The new cabinet pulls in allies from the centre and right, despite left-wing parties winning France's election.

French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his new government almost three months after a snap general election delivered a hung parliament.

The long-awaited new line up, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, marks a decisive shift to the right, even though a left-wing alliance won most parliamentary seats.

It comes as the European Union puts France on notice over its spiralling debt, which now far exceeds EU rules.

Among those gaining a position in the new cabinet is Bruno Retailleau, a key member of the conservative Republicans Party founded by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Just one left-wing politician was given a post in the cabinet, independent Didier Migaud, who was appointed as justice minister.

France’s public-sector deficit is projected to reach around 5.6% of GDP this year and go over 6% in 2025. The EU has a 3% limit on deficits.

Michel Barnier, a veteran conservative, was named as Macron’s prime minister earlier this month.

Members of the left-wing alliance, the New Popular Front (NFP) have threatened a no-confidence motion in the new government.

Far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon called for the new government to “be got rid of” as soon as possible.

On Saturday, before the cabinet announcement, thousands of left-wing supporters demonstrated in Paris against the incoming government, arguing that the left’s performance in the election was not taken into consideration.

Archive link

    • Pherenike@lemmy.ml
      27·
      3 months ago

      I’ve certainly not seen someone wipe his ass with the people’s vote quicker than this guy.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      2210·
      3 months ago

      If anything it shows that authoritarians will choose what keeps them in power rather than what’s best for the people. The left didn’t get the majority, it was roughly a 3 way split between the left, center-right and far-right. The government would’ve been with the left and center-right or center-right and far-right. The former would’ve been better because it would’ve represented a bigger portion of the voters but the latter was also viable from the perspective of democracy.

      However the choice was largely up to Macron (and his party) and he’s definitely more autocratic than democratic. His decision is what ultimately threw the left under the bus.

      Tldr: Democracy is fine, authoritarianism is the issue.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
          58·
          3 months ago

          What is shows is that western implementation of the concept of democracy is such that it does not represent the interests of the working majority. Western democracies are class dictatorships where the capital owning class makes the decisions and dictates to the workers. This is precisely what we’re seeing happening in France right now.

          You want to expand on that? Considering Ensemble and National Rally (with its far right allies) make up 301 seats out of the 577 seats (and for the lazy, 289 is the minimum to have the majority). If Ensemble had allied with NFP they’d have 339 seats which is more than with the far-right, but not significantly more. Had the left “won” I don’t see how you couldn’t make the same argument saying it’s bullshit.

          Meanwhile, authoritarianism is a largely meaningless term. Every government holds authority by virtue of having a monopoly on legalized violence. What actually matters is whom the government is accountable to. When the working majority has no tangible leverage then their voice can be easily ignored. That’s why Macron is able to do what he is doing. The issue is with the way the system is implemented.

          Define tangible leverage.

          TLDR: democracy is fine, western implementation of the concept is not

          Interesting to see where this non-western fine democracy exists.

            • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
              47·
              3 months ago

              So public unrest is an indication that the government doesn’t represent the interest of the public? Seems like your examples of fine democracy don’t represent the interest of the public either, protests on the rise in China and protests in Cuba.

              Where are their tangible benefits that you defined so vaguely you might as well have not defined them at all? Please specifics this time, not this vague BS.

                • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
                  510·
                  3 months ago

                  Nice to see how little you’re paying attention.

                  Nah, it’s public unrest coupled with continuously declining living conditions and the government ignoring the demands from the people that shows the government isn’t working in the interest of the public.

                  The articles I linked both said declining living conditions are the reason of protests. When it comes to Cuba the government suppressed the unrest with force. China protests have worsened in the last year. Looking at how fast you responded you probably didn’t even open the links. Nevertheless, your criticism applies to those countries as well

                  And I accidentally misspelled tangible leverage. I never meant to say tangible benefits and I think context-wise it should’ve been obvious I meant the term you originally brought up. But you only skimmed my comment for keywords so you could dump your prepared copy paste because there’s no way you found those examples with sources within 6 minutes, you had those ready to throw out.

                  I guess you’re just a mouthpiece afterall.