[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Kaelik]

New Labour beikng extremely New Labour update:

Banned trans care, "stengthening the border", solving the cost of living issues by simply raising rents on all council housing which will also raise rents on all non council housing and doing nothing else at all.

Fuck, Damn, just wish the Tories had won so these exact same policies would be criticized by someone at least.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I hate new labour as much as the next person they will rather obviously falsely accuse of being a Trotskyist because I once saw an American war crime I didn't fully endorse.

But this is more than just new labour. This is as they themselves described it, new labour ON STEROIDS.

Don't worry though because that whole making things worse to get better rebuilding from the ashes strategy, the UK is gonna try that out. And no one on the left even has to do anything to advocate or support the collapse. Starmer will do it himself no matter what anyone else inputs.

Sure hope it fucking works.

[MGuy]

The UK, from what I understand, is already in a bad place that's getting worse. What are they going to rebuild with if their plan is to burn what little people have up in ashes? From what I hear the buildings are legitimately falling apart and no one during the election in either major party laid out a method of building the economy in a way they would generate enough money to fix anything or help anyone. And that's before even mentioning fixing any of the issues brexit had caused.

[Kaelik]

HOW FUCKING DARE YOU MGUY!

Saying that someone should make things better? What are you a FUCKING COMMUNIST? The job of the government is to slowly manage the decay until everyone is too miserable to keep living!

[Koumei]

Yeah, a few journalists in the UK have been pushing Starmer and New Labour before the election and being shouted down for "Helping the Tories" and being Communist Corbynite traitors etc. working to sabotage the party (something that Starmer's New New Labour actually did previously, of course). But they're the journalists who typically aren't given air time anyway because they were already "too left wing".

And then after the election, some people started noticing "oh hey, looks like you were right" (not many people - most are still being extremely British about it, by which I mean "wrong" and "terrible"). And it's too late for them to eat crow, because they can't afford crow to eat.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Don't worry. They are apparently already arresting opposing journalists under anti-terror laws.

Accelerationism. It just happens without you. Just hope it works out!

[Kaelik]

Macron has announced that ahahahahah of course the left getting the most seats doesn't mean they get to have a government.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Does he not remember he comes from the country with the Guillotines?

[Kaelik]

Does he not remember he comes from the country with the Guillotines?

It's great, because everyone kind of saw this coming, but he spent literally forever lying about it until eventually he was forced to just say "we prefer the fascists to the left"

1) Well you won the election with your coalition, but you have to pick a prime minister so while you work that out we get to stay in power.

2) Uhhhhh look, so you announced your prime minister instantly, how about if you just let my Macronist cabinet continue to stay in power until after the olympics.

3) Okay, so the Olympics are over, but we love the left, the left parties are so good, we love all of them, EXCEPT that one far left party. They are just too left. So we can't accept a government that has them in it.

4) Okay so the far left party agreed to have zero offices in the government if we just appoint the centre left prime minister, but have you considered.... no. fuck you. We will never allow a leftist to be in power.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I think its all about step 5.

The current situation is because Macron's loyalists will not vote leftists and have formed an alliance with the fascists as a self fulfilling excuse "We can't appoint a leftists because they can't have a majority consensus because we chose to have a consensus with the fascists instead that consensus being the no leftist cooties club."

But it's typical liberal weakness to fascism by design. The Macronists ruled out the left, the fascists will rule out the Macronists, the Macronists have to choose between the left (ruled out), total deadlock, and just straight up appointing a fascist. So. Having ruled out socialism which sort of barbarism do they want?

It's either 5) Just let the fascists win even though they didn't win the election. or 5) Grid lock the country until the next election 6)Fascists win the next election.

And what? You think principled Macronist's are going to rebel? If they existed they all stood down in the election.

[MGuy]

Has this sort of thing happened before in modern French politics? It sounds kind of insane that they can choose to deny the winning party their place for this long.

[Kaelik]

Has this sort of thing happened before in modern French politics? It sounds kind of insane that they can choose to deny the winning party their place for this long.

Well 1) No it hasn't! This is the longest that an outgoing government has stayed in office and prevented anyone else from forming a government ever.

2) Technically, if there is no possible coalition, they can have a new election. But the USUAL way to do that would be for the coalition with the most seats to get a chance to form a government, and then the other side could no confidence vote them. This would mean that the Macronists who are currently running the government would have to stop their several month long permanent control over the government after losing the election, which is why it hasn't happened.

Alternatively, the Macronists could just admit that they are going to Support Le Pen's government, and then they could try to form a government, again, no confidence attempt, ect.

But that would require liberals being honest that they just want the fascists in power over the left. I think the Macronists main plan at this point is to create as much time and distance from the last election as possible because they you know, got smoked, and they want to try to argue that actually they are the only opposition to the fascists, so vote for them, in another election. So to that end, everything Macron does is desigened to discredit the left, but alas, the left keeps crediting itself over and over in response to his attempts, so we will need to do 10 or 20 more fucked up things before we can have another election.

[Kaelik]

Anyway, Kier Starmer is explaining that Tories are tax and spend liberals, and that Labour are the real conservative party that are anti immigrant, anti trans, and anti poor people.

So congrats fucking morons who just wanted their party to be doing the evil things! Now there are no parties that are not maximally evil!

[deaddmwalking]

I had posted something then deleted it, but I'll post something along those lines.

France's government is referred to as the 5th Republic. This is the 5th Democratic form of government (Constitution) that they've had since the French Revolution. Following World War II, the French government was seen as weak and unresponsive to the problems that they faced at that moment. Charles de Gaulle was asked to return to power but he refused unless the Executive Branch (the Presidency) was given significantly more power. This includes the power to appoint a Prime Minister who is then approved by Parliament, rather than the PM chosen by a coalition.

In the case of France's Parliament, it is effectively divided between the left, the right, and the center with approximately equal representation. To pass anything in the French Parliament you must have 289 votes (a simple majority). The Left Wing Alliance has 188 seats, Macron's party has 161, the Far Right has 142. The remaining 86 seats are not part of those three broad groups. As a result, no group can obtain a majority and therefore cannot pass legislation without forming a coalition.

The New Popular Front (the left-wing alliance) is closest, but they still need 100 coalition partners to form a majority. The French use the term cohabitation to refer to a Parliament and President of different parties. The last time that happened was in 1997 and the circumstances were similar (a snap election that didn't go as the President planned).

Wikipedia
Chirac–Jospin period (1997–2002)
In 1995, rightist leader Jacques Chirac succeeded Mitterrand as president, and, since the right had a majority in the assembly, he was able to appoint his fellow RPR member Alain Juppé as his prime minister, ending cohabitation by a change in the presidency. This alignment of president and assembly should have lasted until at least the normally scheduled 1998 assembly elections.

However, in 1997, President Chirac made the ill-fated strategic decision to dissolve parliament and call for early legislative elections. This plan backfired when the French electorate turned back to the leftists and removed the right-wing assembly majority. Chirac was forced to appoint Socialist Lionel Jospin to the premiership. Jospin remained prime minister until the elections of 2002, making this third term of cohabitation the longest ever, one of five years. Chirac called this a state of 'paralysis', and found it particularly difficult to arrange campaign activities for the National Assembly.

With Jospin holding the premiership, Chirac's political influence was constrained and he had no say over certain major reforms being instituted by the left-wing majority. This included the 1998 legislation to shorten the working week from 39 to 35 hours, which came into effect in 2000.

In that case, too, the Socialists had to form a coalition, but with 255 seats it was much easier to do so.

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

I had posted something then deleted it, but I'll post something along those lines.

Do you understand why your post was deeply irrelevant and uninformative?

[Kaelik]

Truly Deaddm is extremely talent at regurgitating a pointless wikipedia article that isn't even related to the point at issue.

To whit, no one fucking asked if Macron is allowed to keep being president while also having some other people be PM. What was asked is if ever before the French President just decided to fucking declare himself King For Life after losing an election and refuse to appoint a PM from another party while his party continues to run the country after losing the election for as long as he can con whatever the french version of idiots like deadm into believing that he's being cool and normal.

[deaddmwalking]

Yeah, it's weird that France created a strong Executive that makes this totally a possibility and has been okay with it. There are things that can't get done without a PM, but there are a lot of things that can. The PM thing gets solved when someone forms a coalition with a majority and doesn't until they do. Usually it involves some kind of negotiation and power-sharing.

[Kaelik]

Yeah, it's weird that France created a strong Executive that makes this totally a possibility and has been okay with it. There are things that can't get done without a PM, but there are a lot of things that can. The PM thing gets solved when someone forms a coalition with a majority and doesn't until they do. Usually it involves some kind of negotiation and power-sharing.

Again, that's not actually what's at issue here.

The issue is that the President just declared fuck elections, his cabinet are going to keep running things forever. He does not actually have the power to do that! The constitution does not just give him the power to choose a Prime minister, whenever he feels like it, it gives him the OBLIGATION to choose a prime minister.

The thing where he just says "I choose to never appoint a prime minister, and then my guys, who all should be kicked out, just get to keep running the government forever" is not a power granted to him by the constitution.

It should be REALLY OBVIOUS why this power was not in fact granted to the President by the constitution, but even if you can't figure out why, it still remains true that it was not given to him.

His job is to appoint a prime minister, not to refuse to do so. If after he appoints the prime minister, they get no confidence voted out, that's the power of PARLIAMENT. Only Parliament has the power to no confidence vote the prime minister. So Macron saying "I'm pretty sure that there WILL be a no confidence vote, so I choose not to appoint anyone" is, if anyone wants to stupidly be a separation of powers dork instead of looking at reality, an example of him seizing Parliaments power.

[deaddmwalking]

I don't think you understand the French Constitution. Nor would I expect you to. When the 5th Republic was created they very deliberately gave the president powers over the PM and didn't give the PM powers over the president. You might have an argument of INTENT versus RAW, but that's what the courts are for.

The process of taking time to form a coalition government is familiar to every other European country - France is normally a notable exception.

Not having a PM appointed yet doesn't allow Macron to exercise the powers of Parliament - and that will be necessary for the country to function. But I assure you that France is unequalled in their ability to use bureaucratic dedication to rules-following to stymie reasonable exceptions. It's practically their national past time.

This is not weird for France. It's unusual to have a parliament where the president's party isn't the majority and that's a reflection on Macron's decision to hold snap elections. It has been done before with similar results - this time there are some unique features (no coalition exists yet to form a majority) but nothing about this situation is weird. As you so astutely pointed out, Macron is not required to choose the recommendation of any single bloc, nor does he have to choose someone from parliament. Whoever he chooses must be able to win approval from a majority so figuring out who that is actually requires negotiations.

[Kaelik]

I don't think you understand the French Constitution. Nor would I expect you to. When the 5th Republic was created they very deliberately gave the president powers over the PM and didn't give the PM powers over the president. You might have an argument of INTENT versus RAW, but that's what the courts are for.

No one is talking about the PM having powers over the president, you dumb fucking moron that makes up a dumb thing to say every time you don't understand or don't like the conversation.

We are talking about how the constitution REQUIRES the president to choose a PM, it does not give him the power to not choose a PM. That is the power of the constitution over the president, not the non existent prime minister.

The process of taking time to form a coalition government is familiar to every other European country - France is normally a notable exception.

France is normally a notable exception because their constitution requires the Presiden to name a prime minister, and does not, legally, allow for him to just sit around not naming one. Which one reason why 9 days is the longest that has ever gone without the President naming a PM prior to Macron deciding that he's just as soon have his caretaker PM continue to control the country for literally as long as people will let him get away with it.

This is not weird for France.

It is emphatically weird for France to go over 40 days without the President doing the thing he is required to do by the constitution because he doesn't like the outcomes of him doing the thing he is actually required to do. It is so weird it is already more then four times as weird as the longest previous timeframe under the constitution that was explicitly written to PREVENT the outcome that Macron is creating.

(no coalition exists yet to form a majority)

Again, no majority coalition is required for Macron to have to do his actual fucking constituionally mandated job. If Parliament wants to no confidence vote the Prime Minister, they can, but Macron doesn't get to just sit around doing whatever he wants because he decided there probably would be a no confidence vote.

There have been minority governments in France in the past, and there will be one, eventually, when someone burns a giant mountain of shit in Macron's yard and he is finally convinced he can't stall any longer.

Whoever he chooses must be able to win approval from a majority so figuring out who that is actually requires negotiations.

Again, this is of course, false. They do not need to win the approval of a majority. Minority governments have existed in the past and the President is required to appoint someone even if they will lose a vote of no confidence. There are no negotiations that need to take place!

Macron has already announced that no matter what he will not appoint any leftist Prime Minister under any circumstances, and the left has already picked their Prime Minister candidate. The only other even concievable option is the Macronists blowing their cover and just admitting they have actually all been fascists all along, and all agreeing to support the fascists. This ALSO doesn't require negotiations, because we know who the Fascists are going to insist on as PM.

They aren't spending months negotiating the extremely obvious thing. It's just been months of stall tactics where Macron pretends that he's allowed to not appoint a PM because the Olympics are too important, or, now making up bullshit about how he's excercising his right to consult the Oracle of Future No Confidence Votes.

In fact, The government from 2022 UNTIL THIS ELECTION was in fact a minority government! It did not have support of the majority!

[MGuy]

I had posted something then deleted it, but I'll post something along those lines.

Do you understand why your post was deeply irrelevant and uninformative?

I'm guessing NYT hasn't put out an article telling him what to think so he just regurgitated facts hoping that it was relevant.

[violence in the media]

I had posted something then deleted it, but I'll post something along those lines.

Do you understand why your post was deeply irrelevant and uninformative?

I'm guessing NYT Le Monde hasn't put out an article telling him what to think so he just regurgitated facts hoping that it was relevant.

FTFY

[Kaelik]

The far right macronist coalition is complete.

Macron called le pen to ask who he is allowed to appoint and has appointed a right wing pm to rule France which the macronists will support.

Wow. Can't believe that voting for macronists to oppose le pen actually turned into voting for the macronists who will work with le pen to oppose the left! Who could have seen this coming?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Also the far right has given the additional condition that they will only support the "moderate" right candidate (the guy in question couldn't even get himself elected within his own party's primary) if they also promise to dissolve parliament as soon as possible.

Which is to say, give the far right an election do over as soon as legally possible. It would appear Macron has agreed.

So, Macron simultaneously destroys his own and his party's credibility with the electorate even further, puts the "moderate" right in charge despite them out of all the factions solidly losing the election and promises the far right a new election so they can properly win, and there will STILL be liberals that are like "Macron is the champion of the sensible centrist left and its probably a genius galaxy brain plan beyond your comprehension commie scum!"

Though probably not enough of such liberals to save Macron's already last ditch rebranding of centrism party from electoral extinction.

*"Commie scum" probably being someone who is just saying "hey can we maybe stop hiking up the retirement age for the working classes?" and other RAVING TANKIE MARXIST DOGMA!

[deaddmwalking]

For those of you interested in what's actually happening, France doesn't have a single retirement age. Some workers, like ballerinas, can retire with a full pension at 42.

Nationally, Macron raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. The United States changed Social Security retirement age from 65 to 67. That is most assuredly a good thing, as fewer workers are supporting more boomers, many of them having saved a vast amount of wealth due to very favorable government policies. The maximum Social Security benefit* is $3,822 for workers who earned more than $168k annually for at least 10 years. The average retiree earns only $1,782.74. Why do the people who benefit the most from high wages also benefit the most from the youngest workers still trying to get established? And why does Social Security STOP taxing after $168k in salary?

There are a lot of reasons one could be upset about changes in entitlements (and let's be clear - the French ARE mad), but raising the retirement age is something that happened in the United States and it has been and remains higher than in France. I think there are a lot of things that France does that I think we should implement in the United States, but a younger retirement age isn't one of them. Please note that there are ways to retire early (such as due to disability).

*$4873 may be the actual maximum if you delay receiving benefits until age 70.