Macron a failure as president in eyes of most French voters
Respondents of a new survey delivered a crushing assessment of the French president's two-term performance, with 82 per cent of voters saying Mr Macron's centrist Renaissance movement has been a 'failure'.
The sentiment is shared among 63 per cent of people who also voted for Mr Macron in the 2017 or 2022 elections.
More than eight out of 10 people also said they believe that Mr Macron's centrist political ideology, referred to as 'Macronism', will die out with his final term, which wraps up in 2027. The ideology borrows policies from both the Left and Right sides of the political spectrum.
The feeling is similarly strong among the president's Renaissance supporters, 59 per cent of whom agreed that the president's centrist movement could disappear by 2027.
In France, presidents can serve a maximum of two terms.
'Conclusion is clear'
'In light of these results, the conclusion is clear,' said Céline Bracq, CEO of polling firm Odoxa. 'For the French, Macronism has not established itself as a lasting project, nor as a structuring political movement.'
The findings of the Odaxa poll, commissioned by Le Figaro, were released after Sophie Primas, the government spokesman, caused a political firestorm this month when she declared: 'Macronism will probably come to an end in the coming months, with the end of president Macron's second five-year term.'
Ms Primas, a member of the Republican party, made the statement in response to a question about Bruno Retailleau, who is currently carrying out a juggling act as both the recently named president of the Republican party and minister of the interior in the president's government.
'The question is how we rebuild what comes next,' Ms Primas said in an interview with Europe1/CNews on May 20, pointing out the lack of an absolute majority in the National Assembly and a government formed by coalitions.
Her statements drew fire from Mr Macron's Renaissance party and calls for her resignation.
According to the poll results, the president's harshest critics include women, low-income households, and voters aged 50 to 64.
The online survey of 1,005 people aged 18 and over was conducted between May 28 and 29.
In her analysis, Ms Bracq described the Macronism movement as a 'transitional phase' that was centred on a 'personality and style' rather than a shared ideological base. The poll shows that only one in four voters believe it to be a genuine school of political thought.
Collapse of Macron's electoral base
Over the years, the president's electoral base has also collapsed: 58 per cent of those who voted for him at least once said they would not vote for him again if given the chance.
Instead of building cohesion as Mr Macron intended with the founding of his centrist party, which was touted as an alternative to the legacy parties of the Republicans and Socialists, Macronism has created a bigger divide between Left and Right – and given the Right a leading edge.
According to the poll, support for the Right has increased 6 points to 32 per cent, while those who position themselves on the Left has dropped down 9 points to 30 per cent.
'The trend of recent years illustrates the failure of a promise of lasting reorganisation and confirms the growing isolation of a centre that no longer mobilises,' the report reads. 'The French seem to be returning to a more traditional reading of the political landscape.'
Gabriel Attal, secretary general of the Renaissance party, is seen as the best successor to Mr Macron, but failed to generate consensus, with just 45 per cent of poll support.
Former prime ministers Élisabeth Borne (at 35 per cent) and Édouard Philippe (at 31 per cent) round out the ranking of personalities who best embody Macronism.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economist
11 minutes ago
- Economist
Europe's Hogwarts has a new Dumbledore
There can be few better places to contemplate Europe's destiny than the hills that look south across Florence, the city that nurtured the continent's intellectual rebirth during the Renaissance. Such is the mission of the European University Institute (EUI), set up in 1976 and housed there in some of the glorious villas that Italy keeps lying around for such purposes. The institute's founding document speaks of fostering 'the advancement of learning in fields which are of particular interest for the development of Europe'. Though relatively little-known, the EUI is among the world's foremost graduate schools, with departments of economics, history, law, and political and social sciences.
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Government cannot take credit for cuts in interest rates
The Bank of England's decision to trim its key interest rate by another quarter point this week was widely expected, but there is still plenty to write about. Unfortunately, little of this is good news. For a start, why on earth is the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) still cutting rates when the Bank itself now expects CPI inflation to rise further, peaking at 4 per cent in September? This would be double the MPC's 2 per cent target, which is meant to be met 'at all times'. That is a reasonable question. Indeed, the MPC only voted in favour by the slimmest of margins, with four of the nine members preferring to leave interest rates on hold. Fortunately, the MPC's mandate provides some flexibility. The mandate allows the target to be overshot temporarily if there are good reasons to expect inflation to drop back to target soon, and if the costs of correcting the overshoot more quickly – in terms of lost output and jobs – would otherwise be too great. The recent pick-up in inflation partly reflects global factors which are outside the Bank's control. These include the impacts of higher prices for energy and agricultural commodities, which should drop out of the headline inflation rate next year. Nonetheless, the gap between inflation in the UK and the rest of Europe has widened noticeably since last October's Budget. Despite the same global pressures, inflation in the euro area has settled at around 2 per cent. The obvious culprit is the continued pass through of higher payroll costs following the large increases in employers' National Insurance contributions and in minimum wages. It was always likely that these policy choices would backfire on 'working people', both by raising prices and hitting jobs. But they have made the MPC's task much more difficult too. Despite this, there are certainly some good reasons to expect the jump in inflation (excluding food and energy) to be temporary. The labour market is now cooling rapidly, meaning the risk of further wage-led inflation is much lower. Moreover, unlike in the post-Covid period when inflation was much stickier than most had expected, the money supply is now under control. This is partly due to the MPC's decision to keep monetary policy tight by selling government bonds, reversing the previous policy of 'quantitative easing'. Though few will pay much notice, the Bank's preferred measure of broad money (known as M4) is growing at an annualised rate of just 3 per cent. That is unlikely to be enough to sustain inflation much above 2 per cent, unless the UK economy is heading for a prolonged slump. Alas, the risks to economic activity are skewed to the downside. The immediate threat of a devastating global trade war has faded, but US tariffs will still be substantially higher than a year ago. At home, business and consumer confidence are already stuttering again as another punitive Budget looms in the Autumn. This has two implications. First, it makes perfect sense to return interest rates towards a more neutral level, rather than keep them higher to cap a rise in inflation that is likely to be temporary. Even at the new level of 4 per cent, interest rates are (just about) restrictive enough to continue bearing down on inflation, especially with the Bank also persisting with 'quantitative tightening'. The financial markets still expect the MPC to be forced to ease further, with rates bottoming out at around 3.5 per cent next year. Second, though, the Government cannot take any credit for the Bank of England's decision. The MPC has now delivered five interest rate cuts since last July's election. But the European Central Bank (ECB) has cut its key interest rate seven times over the same period – to just 2 per cent, and eight in total since the peak. The bottom line is that UK interest rates are still higher than they would have been if UK inflation were not such an outlier. They have only been cut at all because the tiniest majority of MPC members agreed that recession fears should trump the reality of rising inflation. This is not much to cheer.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Tuition fees are rising again and nobody is happy – it's time to actually fix our broken university sector
Tuition fees in England go up this year for the first time in eight years and the response from universities has ranged from tepid to dismayed. It's not hard to see why: Russell Group analysis found that the new amount of £9,535 a year – an increase of £285 – is a real-terms decrease of 26% since 2017. The value of the fees has been steadily eroding since 2012, and the original figure of a maximum of £9,000 a year was artificially low for many courses anyway. Universities started off cross-subsidising expensive courses whose costs weren't met by nine grand a student with the cheaper, classroom-based ones, mainly humanities, which were running a surplus. Within a decade, those courses – such as history, law, English – were running at or near cost. As the value of the fees deteriorated in real terms, staff pay and conditions were sacrificed to keep things afloat; by 2021, the University and College Union (UCU) found that staff pay had decreased by one-fifth since 2009. Throughout, the sometimes astronomical fees paid by foreign students underpinned what was otherwise an unaffordable model. This introduced a lot of risk into the system – from our own governments, when they have gone to war against student visas, and from world events: student numbers were hit when the Nigerian currency started struggling, an event over which UK universities had no control. Put simply, we have a really strange system in higher education, where nobody admits how much things actually cost, nobody admits who's paying for what, research is kept alive on the toil and goodwill of underpaid academics, foreign students who represent a huge export market and an incredible success story for the sector are treated as if they are somehow on the fiddle, and that's before you even start to consider the matter we generally look at first: what this means for graduate debt. The student loan scheme is now on its eighth iteration since it was devised by the coalition government. Originally, it was designed to be generous, to mollify the Conservatives' Liberal Democrat partners. Steadily, the maximum term from graduation has gone up (it's now 40 years in England before your debt is wiped, no longer 30) and the earnings threshold at which you start paying has gone down (it's now £25,000). Even those changes don't protect the government from the students who will never earn enough to repay – two years after the loans were formalised, parliament estimated that 40% would never fully repay. By 2018, that figure had gone up to 83% (though analysts stressed that they might repay some, but not all). You could argue that all this is the inevitable result of charging tuition fees at all, given that students in the US also labour under an astronomical amount of debt, which totalled $1.7tn at the start of this year. But the conditions we have created are murkier – unwilling to accept or discuss the impact student fees would have on equality of opportunity, we chose instead to insist that all universities offered degrees of the same financial value, and all courses cost the same, and delivered the same career benefits. This has thrown up some ridiculous consequences, in which the research that gives a university its standing has become increasingly unaffordable for all but the most prestigious institutions. Unable, meanwhile, to face the political consequences of a fees hike, successive governments have clung instead to the absurd proposition that education is somehow immune to inflation. But 'student fees aren't the problem', Martin Lewis said this week on his podcast – an astonishing remark, given the problems they are mired in, yet also true, from the perspective of the household. Whichever way you slice it, paying back fees is tomorrow's problem for the student; living costs, by contrast, are today's problem for the family. There's a separate loan available, but it's means-tested based on family income and under-25s start to lose eligibility at a household income of only £25,000. To imagine such a household having the savings available to make up any gap is just fanciful; which fits the overall picture of a system running on avoidance and delusion. A graduate tax is sometimes floated as a more progressive alternative, based as it would be on what used to be understood as a foundational principle of public policy: that wealthier people can afford to contribute more. This, along with the idea of education as a public good, which we all benefit from even if we didn't personally undertake it, has vanished from debate; yet nothing systematic or in any way realistic has replaced it. The idea of abandoning the fees experiment altogether, meanwhile, is the stuff dreams are made of because it would be unthinkably expensive. Yet the status quo we have arrived at could hardly be called cheap, unless your idea of thrift is to break a system that's been centuries in the making. Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
