France Election Fallout

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Macron hasn’t done anything undemocratic or extra-legal. He called an unexpected snap election - within his rights. Then he negotiated with other parties to not run candidates in that election. Not illegal. Now he has turned down a request to name a prime minister from one of the members of that coalition, because he believes - rightly - that it would immediately fall to a no-confidence vote.

Shenanigans happen in countries that have proportional representation, coalition governments, and ranked balloting. But none of this is subverting democracy.

I agree with that, but he's starting to get close to that line on the "refusing to name a PM" piece. If some other group of parties can form a majority then great, do that instead.

The snap election and the withdrawing are both reasonable based on their system.

[Fuzzy14]

Should note that the person giving the left wing coalition its marching orders, Melanchon, is an ultra socialist that anyone outside his coalition finds repulsive lol

[FlamesAddiction]

I always thought these types of systems are kind of weird.

There are a lot of countries where the president gets elected separately, then after parliamentary elections, the president appoints the Prime Minister based on the recommendation from the people. That recommendation of course, is the person who leads the party that "won". I put won in brackets because winning doesn't often indicate a clear mandate, especially in countries with numerous parties splitting the vote. It does seem like the president has some discretion depending on the constitution of the country, but going against decorum and tradition isn't a great practice.

It's not that different in Canada. Here, the Prime Minister is technically appointed by the governor general after the election. I believe the only requirement is that they have a seat in parliament and they have the confidence of the House of Commons. Traditionally and through convention, this has been the leader of the party that won the most seats, but theoretically, it doesn't have to be. In such a case, you could have the party leader with the second most seats become the appointed Prime Minister if enough other parties supported it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

Should note that the person giving the left wing coalition its marching orders, Melanchon, is an ultra socialist that anyone outside his coalition finds repulsive lol

Not quite. Within the Socialist Party's mini alliance, "Socialists and affiliated group". the Socialist Party is considered to be the more moderate party. There are also several other min-alliances that are further left, including the Democratic and Republican Left group, which includes the French Communist Party and has 17 seats. There are parties that didn't win seats that are even more extreme.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh France,

You used to storm the Bastile, grab everyone you could and choppy choppy off with their heads.

Now, you stand around with signs and sing.

You used to be cool France, what happened.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I always thought these types of systems are kind of weird.

There are a lot of countries where the president gets elected separately, then after parliamentary elections, the president appoints the Prime Minister based on the recommendation from the people. That recommendation of course, is the person who leads the party that "won". I put won in brackets because winning doesn't often indicate a clear mandate, especially in countries with numerous parties splitting the vote. It does seem like the president has some discretion depending on the constitution of the country, but going against decorum and tradition isn't a great practice.

It's not that different in Canada. Here, the Prime Minister is technically appointed by the governor general after the election. I believe the only requirement is that they have a seat in parliament and they have the confidence of the House of Commons. Traditionally and through convention, this has been the leader of the party that won the most seats, but theoretically, it doesn't have to be. In such a case, you could have the party leader with the second most seats become the appointed Prime Minister if enough other parties supported it.

And very importantly for a minority government scenario in Canada, the prime minister that is in power before the election is in power after the election until they resign or lose the confidence of the new house. So if there is a minority situation the libs will get the first opportunity to form government and people will claim it’s undemocratic.

To me with this French one it’s fairly unclear if Marcon is abusing authority or if it’s the nuance of French politics.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

And very importantly for a minority government scenario in Canada, the prime minister that is in power before the election is in power after the election until they resign or lose the confidence of the new house. So if there is a minority situation the libs will get the first opportunity to form government and people will claim it’s undemocratic.

To me with this French one it’s fairly unclear if Marcon is abusing authority or if it’s the nuance of French politics.

What about 2006? I don't recall any real speculation that Martin could/would/should retain the big chair...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

In North America things are extremely tame compared to most other parts of the world. The average European nation will have a legislative body made up of a dozen or more parties, including all sorts of fringe and far left/right parties. All sorts of crazy deals have to happen for any one party to form a government.

I think in North America, partly because the countries are so huge, you almost need to limit it. I can't imagine how it would work if the European style or perspective was adopted.

In Croatia for example, the only country there where I am pretty familiar with their political system, they have had people elected in parliament from 48 different parties over the past 30+ years in a country of around 4 million. In the most recent election, there are 19 parties with members sitting in parliament. And I assume they aren't even the best example.

You have you big mainstay parties, then you have your ethnic minority parties, special interest parties, regional and sub-regional parties, religious based parties, parties for diaspora citizens, and of course your wing nut parties. The special interest parties focus on single issues, like the environment, farming, families, unions, specific industries, education, and so on. For regional parties, you have parties that represent large regions and small regions right down to the country level. There are also parties that represent regional blocs, even if those regions also have their own parties. There are also seats in parliament set aside to guarantee specific minority groups are represented in parliament.

It's a little tedious sometimes, but I think there is value in having diverse representation. In a country like Canada though, we'd probably be looking at hundreds of parties to get the same level of representation just because of the number of regions here and the number of minorities.

[Fuzzy14]

Not quite. Within the Socialist Party's mini alliance, "Socialists and affiliated group". the Socialist Party is considered to be the more moderate party. There are also several other min-alliances that are further left, including the Democratic and Republican Left group, which includes the French Communist Party and has 17 seats. There are parties that didn't win seats that are even more extreme.

Melanchon is the face of La France Insoumise, the largest vote getter in the leftist coalition. That party is very much to the left of the Socialists, and comparatively, the French socialists are to the left of our NDP. To everyone in France other than members of the leftist coalition, the FI is quite far left.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What about 2006? I don't recall any real speculation that Martin could/would/should retain the big chair...

I don’t either but took a Quick Look a Wikipedia for the election and it does state the following

The election was held on January 23, 2006. The first polls closed at 7:00 p.m. ET (0000 UTC); Elections Canada started to publish preliminary results on its website at 10:00 p.m. ET as the last polls closed. Harper was reelected in Calgary Southwest, which he has held since 2002, ensuring that he had a seat in the new parliament. Shortly after midnight (ET) that night, incumbent Prime Minister Paul Martin conceded defeat, and announced that he would resign as leader of the Liberal Party. At 9:30 a.m. on January 24, Martin informed Governor General Michaëlle Jean that he would not form a government and intended to resign as Prime Minister. Later that day, at 6:45 p.m., Jean invited Harper to form a government. Martin formally resigned and Harper was formally appointed and sworn in as Prime Minister on February 6.[13]

So the sequence was that Martin chose not to try to form government, resigned as prime minister, then Harper was invited by the GG to form government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006...ime%20minister.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not that different in Canada. Here, the Prime Minister is technically appointed by the governor general after the election. I believe the only requirement is that they have a seat in parliament and they have the confidence of the House of Commons. Traditionally and through convention, this has been the leader of the party that won the most seats, but theoretically, it doesn't have to be. In such a case, you could have the party leader with the second most seats become the appointed Prime Minister if enough other parties supported it.

Not even... the only requirement is that they have the confidence of the house. By convention, a non-MP is expected to win a seat ASAP if appointed PM, but it's not a requirement. John Turner was PM before becoming an MP.

Same story when Danielle Smith took over as Premier before being elected to a seat in the leg.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What about 2006? I don't recall any real speculation that Martin could/would/should retain the big chair...

Actually there was a lot of speculation, couldn't find a link but I remember. The press hounded Martin on whether he would try to hold onto power if the Liberals didn't win the most seats, polling showed this to be very unpopular. He finally came out during the campaign and stated something along the lines of "The party that wins the most seats wins the election".

[ben voyonsdonc]

This is playing into the hands of Le Pen and the RN. She (and Bardella) can argue that voting anyone other than RN leads to gridlock and infighting. “If they can’t even choose a Prime Minister, how can they deal with issues facing people?” is pretty solid message.

Bad blood between Macron’s team and NFP makes it less likely that lefties will line up behind a Macronist candidate in a centrist vs Le Pen run off but the way things are trending, it might end up Melenchon vs Le Pen runoff and centrist/right leaning voters may shift Le Pen or at least not rally behind Melenchon to stop Le Pen.

Not good for France at all.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Actually there was a lot of speculation, couldn't find a link but I remember. The press hounded Martin on whether he would try to hold onto power if the Liberals didn't win the most seats, polling showed this to be very unpopular. He finally came out during the campaign and stated something along the lines of "The party that wins the most seats wins the election".

I definitely recall that as well. There was especially strong speculation that if the Conservatives had the most seats but the Liberals+NDP had a majority they'd still form government.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If Rennassiance/Ensemble wanted to ally with the far right, why would they collaborate with the NFP to pull nearly 1/3rd of their candidates from the 2nd round of voting for the purpose of preventing the RN from getting more seats?

Macron isn't his party. Much of his party finds the far-right distasteful.

These are very typical dynamics in Europe right now. Centre-right parties publically cry and moan about how terrible the far-right is much more than they do about the left, but when it comes down to form coalitions, suddenly the far-right is still better than he the moderate left.

This has already played out in Finland and Sweden, for example.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Itse

Macron isn't his party. Much of his party finds the far-right distasteful.

Which makes sense.

I dislike the concept of the 'Political Line' personally, I think its too simplistic and not able to really illustrate nuance but for the purpose of discussion works well enough.

Furthermore? I think European 'Far-Right' is very different from North American 'Far-Right.'

The European version is NUTS.

And this should be concerning. As I've said before, Eastern Europe is essentially the wild west, they like their 'strong men' and whatever, you just shrug them off to the side because they have few resources and even less money and they're far away. No problem. Let them fight amongst each other.

Italy? More concerning but they do have a history of light Fascism so there is that bedrock where a case can be made, albeit this 'Strong Man' is a woman.

Poland? Thats a bit of problem because they are the 'Most Conquered Country in Europe' and apparently thats not the most popular hat to wear and they're tired of it. So they are plowing big dollars into their military. Led by someone who is, at best, a bit of a wild-card.

England is just a complete mess. Between Brexit and the revolving door of leaders? Forget about England.

But France? One of the most classically Liberal societies in Europe? This should never have even been a question.

I dislike the 'Slippery slope' metaphor for a variety of reasons. But guys...we're at the top...and we're slipping.

You can see it.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which makes sense.

I dislike the concept of the 'Political Line' personally, I think its too simplistic and not able to really illustrate nuance but for the purpose of discussion works well enough.

Furthermore? I think European 'Far-Right' is very different from North American 'Far-Right.'

The European version is NUTS.

And this should be concerning. As I've said before, Eastern Europe is essentially the wild west, they like their 'strong men' and whatever, you just shrug them off to the side because they have few resources and even less money and they're far away. No problem. Let them fight amongst each other.

Italy? More concerning but they do have a history of light Fascism so there is that bedrock where a case can be made, albeit this 'Strong Man' is a woman.

Poland? Thats a bit of problem because they are the 'Most Conquered Country in Europe' and apparently thats not the most popular hat to wear and they're tired of it. So they are plowing big dollars into their military. Led by someone who is, at best, a bit of a wild-card.

England is just a complete mess. Between Brexit and the revolving door of leaders? Forget about England.

But France? One of the most classically Liberal societies in Europe? This should never have even been a question.

I dislike the 'Slippery slope' metaphor for a variety of reasons. But guys...we're at the top...and we're slipping.

You can see it.

Republicans are way crazier than most European far-right, and that's saying something. Which often makes the European far-right mich more dangerous.

Republicans are a mess. Much of the European far-right is deeply connected to each other,, and has deep ties to self-identifying fascist organizations with multi-generational roots. Both are dangerous, but in different ways. That said, the European far-right is often more complex, with very different internal factions that complicate things a lot. They tend to be much more of a mix wirh everything from legit old-school working class men with leftist leanings, to outright accelerationist wackoes.

(Currently of course the far-right in Europe is also kind of split over russophobes and russophiles.)

...considering that fascism as a concept is originally from Italy, you're surely joking by using the word "light" there.

As for France... That country has a long tradition of authoritarianism, fascisct leanings, and very, very deep seated racism. Also, France has a very complicated political history... they've basically got a tradition of everything. But they have for example had unusually powerful presidents, instead of the more decentralized political systems of most other European countries.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Itse

Republicans are way crazier than most European far-right, and that's saying something. Which often makes the European far-right mich more dangerous.

Republicans are a mess. Much of the European far-right is deeply connected to each other,, and has deep ties to self-identifying fascist organizations with multi-generational roots. Both are dangerous, but in different ways. That said, the European far-right is often more complex, with very different internal factions that complicate things a lot. They tend to be much more of a mix wirh everything from legit old-school working class men with leftist leanings, to outright accelerationist wackoes.

(Currently of course the far-right in Europe is also kind of split over russophobes and russophiles.)

...considering that fascism as a concept is originally from Italy, you're surely joking by using the word "light" there.

As for France... That country has a long tradition of authoritarianism, fascisct leanings, and very, very deep seated racism. Also, France has a very complicated political history... they've basically got a tradition of everything. But they have for example had unusually powerful presidents, instead of the more decentralized political systems of most other European countries.

Dude...theres no such thing as 'light Fascism' that was a little 'Arrested development' inspired joke.

France does have a long history of disliking everything they consider 'Not French' and again, you're right that puts them into strange territory considering the consequences of colonialism, etc.

But they seemingly always have been the beacon, the Gold Standard, of real populist Freedom.

The thing is sometimes that example comes with order, sure civil disobedience in the form of strikes or protests and sometimes uncivil disobedience in the form of riots, protests, etc.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Dude...theres no such thing as 'light Fascism' that was a little 'Arrested development' inspired joke.

I don't watch that... And I was genuinely not sure if it was a joke

Americans are just so all over the place when it comes to European history that it's impossible to tell what's humour. It just isn't unusual for people to be very well informed about one country and have very weird ideas of another. (Although I guess history of fascism is pretty well known....

(But also I've kinda just lost track of what's common knowledge when it comes to history.)

(To be fair to Americans, there's a lot of Europeam history, and there generally isn't a good reason for most people outside of Europe to know that much about it.)

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Republicans are way crazier than most European far-right, and that's saying something. Which often makes the European far-right mich more dangerous.

I would strongly disagree. The European Far Right is a legit far right. It would be like having the Klu Klux Klan run as a legitimate party and win seats.

The American 2 party system, with a single president with power (as opposed to a parliamentary system), ensures that the two parties both end up being large watered down umbrella organizations.