Nope.
It's easy to predict what will happen with the "Cars Macron" for exemple (it's already happening btw).
First few years, competitors drive the prices down to kill each others.
Survivors are the one with the biggest wallet. Then, prices go up, less popular lines disappear and you find yourself with a transportation network that cover only a small part of the territory, and higher prices than if it was still public transportation.
Things are obviously going to settle down, but I don't see your point with the emphasized part:
1. No such public driven bus lines existed before since the SNCF was offered some kind of monopoly since 1982 with the Loti law
2. SNCF / RFF didn't wait for the Macron law to stop investing in its secondary network
3. Thanks to points 1 & 2, train is expensive as fuck today
So, I'm not sure what you're feeling is bad with this law Macron passed.
If the private sector can do better than the public one, let them do.
He underperformed before in the 2012 presidential election plus the percentage of people that will definitely vote for him on April 23rd is not much better then Macron.There's a chance in the last minute people vote for Fillon or Macron to block Melenchon from moving on to the second round.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the candidate of the Left Front, which includes in particular the French Communist Party and the Left Party. (He is a member of the latter.) He has been described as the surprise or revelation of the campaign, with his level of support in opinion polls rising from 5% in October 2011 to around 15% (and sometimes up to 17%) by the end of the campaign.
Things are obviously going to settle down, but I don't see your point with the emphasized part:
1. No such public driven bus lines existed before since the SNCF was offered some kind of monopoly since 1982 with the Loti law
2. SNCF / RFF didn't wait for the Macron law to stop investing in its secondary network
3. Thanks to points 1 & 2, train is expensive as fuck today
Yes, on this specific issue you're right, but the overall principle is still the same. I should have been more precise, that's on me. My point was, allowing the private sector to manage transportation always end up like this : higher prices than public transportation (that can rely on private companies for some parts, as it always been the case) and a limited network that just make the unprivileged more unprivileged (geographically speaking).
Yes, the governement didn't wait till Macron to stop its investment and kill its own services, which is a shame. A properly managed SNCF would do wonders, but no one is feeling like investing in the public sector.
They don't, and they know that. I don't have an example in mind, I'm not sure I could find one. Also they passed that law with three fucking 49.3.
mo60 said:
He underperformed before in the 2012 presidential election plus the percentage of people that will definitely vote for him on April 23rd is not much better then Macron.There's a chance in the last minute people vote for Fillon or Macron to block Melenchon from moving on to the second round.
His underperformance in 2012 is generally attributed to the fact that he stopped campaining two weeks before the 1st round, and at the time the "vote utile" was going full force for Hollande.
Potential Fillon voters might get the wake up call, but I don't think it will benefit Macron. Macron only got down, he doesn't have momentum and his position made him pretty much the "default candidate" so I don't think he'll get new voters.
His underperformance in 2012 is generally attributed to the fact that he stopped campaining two weeks before the 1st round, and at the time the "vote utile" was going full force for Hollande.
Potential Fillon voters might get the wake up call, but I don't think it will benefit Macron. Macron only got down, he doesn't have momentum and his position made him pretty much the "default candidate" so I don't think he'll get new voters.
^ French voters don't tend to understand American politics (and vice-versa). Mélenchon is a firebrand old guy on the relative left, but the comparison stops there. People like to simplify things and say X is A and Y is B, but reality is a bit more nuanced than that.
His underperformance in 2012 is generally attributed to the fact that he stopped campaining two weeks before the 1st round, and at the time the "vote utile" was going full force for Hollande.
Potential Fillon voters might get the wake up call, but I don't think it will benefit Macron. Macron only got down, he doesn't have momentum and his position made him pretty much the "default candidate" so I don't think he'll get new voters.
The main potential gain I see for Macron is former Fillon supporters who'd planned to sit out the first round. Not everyone went straight to Macron when the scandal hit.
Before, it was either Fillon vs Le Pen or Macron vs Le Pen, so for those voters, the first round didn't matter so much. But now that the threat of Mélenchon vs Le Pen is plausible, those voters are going to wake up (some of them at least).
^ French voters don't tend to understand American politics (and vice-versa). Mélenchon is a firebrand old guy on the relative left, but the comparison stops there. People like to simplify things and say X is A and Y is B, but reality is a bit more nuanced than that.
The main potential gain I see for Macron is former Fillon supporters who'd planned to sit out the first round. Not everyone went straight to Macron when the scandal hit.
Before, it was either Fillon vs Le Pen or Macron vs Le Pen, so for those voters, the first round didn't matter so much. But now that the threat of Mélenchon vs Le Pen is plausible, those voters are going to wake up (some of them at least).
It can go both ways. Former Fillon voters who wanted to sit out the first round because of the affairs will be torn between voting against their moral values or their political values. Some may think "après tout y a pas mort d'homme" and go back to support Fillon.
Yes, on this specific issue you're right, but the overall principle is still the same. I should have been more precise, that's on me. My point was, allowing the private sector to manage transportation always end up like this : higher prices than public transportation (that can rely on private companies for some parts, as it always been the case) and a limited network that just make the unprivileged more unprivileged (geographically speaking).
Did you ever wonder why cities/départements/régions were not fully running these services by themselves?
The reason is simply that the private sector can generally do better (in terms of efficiency and price) than the public one.
It can go both ways. Former Fillon voters who wanted to sit out the first round because of the affairs will be torn between voting against their moral values or their political values. Some may think "après tout y a pas mort d'homme" and go back to support Fillon.
Well sure, they're not all going to vote Macron. But a lot more Fillon voters will break for Macron than for Mélenchon. Those that stick with Fillon or stay at home don't matter when it comes to who of Macron or Mélenchon will make the second round.
On that note, saw an "insoumis" friend predict a Macron-Mélenchon second round earlier today on Facebook. I admire his optimism, but I still can't believe it. I hope I'm wrong though (not because I want to see Mélenchon in the second round, but because I want MLP to GTFO).
Another friend replied that calling themselves the "insoumis" was an insult to other voters. You're not "soumis" if you don't vote for Mélenchon. Curious what other GAFers think of that.
Yes, on this specific issue you're right, but the overall principle is still the same. I should have been more precise, that's on me. My point was, allowing the private sector to manage transportation always end up like this : higher prices than public transportation (that can rely on private companies for some parts, as it always been the case) and a limited network that just make the unprivileged more unprivileged (geographically speaking).
Yes, the governement didn't wait till Macron to stop its investment and kill its own services, which is a shame. A properly managed SNCF would do wonders, but no one is feeling like investing in the public sector.
You're just opposing a worst case scenario of a privatized market to a best case scenario of a public one. But neither extreme exists, and reality is somewhere in the middle.
For me the needs and constraints of transportation aren't too different from those of phone/internet. And opening the latter to concurrence has given great results. It didn't solve the issue of isolated areas not getting enough support, but the state can still act for them through subventions and programs like the "plan France très haut débit".
There is a need for a public service, but there's no reason that public service cannot be done by private actors.
It can go both ways. Former Fillon voters who wanted to sit out the first round because of the affairs will be torn between voting against their moral values or their political values. Some may think "après tout y a pas mort d'homme" and go back to support Fillon.
Yeah. That scenario could happen to. It's not like anything crazy related to fillon has been released in the last week or two. Most french news media aren't focusing on him and his corruption anymore.So some french voters could have forgotten about his scandals by now.
Where did I say that was not the case?
I'm not against public/private partnerships, as long as control stay in the hand in the public sector, because that's ultimately controlled by the citizens.
I'm okay with the partnerships on the TGV line Rennes-Paris & Bordeaux-Paris for example, I'm fine with Velibs, etc...
But that's not what's happening with the Loi Macron at all, and that's not where we're headed. The idea that putting public services in the hand of the "free market" will make everything better is stupid and dangerous.
For me the needs and constraints of transportation aren't too different from those of phone/internet
The only reason we have "good" prices on phone & internet is because Xavier Niel decided to break the status quo and drop the prices. And he's still a billionaire. A market where the prices are at the mercy of one man is not great news.
Another friend replied that calling themselves the "insoumis" was an insult to other voters. You're not "soumis" if you don't vote for Mélenchon. Curious what other GAFers think of that.
Another friend replied that calling themselves the "insoumis" was an insult to other voters. You're not "soumis" if you don't vote for Mélenchon. Curious what other GAFers think of that.
Eh, I don't care at all, never even thought about it to be honest. It's just a campaign thing, whatever.
I have more issues with the right being authorized to officially call their party "Les Républicains" as if everyone else was not.
The left, in order to shake up their image that is sligthly toxic at the moment (hi, Hamon, how is it going ?) should rebrand themselves, like, I don't know something like "les démocrates".
Has a nice ring to it.
This shit blows my mind. This is like the Americans who couldn't pick between Trump and Clinton. I can understanding hesitating between Hamon and Mélenchon for example, but between Macron and Le Pen? How?
Eh, I don't care at all, never even thought about it to be honest. It's just a campaign thing, whatever.
I have more issues with the right being authorized to officially call their party "Les Républicains" as if everyone else was not.
Eh, that name just reminded me of the Republican party in the US (I'm French-American). Makes sense considering how crazy they've become since they made their bed with La Manif Pour Tous. I don't really care about "insoumis" either, I hadn't really thought of it until I saw that comment.
This shit blows my mind. This is like the Americans who couldn't pick between Trump and Clinton. I can understanding hesitating between Hamon and Mélenchon for example, but between Macron and Le Pen? How?
Of course not, but I'm convinced we'll end up with higher prices and worse service, except on an handful of lines/destinations.
They've done it earlier for freight, and interestingly enough, it's now an awful mess. Basically everyone is dead or in bad shape, including the historical services, and they're going back to road. We've lost more than one third of the rail-based freight traffic over 10 years.
Comparison to communication is interesting. I'd wait for a dozen years for things to settle. Beside the issue of fracture (and with FTTH, that'll increase), you'll see lobbying win cases against net neutrality, and an awful mess after, in a lot of places. We're lucky in France to have Niel that not just a businessman but has some personal views about right and wrong (and I say this even if I disagree with him on a lot of points). But I don't think you can say a system is better if there's a small chance to do it right and a huge chance to do it wrong.
Indeed, and more importantly they vote "against" rather than "for". That's why Fillon beats his drums to the "alternance" tune ("it's not for me, it's against Hollande"), why Macron is mostly attacked for being a former Hollande minister, why Hamon (and Fillon) won the primaries, and why "anti-system" candidates are so high.
It's not new either, Hollande won 5 years ago mostly because of negative opinion towards Sarkozy, rather than Hollande's program or charisma.
Mélenchon always gets massive hype for the presidential elections, but it immediately dies down afterwards (or right before people actually cast their vote in the voting booth). Between the end of the 2012 campaign and the current campaign he was rather absent in the political landscape.
Eh, that name just reminded me of the Republican party in the US (I'm French-American). Makes sense considering how crazy they've become since they made their bed with La Manif Pour Tous. I don't really care about "insoumis" either, I hadn't really thought of it until I saw that comment.
They like to change the name of their party each time there's a big scandal associated to it, was the same with the RPR then with UMP, now it's Republicans can't wait to see what will be the next one.
He took a dive from obvious favorite to distant third, but he still has a rather solid base, since he's still the only clear candidate of the right, and voters are displeased with the left. Also I guess outrage dies down with time, barely anybody has mentioned the affairs in the last weeks.
The Elabe polls above are interesting since they show Le Pen trending down more than Macron, while others have them in opposite order. But at this point it's too close to trust.
Ipsos Sopras recently released a poll and it's insane.The difference between the top two which are Le pen and Macron and third Melenchon is like 2 points in that poll.Can not post it because I am on my phone right now.
Four candidates all in the margin of error, amazing. May as well flip coins.
EDIT: and what's interesting is how uncertain Hamon voters are. I think this mostly comes down to how they decide to break; I don't think they'll stick with Hamon.
Both have been within 1% of each other for the last month anyway. And both are dropping too.
The rise of Mélenchon is worrying indeed, because if there is no sign of him slowing down in the next days, then he definitely should be expected to reach second round. And his opponent would be a coin toss.
"Interesting" is a way of putting it, but I'd rather it being "interesting" with safer candidates than Mélenchon in the "semi finals". Hamon should have been the one in his place, the PS really shat the bed on this election.
Lol I'd rather the election was a little less "interesting" and Macron was comfortably in the lead (or Hamon ideally but that was never going to happen). Le Pen, Fillon and Mélenchon are worrying to straight up terrifying options to me.
Note that Le Pen is currently at one of her lowest scores in months, and the trend doesn't seem good for her. Who knows, we might be heading for a good surprise.
It's filled with stories about how brave she is, how she defended immigrants, and zero mention of her corruption or racism. Even the language contains weird shit like "hardline policies to reassure a population despairing of mass unemployment and a persistent terror threat".
Note that Le Pen is currently at one of her lowest scores in months, and the trend doesn't seem good for her. Who knows, we might be heading for a good surprise.
The potential race for second place is much too tight though. We went from a situation where "whatever happens, we should have someone reasonable facing Le Pen, and that person should win" to "there is a 50/50 chance of having the two destructive candidates facing each other".
It's filled with stories about how brave she is, how she defended immigrants, and zero mention of her corruption or racism. Even the language contains weird shit like "hardline policies to reassure a population despairing of mass unemployment and a persistent terror threat".
British press has these wild fantasies about the collapse of EU ever since the Brexit. Even decent places like Guardian and BBC push for every bit of news that has a small chance of driving this outcome. I stopped watching news on BBC for this reason, practically.
The potential race for second place is much too tight though. We went from a situation where "whatever happens, we should have someone reasonable facing Le Pen, and that person should win" to "there is a 50/50 chance of having the two destructive candidates facing each other".
What would Melenchon destroy?
Honest question I mean for Le Pen it's rather obvious but for Melenchon I'm rather interested to know and one line comment just aren't explicit enough
Though no one sane enough would deny that Melenchon's programm would bring a huge shift on many topics
France is only part of the integrated military command since 2009 (with again a 49.3 if I remember correctly), we left in 1966 and we didn't destroy the world, yet it was the cold war.
It wasn't a full exit, but people are over reacting a bit over the leaving NATO part.
I get that people are afraid for the EU, but NATO, please.
What would Melenchon destroy?
Honest question I mean for Le Pen it's rather obvious but for Melenchon I'm rather interested to know and one line comment just aren't explicit enough
Though no one sane enough would deny that Melenchon's programm would bring a huge shift on many topics
The EU and NATO.
Would get France to join the ALBA with nice fellow like Maduro and a huge number of fiscal paradise like Saint John and Kills.
Organisation that have Putin, Assad as invited guest.
(Point 62 of his program).
France is only part of the integrated military command since 2009 (with again a 49.3 if I remember correctly), we left in 1966 and we didn't destroy the world, yet it was the cold war.
It wasn't a full exit, but people are over reacting a bit over the leaving NATO part.
I get that people are afraid for the EU, but NATO, please.
I would argue than in a time when US has president Trump, France leaving the NATO has a much bigger impact than in 1966. And according to Melenchon's program this is much more than leaving the integrated military command.
It's also about forming an alter-globalist alliance with BRICS (however would that work since none of the BRICS is anti-globalisation).
It's practically France turning its back on all its European allies and neighbours politically, economically and militarily. Yeah, nothing to worry here.
What would Melenchon destroy?
Honest question I mean for Le Pen it's rather obvious but for Melenchon I'm rather interested to know and one line comment just aren't explicit enough
Though no one sane enough would deny that Melenchon's programm would bring a huge shift on many topics
Yes it's all about EU for me. And no need to say "if everything goes by Mélenchon's plan, we'll still have EU but a better one", because nobody can realistically expect the EU to concede for what he asks. So either delusionally or intentionally, Mélenchon is steering us towards the exit.
You know, I'm no expert in economics (and I think even experts aren't 100% sure of what is "right" for the country/the world, or you'd see more consensus), and I can understand people being worried about the effectiveness and consequences of a given policy.
But whatever the plan, be it social or liberal or whatever, if it doesn't work it can still be undone after 5 years. There may be difficulties and suffering in the meantime, but it can be fixed. I'm not really convinced by Fillon's plan for example, but even if he's elected I'd be ready to wait and see if it works.
But leaving EU means most probably destroying EU, and that's definitive. You'd just dismantle the result of 60 years of work and negotiations, and if you make it fail nobody will want to try again after some time. Especially not with the country that dealt the fatal blow.
And to people who support the end of EU, maybe they should wonder why Russia very obviously supports that goal. Putin doesn't want the union to disappear out of idealistic generosity towards the EU members, it is because it is in the interest of Russia to weaken us.
Putin doesn't want the union to disappear out of idealistic generosity towards the EU members, it is because it is in the interest of Russia to weaken us.
