive and unpopular part of his program (work regulations changes, pro-business policies and so on).
 
Le Monde released their large poll for the legislative election.
En Marche : 31%
LR : 22%
FN : 18%
FI (melenchon) : 11.5%
PS : 8.5%
PC : 2%

More interesting is the rough estimate for the number of seats.
En Marche : 400
LR : 100
PS : 30
Melenchon + PC : 15
FN : 10

Macron's good foreign policy start seems to be offsetting the Ferrand scandal. But either way 400 MPs is huge and almost unprecedented
How come the FN gets double the vote of the PS but only 1/3 of the seats?

Not saying that's a bad thing, mind you, but definitely not very democratic.
 
FPTP?

I assume FN as a protest / "anti-establishment" vote is more evenly spread across the country, while the remaining liberal vote is more partisan depending on the district.
 
It's due to the fact that most of the other parties will default to support anyone who isn't FN during the second round.
So basically the FN has to have enough votes in each election to beat all others parties banded together.
 
Ah I see.

I think Macron is benefiting from the fact that elections will happen before he had the chance to piss too many people off. The established parties automatically alienate a huge segment of the population, namely everyone who is on the other side of the political spectrum. But Macron's position in the political spectrum is not that clear to many, and he hasn't take any grand stands during his presidency. So he can attract all kinds of voters.

Wait until he has to deal with labor market reform, pension reform, taxation reform, immigration and etc. He will necessarily alienate at least half the country.
 
Ah I see.

I think Macron is benefiting from the fact that elections will happen before he had the chance to piss too many people off.
That's probably by design. The French must have looked at the American system and thought that this can't possibly work in the long run.
 
That's probably by design. The French must have looked at the American system and thought that this can't possibly work in the long run.
Well it works great for a novelty like macron. But if the president were Fillon or Hamon, at least half the country would hate him by now.
 
More interesting is the rough estimate for the number of seats.
En Marche : 400
LR : 100
PS : 30
Melenchon + PC : 15
FN : 10

Macron's good foreign policy start seems to be offsetting the Ferrand scandal. But either way 400 MPs is huge and almost unprecedented

What are the french laws on constitutional changes? Macron would be able to change it at will with such a majority (over 3/5) right?
 
What are the french laws on constitutional changes? Macron would be able to change it at will with such a majority (over 3/5) right?

He needs 3/5 yes, so around 350. But his proposed constitutional change would probably be accepted by the PS and part of LR so he doesn't really need that much.
 
That's probably by design. The French must have looked at the American system and thought that this can't possibly work in the long run.
I believe it's the result of their own experiences. With cohabitation.
 
Sunday was the first round for people living abroad. Yesterday the results leaked and Macron's candidates ended on top in 10 out of the 11 electoral districts, and with over 50% of the vote in 8. Due to low participation they will all have to go through a second round, but this is looking like a clean sweep for Macron.
It's not really indicative of the national results (these districts have Macron friendly electorates), but it's a good start for him
 
He needs 3/5 yes, so around 350. But his proposed constitutional change would probably be accepted by the PS and part of LR so he doesn't really need that much.

Wow. That sounds like it is way easier to change the French constitution than I'd be comfortable with if I were a French citizen. What other safeguards are in place to keep a single party that dominates the government, like Macron's is about to, from just changing the constitution to whatever they want it to be?
 
Wow. That sounds like it is way easier to change the French constitution than I'd be comfortable with if I were a French citizen. What other safeguards are in place to keep a single party that dominates the government, like Macron's is about to, from just changing the constitution to whatever they want it to be?

I was mistaken, Macron will need the other parties anyway. The constitution can be changed by several methods. Either the president calls a referendum, or he gets the text voted by a majority of both the assembly and the senate then by a 3/5 majority of "congress" which is a special assembly composed of both bodies of parliament. He can also have the two bodies vote the text then call a referendum instead of calling for a congress meeting.

Macron will soon have a large majority in the national assembly but not in the senate
 
Top Bottom