• Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn’t just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it’s a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He’s probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      but it seems strange that he doesn’t just appoint the candidate from the left.

      From which part of the left? The New Popular Front is actually an amalgamation of broad left wing coalition of various parties. So Macron had to pick from the far-left communist leader Jean Luc Melenchon, or from the centre left Socialist party led by Olivier Faure.

      The French legislative assembly works very differently compared to US Congress or the parliamentary system. There isn’t really one, or two, or only five parties getting votes. The French system is much more pluralistic and it is more like a hodge podge of various parties forming a grand coalition that represents an ideology. Even the current French president Emmanuel Macron’s so-called “party”, Ensemble, is a coalition of centrist parties.

      If you want to find out more about France’s current deadlock, here is a good succinct video explaining it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Q5nCCF5ck

        • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          I didn’t know that, thanks for letting me know. However, it seems Lucie herself had previously rejected forming a coalition with Macron’s group according to the Wikipedia article.

          • jorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s fair it was all the way in the article you’re commenting on

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            She’s literally in the thumbnail of this post. You didn’t even have to read the article, just the caption on the headlining picture. But thanks for telling us what you read on Wikipedia instead of reading the article you’re commenting on.

            • jorp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              This is why headline wording can be so important. People will just project their own biased understanding and skip the details.

              Oh Hamas rejected the ceasefire deal again…

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Agreed. His excuse rings a little hollow. If there would be a no confidence vote, so be it. Give the left their PM, and if they get thrown out, then move forward with your compromise candidate.

      • Rimu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        2 months ago

        If the candidate from the largest coalition can’t survive a no confidence vote then I don’t see how any other candidate would.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Usually its less about group membership and more about individual positions on individual issues. Usually anyway. You’d think there’d be at least someone from either the left or center that the other would find more amenable due to having a few things in common with the other one.