Reflections on France

On June 25, 2024, there was a debate between Gabriel Attal, age 35, the sitting Prime Minister; Jordan Bardella, age 28, the designated Prime Minister of the National Rally party; and Manuel Bompard, age 38, of La France Insoumise, a leading member of the Nouveau Front Populaire.  The NFP have stated that they will decide on a prime minister after the election.  The debate was held in a small television studio.  Each debater was backed by a few members of his party, who remained silent throughout.  There were two moderators, one of whom, especially, tried vainly to act as a fact-checker.  

The first topic concerns the  “buying power” of ordinary citizens. 

Manuel Bompard says that they will freeze the price of fuel and “items of first necessity.” They will immediately raise the monthly minimum wage (SMIC).  Bardella says they will lower the VAT tax, the regressive sales tax, on certain goods.  

Gabriel Attal states that their idea for the working class is to “earn more and pay less.”  They will revisit the idea of “softening” the withholding taxes that employers have to pay (thus “lowering the cost of labor,” a longtime neoliberal mantra).  Then employers can increase the salaries of their employees.  (But will they?  This is similar to the signature plan of the Hollande administration, and it did not work.) It is also not clear where “pay less” comes into play.  But Attal states that their plan is paid for; the plans of the other two are not.

Bardella will also lower the contributions of France to the EU, which sends money all over the world–for example, to build up the water supply in Gaza; our people in Mayotte (a department of France off the eastern coast of Africa), he says, don’t have enough potable water.  (Both things are true: the EU has been trying to solve Gaza’s water crisis since at least 2018; and as for Mayotte, shame on France.)[1]

Photo 280129612 © Hyotographics | Dreamstime.com

Attal responds to both.  Poland and Spain recently lowered the VAT tax, and it had little discernible effect.  As for raising SMIC, he has talked to many small businessmen who are afraid they will have to fire people if SMIC suddenly goes up.  Bardella immediately restates Attal’s remark about the problem for small businesses; he is not in favor of raising the minimum wage.  Bompard replies that his coalition has a plan for targeted aid for small businesses, and notes that economic growth is driven in large part by consumer demand–which is driven by putting more money in peoples’ pockets.

Thus three versions of how to solve the pain people are feeling from inflation.  They were asked to speak only about this subject, and thus do not enter into broader economic policy.  But Bardella wants to trim around the edges, with no indication of where the lost revenue will come from; Attal wants to give the money to corporations, in the hope that they will pass the bounty along; Bompard wants to give additional money to SMIC earners, which will likely raise wages overall.  

Later in the debate they  discuss how to pay for all of this.  Attal suggests that his program will be paid for by increased productivity.  Bompard’s coalition has stated that there will be no new taxes for the 92% of those who earn 4000 euros/month and lower.  The Left has also proposed a more progressive tax system and a “wealth tax,” of sorts, so that the top 1% will pay more.  This is not a new idea; under President Mitterand the Solidarity tax (ISF) included a supertax on the obscenely wealthy.  This became riddled with exemptions, Macron replaced it with something that brought in much less revenue; the Left coalition will replace the ISF with a workable progressive tax as well as a wealth tax.  

As for Bardella, the National Rally has been asserting that there is extensive corruption in the state, and they will pay for everything by a thorough investigation into fiscal fraud in the tax system.  Bompard points out, correctly, that the National Rally has conjured up a massive fiscal fraud investigation-to-come as a sort of black box that allows the party to avoid real numbers.  As for Macron’s government, it has put the country in debt because Macron has given cadeaux to multinationals and others.  (He is referring in part to the same “incentive” program that Macron and Hollande have used in terms of giving corporations and even small businesses money, or sometimes loans, so they will hire more people.  Indeed, the unemployment rate has gone down under Macron, from about 10%, which it was for decades, to about 7.5%.)

They enter into the subject of retirement, “solved” last year by a massively unpopular bill that raised the retirement age to 64, from 62.

Attal will maintain retirement as is, but they will have a jobs program for seniors, with incentives for employers to hire people over 55, and will allow some seniors in low-paying jobs to combine their pay with unemployment compensation; thus the extra time before the retirement age will be better compensated. 

Bardella begins by talking about people who started careers at 16 and those who started at 24, after college, and gets lost in the weeds. Bompard interrupts him and says that he doesn’t understand retirement, which is evident.  There are two things to consider: age, and the yearly “quarters” when one is in work and pays into the system.  If you start early, you should be able to retire at 60, with the full benefits you have earned; if you started your career later, after college, you can retire at 60 but will have to work longer (counted by quarters) to receive full benefits.  Bompard states that his coalition will immediately abrogate Macron’s retirement law and introduce a bill to bring the age back to 62, with the ultimate aim of getting to 60 as the retirement age–a figure that goes back to Mitterand’s administration.

Attal points out that France has a system of repartition, or retirement benefits financed by the contributions of those now working; if you reduce the age of retirement, then you reduce the number of workers and increase the number of pensioners.  Which is true.  He is, once again, positioning himself as the pragmatist.

Bardella suddenly states, out of the blue, that he will cut taxes for young [French] people under 30 to keep them here in France, since too many people are emigrating.  Attal states that Kylian Mbappé, a very popular football star, does not need a tax break.  This is also a reminder of Mbappé’s highly publicized plea to avoid the extremes.

The moderators now move them to the environment.  The European Union has decreed that, as of 2035, no new internal combustion engines are to be sold.  Bompard is in favor; the climate crisis is getting notably worse.  We need to renovate homes to ensure that they can use renewable energy.  The Macron administration, he points out, recently cut the environmental budget, for this renovation of housing, by 8 billion euros.  This is true; though the exact figure is not yet clear. [2]

Attal denies this.  He notes that France had cut its greenhouse emissions by 5.6% over the previous year.  This is true, although only in comparison to the previous year, 2022, when half their nuclear plants were offline and they had to switch to carbon-based energy.  Attal also notes that they have put in place a plan for “social leasing” of electric vehicles, and 50,000 people had already taken advantage of this.  Bardella later notes that the Attal government has engaged in “micro-measures” that affect very few.  (And the “social leasing” has now  been discontinued because of budget cuts.)[3]

Returning to the EU plan, Bardella, who is in the European Parliament, said he had voted against it.  Electric cars are too expensive; further, this plan of action would greatly disrupt the automotive industry.  He favors a return to nuclear energy, with a plan (also Macron’s plan) to build fourteen new nuclear energy plants.  He also favors a return to production based in France, since much of the world’s energy emissions come from global trade

He blames Macron’s government for closing Fessenheim, France’s oldest reactor, dating back to the 1970s. It is also a little under two miles from the German border, which has caused tensions over the years.

Photo 20708098 © Lucaderoma | Dreamstime.com

Attal states that the closing of Fessenheim was programmed before 2017; in contradiction to Bompard’s assertion that these plants will not be in action until 2050,  Attal gives the date of 2035.  (The Macron government did, however, do a major about-face on nuclear power, embracing the closing of Fessenheim in the 2017 campaign and, as of now, planning a future powered by nuclear energy.)

Attal states that Bardella wants to invest only in nuclear energy, while Bompard wants only renewable energy.  The current government understands that both are necessary, and they will continue to build wind turbines as well.  Bompard notes that not everyone in his coalition totally agrees with his views on energy: “but we work it out in debate, you govern by 49-3.”  (That is, passing legislation over the heads of the legislature.)  Bardella states that wind turbines are not efficient; he wants a moratorium on their further construction.

After a brief break, they begin again on the fraught subject of immigration.  Bardella will end the droit du sol–birthright citizenship, just ended in Mayotte–because immigrants are a “demographic, cultural and identity bomb.”  He adds that “when I’m Prime Minister in a few days,” he will close the border and institute controls at our frontiers.  As it currently stands, people in an “irregular situation” can benefit from every kind of medical care available, except thermal baths.  He adds that many of the French “don’t recognize France today, don’t recognize the country they grew up in.”

Bompard states that 19 million people in France have a foreign ancestor.  He points out that Bardella’s family came from Italy.  One worker in ten is foreign; we should not denigrate them but thank them and treat them with dignity.  Many people do not wish to leave their homes–the 110,000 Ukrainians, for example.  He states that the idea of ending medical care for those who are sick ends up costing more, and runs the risk of infecting more people.

Attal attacks another RN proposal, that “binationals,” or those with dual citizenship, cannot hold public office, a proposal that originated with Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Bardella responds with the first “gotcha”: would Attal put a franco-russian in a nuclear plant?  But Attal has his own gotcha: who, he asks, is Tamara Volokhova? She works with Bardella’s “Identity and Democracy” group in the European Union, and as part of that role she gets confidential information on the war in Ukraine.  Does she pass it along?  Attal is making no accusations.[4]. He is, however, raising the shadow of Putin that has constantly dogged the RN.

Bompard suggests that for sensitive positions, all people should be investigated, whether binationals or not.

Moving along to crime, a topic which heads into the schools, Attal notes that his government has taken several steps, including immediate court appearances and sanctions for those ages 16 and up.

Bardella asserts that  women can’t go on public transport or walk down the street without feeling fear.  These two (Attal and Bompard) make “culture” an excuse; they stand for judicial laxity.  He will, for recividists, suspend family allocations (a sort of welfare payment, depending on number and age of children), in cases of delinquency.  He will also reduce immigration, because a lot of street crime in the country is linked to immigrants.  

Bompard wants to go back to things that have worked in the past–for example, the cop on the beat (police de proximité), more funding for the police, preventing drugs from coming into the country–as a representative of Marseille, as he states, he knows that drugs are behind much of the crime.  He does not believe in judging a minor as an adult.  As for suppressing family allocations, Sarkozy tried this experiment for students who were frequently absent from school; it didn’t help, and absenteeism got worse.

Attal has served as Minister of Education; as such, he abolished the abaya, a long Muslim dress, on the grounds of secularism.  He recalls the cases of Samuel Patty and Dominique Bernard, two teachers killed by “Islamic terrorism.”  School teachers have to “self-censure” when discussing such subjects as history.  

Bompard says he is not challenging the 1905 law (on separation of church and statet); nor does he want to make a big media issue of it.  He wants to make certain that students are adequately served in regard to books and food.

Bardella agrees that teachers much “self-censure”: he wants a “Big Bang” of authority, he wants to banish smart phones from schools, he is in favor of school uniforms.  He will stop closing schools in rural areas.  He asserts that Manuel Bompard wants to get rid of the 1905 law (though he had just said he did not), Bompard wants to open the prisons and legalize squats.

Everyone is getting tired.  As for the problem of “medical deserts,” only Attal has an idea–allowing medical professionals other than doctors to prescribe medicine.

I was impressed with Bompard; he convincingly fact-checked the fact-checker in a couple of instances, and seemed full of ideas–perhaps a function of the long hours that his group had spent putting the program (longer than the other two) together. Attal is also impressive personally, but presents tired ideas, which belong to the generation before his. He learned that the Assembly was going to be dissolved less than an hour before Macron announced it. Yesterday Attal pulled their current bill, the reform of unemployment insurance, from consideration. Macron learned of this on the news, perhaps an indication of things to come.

Jordan Bardella?

Image from Shutterstock.

Header photo: ID  15294108© Elen33 Dreamstime.com

[1]. “Water for Gaza,” The Diplomatic Service of the European Union,” August 2, 2018.  https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/49074_en

[2] Matthieu Goar, “En France et en Europe, les gouvernements réduisent leurs dépenses ‘vertes,'” Le Monde, February 21, 2024. https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2024/02/21/en-france-comme-en-europe-les-investissements-ecologiques-ne-sont-pas-a-la-hauteur-des-ambitions_6217658_3244.html

[3] “France congratulates itself for 5.8% drop in Greenhouse gas emissions,” Euronews, May 24, 2024. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/05/24/france-congratulates-itself-for-58-drop-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-whats-the-full-picture

[4]”Qui est Tamara Volokhova,” Libération, June 26, 2024. https://www.liberation.fr/politique/qui-est-tamara-volokhova-la-franco-russe-conseillere-du-rn-evoquee-par-gabriel-attal-lors-du-debat-20240626_NVZHZX7CDJDF5L5HSDI5IFS3PQ/?redirected=1&redirected=1

The second district of Hautes Alpes should have been easy.  Joël Giraud, age 64, has been the deputy since 2002.  In 2017, though a member of the Parti Radical de Gauche, he agreed to be invested by La République en Marche (now Renaissance).  An énarque (a graduate of the prestigious École Nationale d’Administration) he returned to his rural department and entered local government, serving as the mayor of l’Argentière-la-Bessée (pop. a little over 2000) since 1889.  He had held both positions until 2017, when the non-cumul des mandats law had required him to give up one or the other; he had stayed in the National Assembly.  He was named Minister of Territorial Cohesion–a post that focused on rural France–under the prime ministership of Jean Castex, from July 2020 to May 2022.

He was particularly concerned, in regard to his own department, with climate change and agriculture, and with working to find a healthy balance between tourism and preservation of the mountains from environmental degradation.  For the rest of the country, he had as minister  made two or three trips into rural areas every week, listening to inhabitants and “selling” Macron or, as he put it, “listening to this France of the countryside which has been forgotten for too long and where people are turning towards the RN.”  He also gave interviews to the local press wherever he went, bringing the message that the Macron government was ready to help.  He often met with cynicism.  He heard two main issues, over and over: the “medical desert” of the countryside, which was losing doctors; and the closing of train stations, thus cutting off access, except by car, to the rest of the country.  As a deputy he had lobbied railroads for more scheduled trains for his own department, and had been largely successful.[1]

During Giraud’s ministry a rooster named Maurice was instrumental in bringing attention to the occasional clash between tourism and agriculture.  Maurice lived in Saint-Pierre d’Oléron, a village in an island off France’s western coast, and apparently crowed too loudly for the vacationing summer people.  Maurice’s plight led to a bill to preserve “the sensory heritage of the countryside,”–the sights, sounds, and smells that were unavoidable in regard to farming, and which also provided an emotional link, for many, to France’s largely agricultural past. [2]

Giraud left the Ministry, along with Castex (replaced as Prime Minister by Élisabeth Borne) in May 2022, and returned to his life as a deputy.  In early 2024, and just after Macron had replaced Borne with Gabriel Attal, he was interviewed by La Provence.  Had he been surprised by the naming of Attal? “Obviously the president didn’t want to name as Prime Minister one of the heavyweights who dream of succeeding him, [so] I was not completely surprised.”  But he liked Attal very much, as “a young man who had greatly respected the Parliament when he was ministerial delegate for the budget.  As for the rest of the Cabinet, he was not exactly “thrilled” with the appointment of members of Les Républicains in two key positions.  He himself had not expected to be named to a post, he said, because “I had not shown any particular zeal”; it was not his “cup of tea.”  The government in his view, and with this last shakeup, had become “very Parisian and very much to the right.”  Shrewdly (and perhaps too honestly) he saw the new cabinet as a “provisional government” because they knew they were facing major losses in the European elections.  Was he still a Macroniste?  Adroitly, and at some length, Giraud avoided answering the question.

The reporter asked him if the presidential party was going to “implode” at the end of Macron’s term.  He didn’t think so; but he was clearly worried about the state of politics in France.  His answer: “We have a system such that the Left is represented largely by La France Insoumise, which is not a “Governing Left,” [i.e., willing to take on the responsibility of government], which goes so far as to support Hamas, which is insanity.  And we have a very strong extreme right.”  He wanted to see a centrist government based on humanist values.  Asked who might do that, he suggested Jean Castex, who was “hyper respected” by the opposition, as well as Édouard Philippe (Prime Minister from 2017 to 2020).  “After the European elections,” he continued, “the seismic shift risks becoming total,and there will be some recomposition.”  He noted, in closing, that Marine Le Pen had never been closer to the presidency, a fact which filled him with “disquiet.”[3]

Coming several months before the European elections, this was an elegiac interview, a vision of a  presidential term that was, in his mind, already over.  When Macron announced the dissolution, Giraud immediately announced that he was retiring from politics: “I have already explained that the govt was too far to the right and too Parisian.”  The government had neglected the rural areas and the social-democrats, adding that the dissolution of the National Assembly was in effect the announcement of “a government of cohabitation between the president of the Republic and the extreme right, allied with [his right-leaning] party.  That is not part of my political DNA.  I believe I have well served France and the Hautes Alpes.  But this world is no longer mine.”[4]

Who would follow him?  The Presidential majority openly courted two mayors, who turned them down.  Mayor Arnaud Murgia, the right-leaning mayor of Briançon, said he preferred to remain in his current office.  Marcel Cannat is mayor of Réotier, situated on the slopes of a mountain, with a central population of just over 200 but linked with a number of other communes; he too refused: “I am sensitive to the very many messages of support and encouragement that I have received, but after long reflection, I don’t find in myself the strength at the present hour.”  He preferred, he added, to continue his missions in the town–the roads, the fire department.”[5] Renaissance finally invested Sébastien Fine, a “macronist of the first hour” who had joined the new party in 2017 and who, like Giraud, considered himself to be center left.  He was the mayor of Villar-Saint-Pancrace, a village of about 1500. Giraud endorsed him unreservedly, and has been campaigning with him.  Fine stressed that he wanted to “fight against all extremisms, defend the [particular needs] of our mountain territories,” and support agriculture.[6]

His competitors included a member of Lutte Ouvrière, a Trotskyist party that always runs and never makes an alliance with other parties: Boris Guignard. Asked how he would conduct himself in the National Assembly. Guignard stated that he would act “in the interests of the exploited,” and would “denounce all concessions made to the corporate establishment and to reactionaries. I desire nevertheless to reaffirm that for the workers, there will be neither a good Parliament, nor a good government: we will change our lot ourselves by our collective struggles.”[7] Duly noted.

The Nouveau Front Populaire candidate is Valérie Rossi, a member of the Socialist Party; she will defend the NFP platform and make sure that the government takes account of their local needs.

The RN candidate is Louis Albrand.  His primary program is to control both legal and illegal immigration: “above a certain [level], all processes of assimilation are impossible.”  As for how he would conduct himself while in office, Albrand seems in tune with the region.  He mentions, for example, “the problem of the wolf”; farmers send their flocks into the mountains and suffer losses, and government policy is too restrictive to handle the issue, a problem that had lasted throughout the Macron administrations. (The farmers were constantly asked for reports, reports one of them; in 2017, he had brought his dead sheep to the mayor’s office. [8])

Albrand also mentions the “diversion” of the main highway to avoid La Roche-de-Rame, a village of under a thousand people who have trucks constantly going through their one-lane town center. A recent government plan for “mitigation” calls for the destruction of four houses (to widen the turning radius) and the addition of a bike lane. The longtime leader of the community association is Jean-François Albrand, who may or may not be related; the town has been trying to get the road moved for seventy years. [9]. Of all the candidates interviewed, it was only Albrand who inserted local issues.

There is also an independent candidate, Johann Mondain, who somehow has felt called upon to run.

Update: Albrand came in first, with 33.88%. Rossi (PS) came in second, with 32.7%. Sébastien Fine, of Macron’s party, received 26.7%. He has stepped down and endorsed Rossi.

Update: Valérie Rossi won.

==========================

Header Photo 124547141 | Hautes © Wessel Cirkel | Dreamstime.com

[1] Joél Giraud, le VRP rurality’ de Macron,” La Croix, March 2, 2021.  https://www.la-croix.com/Joel-Giraud-VRP-ruralite-Macron-bat-campagne-2022-2021-03-02-1301143350

[2] Aurelien Breeden, “French Roosters Now Crow with the Law Behind Them,” NY Times, January 24, ning summer people complained about him.  The bill was to preserve “the sensory heritage of the countryside.” 2021.https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/world/europe/france-countryside-noises-smells-law.html

[3] Thomas Blanchon, “”Un gouvernement trop à droite et trop parisien,’” La Provence, February 19, 2024.https://www.laprovence.com/article/region/42404436918270/un-gouvernement-trop-a-droite-et-trop-parisien-pour-lex-ministre-joel-giraud-depute-des-hautes-alpes

[4] “Le député Joël Giraud arrête la politique,” Le Dauphiné Libéré, June 9, 2024.https://c.ledauphine.com/politique/2024/06/09/dissolution-le-depute-joel-giraud-arrete-la-politique

[5] Sidonie Canetto, “Élections législatives 2024: Joël Giraud,” France3, Provence, Alpes-Côte d’azur.  June 6, 2024.https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/hautes-alpes/elections-legislatives-2024-dans-la-circonscription-de-joel-giraud-une-succession-convoitee-dans-les-hautes-alpes-2984945.html?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral; ”Elections législatives dans les Hautes-Alpes: Marcel Cannat,” BFMTV, https://www.msn.com/fr-fr/actualite/france/%C3%A9lections-l%C3%A9gislatives-dans-les-hautes-alpes-le-maire-de-r%C3%A9otier-marcel-cannat-ne-sera-pas-candidat/ar-BB1o71Qa

[6] Yoann Gavoille, “Renaissance: la tentation Fine dans la deuxième circonscription,” Le Dauphiné libéré, June 12, 2024.  https://c.ledauphine.com/elections/2024/06/12/renaissance-la-tentation-fine

[7] Justin Mourez, “Législatives: les candidats de la 2e circonscription en quatre questions,” Le Dauphiné libéré, June 24, 2024.  https://c.ledauphine.com/elections/2024/06/24/legislatives-les-candidats-de-la-2e-circonscription-en-quatre-questions. This article interviewed all the candidates, asking the same four questions of each; all of the following comments come from this very informative article.

[8] Séverine Mizera, “Nouveau plan loup,” Le Dauphiné libéré, February 29, 2024.  https://c.ledauphine.com/environnement/2024/02/29/nouveau-plan-loup-ce-ne-sont-que-des-annonces-rien-n-est-fait-pour-nous

[9] “La Roche-de-Rame,” TFI Info. May 7. 2019. https://www.tf1info.fr/societe/13h-tf1-la-roche-de-rame-hautes-alpes-ou-en-est-le-projet-de-deviation-de-la-route-nationale-reclame-par-les-habitants-2120480.html; Fanny Pechiney and Nolwenn Autret, “La Roche-de-Rame: Nouvelle Manifestation,” BFMdici, November 4, 2023.  https://www.bfmtv.com/bfm-dici/la-roche-de-rame-nouvelle-manifestation-contre-le-projet-d-amenagement-de-la-rn94_AN-202311040329.html

On June 21, Le Figaro released the results of the Ifop-Fudicial poll, conducted for them (along with LCI and Sud Radio) that showed, potentially, that France may become ungovernable, with two nearly equal opposing sides. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the National Rally party may win outright.

The French National Assembly has 577 seats, chosen according to electoral districts. An absolute majority is 289.

In 2017:

• Macron’s party, La République en Marche, won 306 seats which, combined with 42 seats from MoDems, gave them a very comfortable majority.
• The Socialist Party, once one of the two dominant parties, was cut to 30 seats, down from 258 in 2012.
• Les Républicains, the other dominant party, was down to 112, combined with 17 seats from the UDI; in 2012, then called UMP, they had 185 seats.
• La France Insoumise had 17 seats; it was founded in 2016.
• The National Front had 8 seats, up from 2 in 2012.

This does not add up to 577; the various parties gain support from minor or regional parties.

In 2022, the Assembly that Macron just dissolved:

• Ensemble, the Presidential Majority including Renaissance (formerly La République en Marche), MoDem, and Horizons, a micro party founded by former Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, was down to 244–a relative majority, but one that would require alliances and compromise to pass anything.
• La Nouvelle Union populaire écologique et sociale (Nupes), the alliance of the Left–La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, Les écologistes–won 127. They did not govern as an alliance.
• Les Républicains won 61.
• The National Rally (formerly the National Front) won 89.

The Ifop/Fiducial poll published on June 21, made the following projections for seats:

First, and currently leading, are the RN/Ciottistes, the Union des Droits. It is essentially the National Rally party, with Ciotti of Les Républicains scrambling to throw together some nominees out of the split Les Républicains. This group is projected to take between 200-240 seats. Jordan Bardella, the head of the RN and their choice for Prime Minister, has said that he will not take office unless he has an absolute majority. He might change his mind; but he might also be thinking that alliances could dilute the message of the party for the 2027 elections.

In second place, the Nouveau Front Populaire, as of now, is projected at 180-210 seats. Depending on the outcome of individual races, they could come in equal or close to the RN, splitting the Assembly in two. What they don’t have is a choice for Prime Minister to put in front of the voters: Jean-Luc Mélenchon, head and founder of LFI, has been making it very clear that “of course” he should be the prime minister, but he is considered toxic, even by many in his own party. Indeed, he has suffered perhaps a greater fall in popularity since 2022, when he came in a close third in the first round of the presidential race, than Macron.

In third place, the Presidential Majority, including MoDem and the Horizons micro party, is projected to get between 80-110 seats.

Maybe the “non-Ciotti Republicans” could get as many as 40-60 seats, though that would require some luck, given that they are only at 6.5% of “intentions to vote.”

The “intentions to vote” percentages show the following:

• Rn/Ciotti, 35%
• Nouveau Front Populaire, 29%
• Presidential Majority, 21.5% (and falling).

The elections are a week from today, on June 30.

=========

Ministère de l’Intérieur

John Timsit, “Légilatives: sans majorité absolue, le RN en tête,” Le Figaro, June 21, 2024.https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/legislatives/en-direct-legislatives-a-une-semaine-du-premier-tour-un-week-end-de-campagne-sous-haute-tension-20240622https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/pour-francois-hollande-jean-luc-melenchon-devrait-plutot-etre-discret-20240622

=========

Header Image: Photo 117291219 © One Photo | Dreamstime.com