Emmanuel Macron dissolves French parliament and calls snap elections

Rash?

What would have happened had he not grasped the nettle?

I really don't know the answer to that.

What ,I wonder led him to call the snap election?

The fear that things were going to get worse and that this was the least worst time?

Or was he more aggressive in his thinking and did he count on the country to not allow FN to take power in the same way that it prevented it last time?

Was it desperation or an astute play?

Did he get lucky or did he get what he played for?

Macron may (or may not - that remains to be seen) have prevented the RN from winning the three years' time (a calculation that is so long term in a domain where a week has frequently been described as "a long time") but he has certainly strengthened them immeasurably in their preparatives for whenever the next election does take place.

Such an early election (THREE years before it was required, or expected) he basically, and for no pressing reason, handed them so many seats in parliament for the first time ever that they now have access to all sorts of taxpayer-funded finances including paid parliamentary assistants that they would not otherwise have had. That will set them up wonderfully for the next elections.

So no, I think the only sensible conclusion is that Macron has promoted the interests of the far right. I don't suppose it was deliberate, but it was certainly reckless and has not paid off - if the far right is the group he was trying to damage.

Great news for the EU and also Ukraine

So now we have an alliance who agreed on one thing. A mixture of anti capitalists, communists, far left and greens. The plan is raise wages, taxes on business, lower pension age, anti Israel, pro immigration. All to be carried out without a plan on how to pay for it all.

Macron with a party which he threw half of them on the dole.

The right who got the most votes, largest party, growing from 10 seats to 150 in 8 years with loads of second places @ 47%+. i would imagine she will be quite chuffed as she can now sit on the sidelines and watch as it unfolds, without getting the blame for anything. If she does all she has to say is " you got what you voted for…. see you in a couple of years. "

Quite funny in a way with immigration being the biggest concern by far and 7 parties getting together to prevent the only one who pledged to do something about it.

I don't think Macron's plan quite came off in that he never expected the left to fully unite so quickly.

Macron refuses to accept PM Attal's resignation saying " he needs stability in government "

It's a bit of a bizarre result, if you look at the details for round 2 only.

NR got approx 37% of the vote in round 2, but only got 104 seats.

Macrons' ensemble got 24% of the vote and got 157 seats.

New Populist Front got 26% of the vote and got 148 seats.

It seems the goal of everyone was to keep the NR out.

How long is that sustainable though, and as the dust settles who is going to govern from now on in?

Many in the NPF are quite extreme in their outlook and would be an economic disaster for France.

100 % - i do not get the people saying Macron played a blinder?

Sure, LePen did not win the election, but he has opened the door for them now at the cost of a very very fragile government or none at all.

Le Pen is seen as major issue but members of NPF as just as bad if not worse.

As I said earlier, I'm not sure if he was right to call it, but maybe he was thinking the alternative is he is a lame duck and trying to forestall a virtual wipeout for the Centrists next time round.

The question is who will the French public blame for the instability, Macron for calling the election, or the popular front who as largest party have to try to manage it in parliament. The stresses of the instability and hung parliament may break apart the popular front.

If they got 37% of the vote but 60% of the seats you'd be licking their boots praising them for a decisive victory.

I think the question is why he ever thought it could work: there were basically four possible outcomes* of which only one was a good one from his PoV. Perhaps he’s just an inveterate gambler.

Either that or he is so detached from the rest of the country that he took his desires for reality. King Canute (though I think that story has been misread and that Canute was in fact trying to show his courtiers that he was not all powerful!)

I’m amazed that so many posters and commentators are presenting this as a clever tactical move by Macron.

* the four options being: any one of the three main blocs to have a majority, but only one of which would be his, or else for there to be a hung parliament, opening the way to chaos.

I meant lame duck in a reputational sense. As your note, he would still have the seats in Parliament - but maybe felt like he'd lost mandate for change.

I'm just trying to think through what his rationale was for the gamble.

side by side election reactions:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/BzP7fV2bzT

They might have stopped the far right from getting in, but instead they have opened the door to the far left.

This is not a victory for Macron or centrism.