I'm not surprised by Macron's party being crushed. But I am very surprised by this reaction by Macron. For one thing, paired with how much more coverage the EU election has it shows that the...
I'm not surprised by Macron's party being crushed. But I am very surprised by this reaction by Macron. For one thing, paired with how much more coverage the EU election has it shows that the people have the EU much further on their mind.
At the same time, I'm also afraid. The election and subsequent polling of my country (NL) has been similar. And with afraid, I mean mostly in the sense that they're unable to pull of most of their plans within the proper rule of law. No matter how far they do or do not implement their plans, it's going to hurt the already strained trust in our institutions more.
If this decade could be slightly less spicy I'd greatly appreciate it. But I'm afraid the rollercoaster is only going to accelerate.
The pundits here are speculating this is a calculated move by Macron. The left is fractured into several parties that scarcely agree with one another and have 20 days to form a viable coalition....
But I am very surprised by this reaction by Macron
The pundits here are speculating this is a calculated move by Macron. The left is fractured into several parties that scarcely agree with one another and have 20 days to form a viable coalition. The traditional right-wing party is practically on life support. People suspect he's counting on his party being the only viable choice. The strategy is still to get people to vote against the extreme right rather than vote for (add other political party here).That has been the strategy for over a decade, and they're banking on it working again. The European elections don't count of course, Brussels is so far away. People will come to their senses when it's closer to home, right?? It's an extremely dangerous and foolish calculation.
Edit the following day: Another thought rising now is that Macron wants Rassemblement National to win a parliamentary majority. The thinking here is they will then be forced to govern, and be so incompetent, people will turn against them. People would then vote them out at the next presidential election in 2027. This is an even stupider and more dangerous gamble. It seems we learned absolutely nothing from 1930's Berlin.
Yeah same. I am particularly worried insofar that here in Germany I overwhelmingly see an age group skew hard fascist right that will not have to live with any of the problems they're causing,...
Yeah same.
I am particularly worried insofar that here in Germany I overwhelmingly see an age group skew hard fascist right that will not have to live with any of the problems they're causing, both on a political and on a climate level.
It sucks that people get to fuck it up for the generations coming after them.
It's been an utter disaster for the ruling parties in Western Europe in general. Germany wasn't as bad but there were still big gains for the AfD. In France, it's just a disaster; if this voting...
It's been an utter disaster for the ruling parties in Western Europe in general. Germany wasn't as bad but there were still big gains for the AfD. In France, it's just a disaster; if this voting pattern continues, Le Pen seems like a favorite in domestic elections.
It seems that the future of Europe will be in the far right. With Trump on the docket as well, we could see the majority of "Western" power held by the far right at least for the next half decade.
In general, the left is being obliterated politically. The trends are bad: more and more YOUNG people have been voting for the far right, especially in Europe - it's been the middle aged voters who prefer centrist parties like the CDU in Germany.
well, the problem is the neoliberal right (what passes for "left" parties in the US and Western Europe) is systematically destroying the actual left, who has generally widely popular appeal. see:...
well, the problem is the neoliberal right (what passes for "left" parties in the US and Western Europe) is systematically destroying the actual left, who has generally widely popular appeal. see: the dnc apparatus moving against bernie sanders in 2016/2020, character assassination of jeremy corbyn, etc. maybe liberal leaders will look to the success of sheinbaum in mexico and stop sabotaging the left. probably not.
I'm not sure Mexico, a place where both the historical governing parties are part of Socialist International, is a good barometer for what would actually be successful in the West. Corbyn had a...
I'm not sure Mexico, a place where both the historical governing parties are part of Socialist International, is a good barometer for what would actually be successful in the West.
Corbyn had a shot in the UK, and got crushed. Now you can say what you want about media attention, fairness and circumstances being different, but you can't expect people to believe that another Corbyn is just going to win, because that demonstrably didn't happen.
The movements that are proving the most successful at undoing illiberal regimes so far have not been leftist. Both in India and Poland, it's taken a broad rainbow of parties from all over the political spectrum to claw that power back. If Netanyahu loses in Israel, it'll be down to the same thing. Same for Turkey, and same for Hungary. You can't just say leftism is generally electorally successful and just ignore every result from almost every election in the last few years.
people like to forget that Corbyn contested two general elections... 2017 saw the biggest Labour vote share since 2001 (40% vs 40.2%), the biggest Labour swing since Attlee (9.6pp vs 9.7pp). 2017...
people like to forget that Corbyn contested two general elections...
2017 saw the biggest Labour vote share since 2001 (40% vs 40.2%), the biggest Labour swing since Attlee (9.6pp vs 9.7pp). 2017 was actually the closest election by vote share since February 1974 (2.3pp difference vs 0.7pp).
I don't think you can dismiss Corbyn's policies as wildly unpopular when he delivered the best Labour result in the last fourteen years, and in some ways even earlier than that.
edit: forgot to mention he was expected to lose massively. this result was expected by no one
I'm not saying the policies don't have their appeal, or that he was a wildly unsuccessful candidate. I'm saying he ran two elections and was unable to form government, twice. How many election...
I'm not saying the policies don't have their appeal, or that he was a wildly unsuccessful candidate. I'm saying he ran two elections and was unable to form government, twice. How many election defeats are the centre left supposed to take before they get a turn?
If Starmer loses, then the Labour left will probably have enough political power to try again. But if Starmer wildly succeeds where Corbyn failed twice, I'm not sure how the British public is supposed to believe that the way to win elections is through the leftwing. This has been demonstrably not true for over two decades!
Explaining Corbyn's loss as him "getting crushed" ignores the deliberate Labour conspiracy to sabotage his campaign. Worse still, they sued the people who exposed this baselessly, forcing them...
Corbyn got crushed through intra-party politics though? Voters had pretty much no effect on that. He didn't win the general for Labour but he did not do poorly enough in it to call it "getting...
Corbyn had a shot in the UK, and got crushed.
Corbyn got crushed through intra-party politics though? Voters had pretty much no effect on that. He didn't win the general for Labour but he did not do poorly enough in it to call it "getting crushed" by any definition.
He lost 60 seats in 2019 and got 32% of the vote, 9 points behind the Tories. I guess we can debate what crushed means, but he pretty conclusively lost. It was also the second general election he...
He lost 60 seats in 2019 and got 32% of the vote, 9 points behind the Tories. I guess we can debate what crushed means, but he pretty conclusively lost. It was also the second general election he had led the party to defeat. The takeaway from that election was absolutely not, be more leftist and you win.
I mean, I'm not arguing he won lol. I just think it's rather silly to dispute probably the most obvious example of a more leftist candidate being sabotaged by liberals in his own party, when...
I mean, I'm not arguing he won lol. I just think it's rather silly to dispute probably the most obvious example of a more leftist candidate being sabotaged by liberals in his own party, when that's extremely obviously what happened with Corbyn.
Don't you think that preventing that sabotage, enforcing control over your party (whether through carrot or stick) is also part of being a successful political leader? My overall point is that I...
Don't you think that preventing that sabotage, enforcing control over your party (whether through carrot or stick) is also part of being a successful political leader?
My overall point is that I can't think of many recent examples in Western countries where leftists outright running as leftists have successfully conventionally won. Been part of a coalition, yes. Or sometimes in a crisis, like SYRIZA in Greece. It's not just sabotage. It's not just messaging. A lot of ideas in the left are just not popular in many of these countries. Even the countries where the left won relatively recently (like Spain), the tide's receding again and they're just barely hanging on. It shouldn't be particularly harder for the far left to tap into the same feelings the far right is tapping into. It's just not working as well.
I think your definition of "conventionally won" seems a little fluid here, but regardless I'm really just defending @hhh's original point that neoliberal politicians have been sabotaging parties...
I think your definition of "conventionally won" seems a little fluid here, but regardless I'm really just defending @hhh's original point that neoliberal politicians have been sabotaging parties further left in a way that inevitably helps the right rise to power. You can argue that this is partially due to the failure of leftist politicians to effectively appeal to voters. You can disagree that leftist policies are or would be broadly popular. But I think arguing that leftist politicians are failing because there's a lack of popular support for their policies to the exclusion of efforts by neoliberals to oppose them is just obviously not true.
Isn’t the “anglosphere” showing trends towards the left with younger demographics while the rest of the “western” countries are leaning right? I think there are also big gender differences too.
Isn’t the “anglosphere” showing trends towards the left with younger demographics while the rest of the “western” countries are leaning right? I think there are also big gender differences too.
What countries are the anglosphere? The US still has very large Trump support and the rest of the republican party has drifted right after his time, and has a good chance of winning. The UK is...
What countries are the anglosphere?
The US still has very large Trump support and the rest of the republican party has drifted right after his time, and has a good chance of winning.
The UK is going back to Labour sure, but that's arguably because they've had their right-wing kneejerk reaction moment in Brexit and it's clearly not worked (not to mention Liz Truss' disastorous attempt to implement right wing tax policies)
Australian polls indicate the centre-right party is in resurgence
Canadian polls have a strong lead for their conservative party
Ireland just had local/eu elections where its centre-right coalition are broadly expected to grow slightly
So while it's only the US that's having a seriously strong far-right party there, in general the centre-right is growing in the english speaking world.
There’s a discrepancy between young males and young females. Young males are much more likely to be right winged. And I believe men are more likely to vote than women in general.
There’s a discrepancy between young males and young females. Young males are much more likely to be right winged. And I believe men are more likely to vote than women in general.
It's not a massive difference, but (in the U.S. at least) women are more likely to vote / be involved in politics in almost every breakdown until you get to the 65+ bucket. From another source:
It's not a massive difference, but (in the U.S. at least) women are more likely to vote / be involved in politics in almost every breakdown until you get to the 65+ bucket.
46% of women and 40% of men 18 to 24 years old voted
59.7% of women and 53% of men 25 to 44 years old voted
68.2% of women and 64.9% of men 45 to 64 years old voted
72.5% of women and 72.8% of men 65 to 74 years old voted
Well, this is massive news. I don't know much about French politics, so I can't offer any thoughts. I expect things in France will be a bit crazy in the coming days. A random thought though: does...
Well, this is massive news. I don't know much about French politics, so I can't offer any thoughts. I expect things in France will be a bit crazy in the coming days.
A random thought though: does anyone think this will impact the summer Olympics?
Can someone clarify what exactly does "dissolving the parliament and calling election" means in France? Is this a constitutional prerogative of Macron? Is this entirely legal, barely legal,...
Can someone clarify what exactly does "dissolving the parliament and calling election" means in France? Is this a constitutional prerogative of Macron? Is this entirely legal, barely legal, illegal, or a breach of France's democracy? And if that is entirely legal, why is that the case and how that makes sense for a democracy? Are French presidents allowed to do that?
It's completely legal. It's a common power for prime ministers to have; it's the same in the UK, where many people have been calling on Sunak to dissolve parliament and cause a general election....
It's completely legal. It's a common power for prime ministers to have; it's the same in the UK, where many people have been calling on Sunak to dissolve parliament and cause a general election.
Well, last time they did that here we had about 30 years of dictatorship. The expression "dissolving the parliament" makes me immediately think of a coup. I was unaware that this was regular...
Well, last time they did that here we had about 30 years of dictatorship. The expression "dissolving the parliament" makes me immediately think of a coup. I was unaware that this was regular procedure elsewhere.
It's not like parliament ceases to exist after the president dissolves it; it just means that people vote again for parliament. In a way, you could say this was a pro democracy move, since one way...
It's not like parliament ceases to exist after the president dissolves it; it just means that people vote again for parliament.
In a way, you could say this was a pro democracy move, since one way to interpret Macron's action is that the EU parliamentary elections shows that the current parliament does not represent the will of the French people, so he's allowing them to vote for how they feel at the moment.
That's okay. It's just a strong expression for me. Of course we are talking about different things. In some places, "dissolving the parliament/congress" (and its direct translation) means a well...
That's okay. It's just a strong expression for me. Of course we are talking about different things. In some places, "dissolving the parliament/congress" (and its direct translation) means a well known illegal step towards a coup.
The US and Brazil do elections on regular schedules which is why it’s not a thing for us. Parliamentary systems have maximum limits on how long a government can be in effect between elections, but...
The US and Brazil do elections on regular schedules which is why it’s not a thing for us. Parliamentary systems have maximum limits on how long a government can be in effect between elections, but the head of state or the parliament itself can theoretically decide to call a snap election whenever, which is why they have to dissolve the current government to do so. For us if the government is being dissolved outside the regular election cycle then it’s only through extraordinary circumstances, like a coup, but for them it’s a normal part of the process.
When Mr. Macron was elected to a second term in 2022, his party failed to win an outright majority. The centrist coalition he formed has since governed with a slim majority — but struggled to pass certain bills without support from the opposition.
Mr. Macron was under no obligation to dissolve Parliament, even if the European vote left him a reduced figure with three years left in his presidential term. Analysts are still debating his motivations, although many suspect that he believed a dissolution had become inevitable: Conservative lawmakers were threatening to topple his government in the autumn. Jolting the country with a sudden election could also be a way for Mr. Macron to prevent his opposition from organizing — and to present voters with a stark choice between him or the far right
I'm not surprised by Macron's party being crushed. But I am very surprised by this reaction by Macron. For one thing, paired with how much more coverage the EU election has it shows that the people have the EU much further on their mind.
At the same time, I'm also afraid. The election and subsequent polling of my country (NL) has been similar. And with afraid, I mean mostly in the sense that they're unable to pull of most of their plans within the proper rule of law. No matter how far they do or do not implement their plans, it's going to hurt the already strained trust in our institutions more.
If this decade could be slightly less spicy I'd greatly appreciate it. But I'm afraid the rollercoaster is only going to accelerate.
The pundits here are speculating this is a calculated move by Macron. The left is fractured into several parties that scarcely agree with one another and have 20 days to form a viable coalition. The traditional right-wing party is practically on life support. People suspect he's counting on his party being the only viable choice. The strategy is still to get people to vote against the extreme right rather than vote for (add other political party here).That has been the strategy for over a decade, and they're banking on it working again. The European elections don't count of course, Brussels is so far away. People will come to their senses when it's closer to home, right?? It's an extremely dangerous and foolish calculation.
Edit the following day: Another thought rising now is that Macron wants Rassemblement National to win a parliamentary majority. The thinking here is they will then be forced to govern, and be so incompetent, people will turn against them. People would then vote them out at the next presidential election in 2027. This is an even stupider and more dangerous gamble. It seems we learned absolutely nothing from 1930's Berlin.
Yeah same.
I am particularly worried insofar that here in Germany I overwhelmingly see an age group skew hard fascist right that will not have to live with any of the problems they're causing, both on a political and on a climate level.
It sucks that people get to fuck it up for the generations coming after them.
It's been an utter disaster for the ruling parties in Western Europe in general. Germany wasn't as bad but there were still big gains for the AfD. In France, it's just a disaster; if this voting pattern continues, Le Pen seems like a favorite in domestic elections.
It seems that the future of Europe will be in the far right. With Trump on the docket as well, we could see the majority of "Western" power held by the far right at least for the next half decade.
In general, the left is being obliterated politically. The trends are bad: more and more YOUNG people have been voting for the far right, especially in Europe - it's been the middle aged voters who prefer centrist parties like the CDU in Germany.
well, the problem is the neoliberal right (what passes for "left" parties in the US and Western Europe) is systematically destroying the actual left, who has generally widely popular appeal. see: the dnc apparatus moving against bernie sanders in 2016/2020, character assassination of jeremy corbyn, etc. maybe liberal leaders will look to the success of sheinbaum in mexico and stop sabotaging the left. probably not.
I'm not sure Mexico, a place where both the historical governing parties are part of Socialist International, is a good barometer for what would actually be successful in the West.
Corbyn had a shot in the UK, and got crushed. Now you can say what you want about media attention, fairness and circumstances being different, but you can't expect people to believe that another Corbyn is just going to win, because that demonstrably didn't happen.
The movements that are proving the most successful at undoing illiberal regimes so far have not been leftist. Both in India and Poland, it's taken a broad rainbow of parties from all over the political spectrum to claw that power back. If Netanyahu loses in Israel, it'll be down to the same thing. Same for Turkey, and same for Hungary. You can't just say leftism is generally electorally successful and just ignore every result from almost every election in the last few years.
people like to forget that Corbyn contested two general elections...
2017 saw the biggest Labour vote share since 2001 (40% vs 40.2%), the biggest Labour swing since Attlee (9.6pp vs 9.7pp). 2017 was actually the closest election by vote share since February 1974 (2.3pp difference vs 0.7pp).
I don't think you can dismiss Corbyn's policies as wildly unpopular when he delivered the best Labour result in the last fourteen years, and in some ways even earlier than that.
edit: forgot to mention he was expected to lose massively. this result was expected by no one
I'm not saying the policies don't have their appeal, or that he was a wildly unsuccessful candidate. I'm saying he ran two elections and was unable to form government, twice. How many election defeats are the centre left supposed to take before they get a turn?
If Starmer loses, then the Labour left will probably have enough political power to try again. But if Starmer wildly succeeds where Corbyn failed twice, I'm not sure how the British public is supposed to believe that the way to win elections is through the leftwing. This has been demonstrably not true for over two decades!
Explaining Corbyn's loss as him "getting crushed" ignores the deliberate Labour conspiracy to sabotage his campaign. Worse still, they sued the people who exposed this baselessly, forcing them into a 4-year battle before ultimately dropping the suit. Shameless and inexcusable.
Corbyn got crushed through intra-party politics though? Voters had pretty much no effect on that. He didn't win the general for Labour but he did not do poorly enough in it to call it "getting crushed" by any definition.
He lost 60 seats in 2019 and got 32% of the vote, 9 points behind the Tories. I guess we can debate what crushed means, but he pretty conclusively lost. It was also the second general election he had led the party to defeat. The takeaway from that election was absolutely not, be more leftist and you win.
I mean, I'm not arguing he won lol. I just think it's rather silly to dispute probably the most obvious example of a more leftist candidate being sabotaged by liberals in his own party, when that's extremely obviously what happened with Corbyn.
Don't you think that preventing that sabotage, enforcing control over your party (whether through carrot or stick) is also part of being a successful political leader?
My overall point is that I can't think of many recent examples in Western countries where leftists outright running as leftists have successfully conventionally won. Been part of a coalition, yes. Or sometimes in a crisis, like SYRIZA in Greece. It's not just sabotage. It's not just messaging. A lot of ideas in the left are just not popular in many of these countries. Even the countries where the left won relatively recently (like Spain), the tide's receding again and they're just barely hanging on. It shouldn't be particularly harder for the far left to tap into the same feelings the far right is tapping into. It's just not working as well.
I think your definition of "conventionally won" seems a little fluid here, but regardless I'm really just defending @hhh's original point that neoliberal politicians have been sabotaging parties further left in a way that inevitably helps the right rise to power. You can argue that this is partially due to the failure of leftist politicians to effectively appeal to voters. You can disagree that leftist policies are or would be broadly popular. But I think arguing that leftist politicians are failing because there's a lack of popular support for their policies to the exclusion of efforts by neoliberals to oppose them is just obviously not true.
Isn’t the “anglosphere” showing trends towards the left with younger demographics while the rest of the “western” countries are leaning right? I think there are also big gender differences too.
What countries are the anglosphere?
So while it's only the US that's having a seriously strong far-right party there, in general the centre-right is growing in the english speaking world.
Sure, but they're asking about the younger demographics.
There’s a discrepancy between young males and young females. Young males are much more likely to be right winged. And I believe men are more likely to vote than women in general.
It's not a massive difference, but (in the U.S. at least) women are more likely to vote / be involved in politics in almost every breakdown until you get to the 65+ bucket.
From another source:
That’s interesting. I wonder where I saw the male statistic, probably an outdated thing.
Well, this is massive news. I don't know much about French politics, so I can't offer any thoughts. I expect things in France will be a bit crazy in the coming days.
A random thought though: does anyone think this will impact the summer Olympics?
Can someone clarify what exactly does "dissolving the parliament and calling election" means in France? Is this a constitutional prerogative of Macron? Is this entirely legal, barely legal, illegal, or a breach of France's democracy? And if that is entirely legal, why is that the case and how that makes sense for a democracy? Are French presidents allowed to do that?
It's completely legal. It's a common power for prime ministers to have; it's the same in the UK, where many people have been calling on Sunak to dissolve parliament and cause a general election.
Why would it not make sense for a democracy?
Well, last time they did that here we had about 30 years of dictatorship. The expression "dissolving the parliament" makes me immediately think of a coup. I was unaware that this was regular procedure elsewhere.
It's not like parliament ceases to exist after the president dissolves it; it just means that people vote again for parliament.
In a way, you could say this was a pro democracy move, since one way to interpret Macron's action is that the EU parliamentary elections shows that the current parliament does not represent the will of the French people, so he's allowing them to vote for how they feel at the moment.
That's okay. It's just a strong expression for me. Of course we are talking about different things. In some places, "dissolving the parliament/congress" (and its direct translation) means a well known illegal step towards a coup.
The US and Brazil do elections on regular schedules which is why it’s not a thing for us. Parliamentary systems have maximum limits on how long a government can be in effect between elections, but the head of state or the parliament itself can theoretically decide to call a snap election whenever, which is why they have to dissolve the current government to do so. For us if the government is being dissolved outside the regular election cycle then it’s only through extraordinary circumstances, like a coup, but for them it’s a normal part of the process.
This New York Times article seems to be a pretty good breakdown of what happened.
In particular…