Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2020 19:39:30 GMT
Also interesting to note the skew towards the south-east in the cities - only one gain is north of the Auvergne and only one is west of the Rhône (assuming Lyon doesn't count as "west" of it), while the only loss is in the north east. I wonder if the towns show any similar geographic distribution?
|
|
|
|
Post by relique on Jul 2, 2020 20:09:17 GMT
SatyrPlay: The Left has gained 6 (and lost 1) cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants and will control in future 24/42 (copied thankfully from en.wikipedia):  The Left has not improved its bad result of 2014 in the cities&towns with over 30.000 people (copied thankfully from another forum):  Put together, this means an InCrease in the cities and a DeCrease in the towns - what does not sound too unfamiliar to British (or austrian) ears, does it.
It's difficult to call Besançon and Lyon "gained" for the left, as both mayors were elected as left in 2014. For instance in Besançon, LREM never had a majority, PS EELV and PCF had a majority of votes in the council. And the new mayor will probably have a lot of similar deputies since she was supported by the whole left-wing majority at the council. Grenoble and Le Havre of course are not gains for no one, since the 2014 elected mayor is the same as the 2020 elected mayor (Edouard Philippe left his mayorship to someone just for the time he was PM). Marseille is not really EELV. The Greens (EELV) left the "Printemps Marseillais" left-wing coalition after the 2019 european election (they thought they would be the natural leader of the left). Rubirola was chosen by Printemps Marseillais but most of the candidates for the local council are members of PS, PCF or non partisan left. Greens only did 8% and Printemps Marseillais 23%. They merged, but the number of councillor for the Greens is quite limited.
And Rubirola is not mayor ! It will be close, but it is still too close to call ! Marseille politics are too complicated !
So left gains: Annecy, Tours, Nancy, Bordeaux, Saint-Paul right gain: Metz far-right gain: Perpignan (from the right) uncertain: Marseille
Left switch: Besançon, Strasbourg (PS=>Greens); Montpellier (DVG=>PS); Saint-Denis (PCF=>PS);
Right switch: Orléans (pro government right => LR)
|
|
|
|
Post by relique on Jul 4, 2020 12:27:28 GMT
The "installation" council of Marseille is happenning and it's a mess. After a first round where no one achieved a majority, the left have called for a 15 minute recess which lasted... two hours. Then, they asked for another 1 hour recess. They are negotiating between Printemps Marseillais (Rubirola, united left) and Samia Ghali, former senator, mayor in a poor northern sector, former PS. She was joined by Lisette Narducci, former mayor of the 2nd sector, former PRG (parti radical de gauche, center left) who joined LR Gaudin in 2014 and was beaten by Printemps Marseillais in her sector (she supported dissident LR Gilles in 2020). So officially, now Samia Ghali has 9 elected councillors, Printemps Marseillais 42 and they have an absolute majority if they reach an agreement. Ghali has asked that the subway be extedned to the poorest northern parts of Marseille and to be first deputy mayor. Rubirola had refused yesterday and Ghali said she "took back her freedom". If they don't reach an agreement, left has 42 and right 41. The RN left the council before the first vote but they might come back and vote for Teissier, the new candidate for LR, who is rather keen on an alliance with them (that's why Narducci left the right for Ghali). The session is returning right now, you can follow it here: akah.event.novialys.com/Datas/vdm/1366149_5efaf70a900f3/ |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Jul 4, 2020 15:31:41 GMT
The "installation" council of Marseille is happenning and it's a mess. Who would have expected... |
|
andrea
Non-Aligned
Posts: 7,773
|
Post by andrea on Jul 4, 2020 16:03:39 GMT
Rubirola elected in the end
|
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 20, 2020 20:01:26 GMT
They should be held in march 2021. They will probably be held in june, but there's no certainty yet. In fact, the government is quite late at making the decision (although they appointed someone to bring a report where all political parties were consulted). "Régionales" and "Départementales" elections should happen in 2021. I think Macron has definitely abandoned the idea of postponing them until 2022 or 2023 (he didn't want to face a certain defeat before the presidential election, which is quite "democratic" on his part; I wonder how many lessons he would have given 'illiberal democracies' after that). Both elections were previously held in 2015, but the "départementales" in march and "régionales" in december (because there was a merger of some regions). "Départements" have responsabilities over some social benefits (they give the RSA, the minimum income when out of a full-time job), roads, middle schools (they pay all non-teaching staff and are responsible for investments etc...) and firefighter squads. "Régions" have responsabilities over railway trains (the regional TER; they know can create competition between companies; they own the trains and pay for the renewal of the fleet), high schools (they also pay all non-teaching staff and investments), professional training, mostly, and also culture, strategic policies, some financial aide to companies... Before 2015, the "départements" were organized as "Conseil général" where boundaries were drawn to create "cantons" (we talked about "élections cantonales"), each canton electing one "conseiller général" in a usual (for France) two-round vote with the first two of the first round qualified + all candidates receiving more than 12,5% of the registered voters. There was a reform by Sarkozy that was supposed to be applied in 2014 (there would only have one "conseiller territorial" elected in a canton and seating in both regional and départemental councils). Hollande passed a reform to keep the two councils separated (and separating regional and départemental councillors). However, he redrew the cantons by creating cantons with two elected conseillers départementaux: one male and one female, running on a ticket (with two substitute). It was something defended (for the national assembly) by feminist icon Gisèle Halimi, for instance. All cantons were redrawn for the 2015 election and of course it created difficulties for incumbents who were less known in large parts of their new canton. The last time all the cantons were redrawn was... in 1801 ! About 60% of cantons were not changed from 1801 to 2015 ! Most changed were addition of cantons in heavily populated areas (by dividing existing cantons). It rose the number of cantons from 3000 to 4000. With the 2013-2015 reform, the number of cantons is now 2054, which means 4108 elected conseillers départementaux. Before the reform, "élections cantonales" were held every three years, cantons being renewed by half (in every département) each time. Now, the elections concern all cantons. The constitutional moto "République une et indivisible" was quite abandoned (in my opinion) by different reforms since them. If over-seas départements or régions have mostly had slightly different way of organizing institutions, the different governments have completely given in to local particularisms in Corsica (there is now a unique council uniting responsabilities of regions and départements called the Collectivité Territoriale, something the nationalists have always wanted and that the population rejected in 2003 in a referendum; the Collectivité is elected the same way as regions; the last election was in 2017 and the next will be in 2023) and in Alsace (Collectivité européenne d'Alsace, yes, you can puke; it is only a merger of the two départements, their region being "Grand Est" with former Lorraine and Champagne-Ardennes; the CEA was rejected in a referendum in 2013 but the local elites have successfully obtained the reform to be voted anyway; since it is only a merger of the two conseils départementaux, the next election will also be in 2021). In the Rhône département (Lyon), Gérard Collomb, former socialist and now macronist, was awarded that the "Métropole de Lyon" was given the responsibilities of the département, so that there is now no départementales election in the Lyon urban area, the election was held at the same time (and on a separate ballot, a unique thing in France) of the municipales elections. So the new Rhône département is quite smaller, and heavily rural (and right-wing). There are also "collectivités uniques" in some overseas territories (Mayotte, Guyane, Martinique) and two of them (Guyane and Martinique) were rejected in a referendum in 2003. Local institutions have been, in the 21st century, an area in which there were quite a lot of local referendums and they were all completely "rejected" by the political elite doing whatever they wanted, influenced by some local elected officials and european-inspired neoliberal policies of "rationalization". Then, there is the regional elections, which are list-based elections. All lists are organized by départements (for instance, in the Hauts-de-France Région, there is a list of about 80 candidates in the Nord département, 40 in Pas-de-Calais, etc...). It's a two-round election, although only one is held if a list obtain more than 50% of votes in the first round. The list ahead in the second round (or first if more than 50%) is awarded 25% of the seats as a bonus in each département. Then, the rest of the seats are awarded at the département level proportionally between all lists above 5%. With the 25% bonus, obtaining 33,4% should be enough for a list ahead to get a majority of seats (barely). It happenned in Bourgogne-Franche Comté in 2015 with the PS incumbent of Franche-Comté Marie-Guite Dufay obtaining 34,68% and 51 of the 100 seats with UDI-LR at 32,89% and 25 seats and FN at 32,44% and 24. A list qualifies for the second round if they obtain at least 10% of the votes. Lists can merge between the two rounds. All lists above 5% can merge with another list (lists between 5 et 10% need to merge with a list obtaining more than 10% of course, so that having three left-wing lists at 9% means no one will obtain a few seats if no other lists want to merge with them; that can be the case in the following election, as some polls have shown). The new regions from 2015 and on are: - Ile-de-France (no change), it includes: Paris, Seine-Saint-Denis, Hauts-de-Seine, Val-de-Marne, Val-d'Oise, Seine-et-Marne and Yvelines
- Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, merger of Auvergne and Rhône-Alpes, it includes: Lyon, Rhône, Isère, Ain, Savoie, Haute-Savoie, Loire, Drôme, Ardèche, Puy-de-Dôme, Haute-Loire, Allier and Cantal
- Hauts-de-France, merger of Nord-Pas de Calais and Picardie, it includes: Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Somme, Aisne and Oise
- Grand-Est, merger of Lorraine, Champagnes-Ardennes and Alsace, it includes: Ardennes, Aube, Marne, Haute-Marne, Meuse, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Moselle, Vosges, Haut-Rhin and Bas-Rhin
- Occitanie, merger of Midi-Pyrénées and Languedoc-Roussillon, it includes: Haute-Garonne, Gers, Tarn, Tarn-et-Garonne, Aude, Aveyron, Lot, Hautes-Pyrénées, Lozère, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales and Gard
- Normandie, merger of Haute-Normandie and Basse-Normandie, it inclued: Seine-Maritime, Eure, Calvados, Manche and Orne
- Bretagne (no change), it includes: Finistère, Morbihan, Côtes-d'Armor and Ille-et-Vilaine
- Pays-de-la-Loire (no change), it includes: Loire-Atlantique, Vendée, Maine-et-Loire, Sarthe and Mayenne
- Centre-val-de-Loire (no change, except the name), it includes: Loir-et-Cher, Indre-et-Loire, Loiret and Indre
- Nouvelle-Aquitaine, merger of Poitou-Charentes, Aquitaine and Limousin, it includes Vienne, Deux-Sèvres, Charente and Charente-Maritime, Gironde, Landes, Pyrénées-Atlantique, Dordogne and Lot-et-Garonne, and Haute-Vienne, Corrèze and Creuse
- Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (no change, except the name which is now the very ugly Grand Sud), it includes Hautes-Alpes, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, Alpes-Maritimes, Var, Bouches-du-Rhône and Vaucluse
- La Réunion , which only includes La Réunion island, and there is a separate Département
- Guadeloupe, which only includes Guadeloupe, and there is a separate Département
- Martinique, now a Collectivité unique, elected as the other regions
- Guyane, now a Collectivité unique, elected as the other regions
In 2004 and 2010, the left, in the opposition of the government, almost took every region (only Alsace in 2004 and 2010, Corsica in 2004 and Guyane and La Réunion in 2010 were taken by the right). In 2015, one month after the Bataclan and Saint-Denis terrorist attacks, the left managed to keep quite a respectable number of regions (given the unpopularity of Hollande during his term; there probably was a "terrorist attack" effect): Occitanie, Bourgogne-Franche Comté, Bretagne, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Centre-Val de Loire, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyane. The right-wing UMP took Normandie, Île-de-France, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Grand-Est, Hauts-de-France, Pays-de-la-Loire, Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d'Azur and kept La Réunion. Corse went with nationalists.
In two regions, Provence-Alpes-Côtes-d'Azur and Hauts-de-France, the PS lists, while it was able to qualify to the second round (and merge with communists or Greens), decided to drop out of the France, creating a face-to-face between the right and the far-right. In Grand-Est, the national PS tried to convince the incumbent president of the Lorraine region to do the same, but Masseret maintained his lists. His vote share was reduced due to a "vote utile" effect towards the right against the FN, but they still maintained a presence at the regional council, which is quite useful, when I see the local situation in Hauts-de-France.
In another post a bit later, I'll talk more about the current presidents, the detail of the results of 2015 and who are the prospective candidates for 2021 at the regional level. At the départemental level, I'll do more a bit later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 20:53:26 GMT
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur is a much prettier and probably more accurate name. Why on Earth did they change it?
|
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 20, 2020 21:02:22 GMT
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur is a much prettier and probably more accurate name. Why on Earth did they change it? I think they keep it but after the name "Grand Sud".
I do believe some very (very) bad consulting firms have said it would be easier for tourists (to know that's the south...).
The name "Hauts-de-France" is also quite bad. My region is north of France, so they could have told "Nord de France". But they chose "Hauts" which is a bit fancier (associated with very bourgeois hauts-de-seine for instance). It is also highly inaccurate, since in french geography, saying of something is "haut" doesn't mean "north in the map" but rather "high altitude". And Nord-Pas de Calais -Picardie is many things but high altitude.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Dec 20, 2020 23:12:19 GMT
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur is a much prettier and probably more accurate name. Why on Earth did they change it? I think they keep it but after the name "Grand Sud".
I do believe some very (very) bad consulting firms have said it would be easier for tourists (to know that's the south...).
The name "Hauts-de-France" is also quite bad. My region is north of France, so they could have told "Nord de France". But they chose "Hauts" which is a bit fancier (associated with very bourgeois hauts-de-seine for instance). It is also highly inaccurate, since in french geography, saying of something is "haut" doesn't mean "north in the map" but rather "high altitude". And Nord-Pas de Calais -Picardie is many things but high altitude.
Preferable would have also been "Bourgogne [Duché & FrancheComté]", but admittingly most aren't aware nowadays, that the FrancheComté was originally another part of Burgundy. But "Grand Est", "Nouvelle-Aquitaine", "Val de Loire" vs. "Pas de Loire" are really just hilarious names! My plan would have been to reunite the Poitou and Nantes with Brittany:  Some election results: drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_i6CKnZrVLNE-VtMRagqUJlebJ9c24je?usp=sharing...but the optimal solution for me would be to merge Nord&PdC with Wallony (7.7m inh.) and Picardy with Normandy (5.3m):  |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 20, 2020 23:22:47 GMT
At the time of the reform, there was a website where you could form your own regions. I decided to make only two. France and "Parisians". Normandie-Picardie is a bit weird. Oise is now definitely Parisian, I'd say. Aisne might be joined with Champagne-Ardennes and Somme with Nord-Pas de Calais. More to the point, a recent report of the "Cour des Comptes" said what any (and all) sensible people had said during the reform: it was a huge waste of money (while the neoliberal-european inspired argument was that it would be a huge money-saver). It is also fair to say that for merging regions, this term was quite a "blank" one, when they mostly took their time, energy and money to try and coordonate the different policies that existed in each regions rather than trying to create new policies for the whole region. This reform (as was most of the recent local institutional reforms, all inspired by so called representatives of locally elected officials) was yet another stupid, ill-advised reform. The former regions were really good enough. Maybe (maybe) the two Normandies should have been merged. But they were already discussing it, and taking the time to do so would probably have helped, rather than urging on.
PS: and honestly, I think we should unite the Chouans and the Vendéens; they deserve each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Dec 20, 2020 23:50:17 GMT
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur is a much prettier and probably more accurate name. Why on Earth did they change it? I think they keep it but after the name "Grand Sud".
I do believe some very (very) bad consulting firms have said it would be easier for tourists (to know that's the south...).
The name "Hauts-de-France" is also quite bad. My region is north of France, so they could have told "Nord de France". But they chose "Hauts" which is a bit fancier (associated with very bourgeois hauts-de-seine for instance). It is also highly inaccurate, since in french geography, saying of something is "haut" doesn't mean "north in the map" but rather "high altitude". And Nord-Pas de Calais -Picardie is many things but high altitude.
They'd have been better off with just Picardie-Nord, or your Nord de France selection. Or if they wanted a dodgy neologism, "Terre des betteraves" (with a nice reference to the revolutionary calendar!). |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 20, 2020 23:54:46 GMT
I'd have said Nord-Picardie  Picardie-Nord would suggest there is a Picardie-Sud. Terre des chicons would be better |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 21, 2020 0:02:39 GMT
Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur is a much prettier and probably more accurate name. Why on Earth did they change it? I think they keep it but after the name "Grand Sud".
I do believe some very (very) bad consulting firms have said it would be easier for tourists (to know that's the south...).
The name "Hauts-de-France" is also quite bad. My region is north of France, so they could have told "Nord de France". But they chose "Hauts" which is a bit fancier (associated with very bourgeois hauts-de-seine for instance). It is also highly inaccurate, since in french geography, saying of something is "haut" doesn't mean "north in the map" but rather "high altitude". And Nord-Pas de Calais -Picardie is many things but high altitude.
For some reason, I imagined you were from Ariège. Almost close... |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 21, 2020 0:10:47 GMT
I think they keep it but after the name "Grand Sud".
I do believe some very (very) bad consulting firms have said it would be easier for tourists (to know that's the south...).
The name "Hauts-de-France" is also quite bad. My region is north of France, so they could have told "Nord de France". But they chose "Hauts" which is a bit fancier (associated with very bourgeois hauts-de-seine for instance). It is also highly inaccurate, since in french geography, saying of something is "haut" doesn't mean "north in the map" but rather "high altitude". And Nord-Pas de Calais -Picardie is many things but high altitude.
For some reason, I imagined you were from Ariège. Almost close... Hahaha ! Well. I may have crossed it but I don't think I've ever slept a night there. Born and raised in the Nord. I only feel I've come back home when I see the first "terril" along the A1... |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 21, 2020 0:25:53 GMT
For some reason, I imagined you were from Ariège. Almost close... Hahaha ! Well. I may have crossed it but I don't think I've ever slept a night there. Born and raised in the Nord. I only feel I've come back home when I see the first "terril" along the A1... I’m afraid that northern part of France gives me a strong sense of ennui. The A26 gets me away from Calais quickly, but it still seems to take forever before the landscape is even slightly interesting. I’ve never stayed a night in Ariège, but have passed through many times when staying in my favourite hideaway, just the other side of the Aude/Ariège border. Speaking of ‘terrils’, I was in the area with my in-laws a few years ago, taking them to various war graves and memorials. One of them was the Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge, from where you can see a few spoil heaps in the surrounding area. My father-in-law managed to persuade the mother-in-law that they were the Egyptian memorial... |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 21, 2020 0:38:00 GMT
Hahaha ! Well. I may have crossed it but I don't think I've ever slept a night there. Born and raised in the Nord. I only feel I've come back home when I see the first "terril" along the A1... I’m afraid that northern part of France gives me a strong sense of ennui. The A26 gets me away from Calais quickly, but it still seems to take forever before the landscape is even slightly interesting. I’ve never stayed a night in Ariège, but have passed through many times when staying in my favourite hideaway, just the other side of the Aude/Ariège border. Speaking of ‘terrils’, I was in the area with my in-laws a few years ago, taking them to various war graves and memorials. One of them was the Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge, from where you can see a few spoil heaps in the surrounding area. My father-in-law managed to persuade the mother-in-law that they were the Egyptian memorial...
Have you been to Notre-Dame-de-Lorette, l'Anneau de la mémoire ?
Well... Pierre Bachelet summed it up and we chant it in Bollaert since he died:
I guess tourists say the same thing about northern England as you for northern France...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2020 0:48:47 GMT
At the time of the reform, there was a website where you could form your own regions. I decided to make only two. France and "Parisians". Normandie-Picardie is a bit weird. Oise is now definitely Parisian, I'd say. Aisne might be joined with Champagne-Ardennes and Somme with Nord-Pas de Calais. More to the point, a recent report of the "Cour des Comptes" said what any (and all) sensible people had said during the reform: it was a huge waste of money (while the neoliberal-european inspired argument was that it would be a huge money-saver). It is also fair to say that for merging regions, this term was quite a "blank" one, when they mostly took their time, energy and money to try and coordonate the different policies that existed in each regions rather than trying to create new policies for the whole region. This reform (as was most of the recent local institutional reforms, all inspired by so called representatives of locally elected officials) was yet another stupid, ill-advised reform. The former regions were really good enough. Maybe (maybe) the two Normandies should have been merged. But they were already discussing it, and taking the time to do so would probably have helped, rather than urging on.
PS: and honestly, I think we should unite the Chouans and the Vendéens; they deserve each other.
I keep trying to explain this concept to my friends, but they won't listen. Unfortunately they're also insisting on visiting Paris when we go to France in 2022, whereas I would rather not go anywhere near it ever again |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Dec 21, 2020 3:32:45 GMT
Hahaha ! Well. I may have crossed it but I don't think I've ever slept a night there. Born and raised in the Nord. I only feel I've come back home when I see the first "terril" along the A1... I’m afraid that northern part of France gives me a strong sense of ennui. The A26 gets me away from Calais quickly, but it still seems to take forever before the landscape is even slightly interesting. I’ve never stayed a night in Ariège, but have passed through many times when staying in my favourite hideaway, just the other side of the Aude/Ariège border. Speaking of ‘terrils’, I was in the area with my in-laws a few years ago, taking them to various war graves and memorials. One of them was the Canadian memorial at Vimy Ridge, from where you can see a few spoil heaps in the surrounding area. My father-in-law managed to persuade the mother-in-law that they were the Egyptian memorial... One of my lab partners at uni was from Pamiers, Ariège. His accent was difficult to understand at times. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Dec 21, 2020 4:42:48 GMT
At the time of the reform, there was a website where you could form your own regions. I decided to make only two. France and "Parisians". Normandie-Picardie is a bit weird. Oise is now definitely Parisian, I'd say. Aisne might be joined with Champagne-Ardennes and Somme with Nord-Pas de Calais. PS: and honestly, I think we should unite the Chouans and the Vendéens; they deserve each other.
I would love to give most of Oise&Aisne back to Ile-de-France, where it had belonged to before 1789:  But i strongly doubt, that Your politicians would have been prepared to break up regions or even - as in this case - departments. And all of these 2-3 dep. would have been too much for the IdF, which is already populous enough. And does Britanny (incl. Nantes) not have - like Cornwall - quite a strong regional identity, which would be watered down by adding to them "my" beloved Vendée? |
|
|
|
Post by relique on Dec 21, 2020 8:22:05 GMT
Bretagne's strong identity starts after a few drings of mead, and stops when they meet another breton from another part of the region. I don't think anyone from Finistère will feel at ease with someone from Rennes, and even, Finistère Nord and Finistère Sud would probably start fighting like two characters of Astérix & Obélix. (and I say that as a half-breton myself)
Yes, they couldn't cut the départements, et that is probably a good thing. Regions, they hesitated. But Ayrault said no to cutting apart Pays-de-la-Loire, and that was indeed the strongest incentive, to unite Nantes to Bretagne.
|
|
Picardie-Nord would suggest there is a Picardie-Sud. 
