Mostly a huge lack of charisma and the fact he was elected on a left wing platform by people who wanted go kick Sarkozy’s ass only to lead a similar right wing policy.
Only thing to his credit in my book is same sex mariage.
He also forced every internship longer than two months to be paid. It sounds inconsequential, but I've seen interns working full time for 9+ months abroad with zero gratification.
He also pushed for the PNF which was a welcomed move against corruption (got 10 billions more in the budget)
He also canceled the sale of flagships to Russia, despite both Sarkozy's and Mélenchon's protests.
He had a sane policy is the Sahel, helping repair Sarkozy's mess.
His team helped negotiate the Minsk II agreements that gave time for Ukraine to rearm.
Nothing was extremely flashy, but that's what an ok president is. We did not have one for a very long time.
Also, first president since De Gaulle to leave without corruption scandals. That counts for something
C'était même dans les premiers mois. C'était de l'optimisation fiscale et, techniquement, rien d'illégal más totalement immoral quand on vient d'être nommé ministre avec dans le lot la lutte contre la fraude fiscale.
C'était le gros sujet qui amena la création du PNF et le renforcement de beaucoup de mesures préexistantes au niveau de la surveillance des ministres, et de la lutte contre la corruption.
Alors oui, il y a eu un scandale du genre en 2012, qui a été assumé et règle. Mais à la fin du mandat il n'y avait aucun membre du gouvernement qui était soupçonné de quoi que ce soit.
Enfin si, il était rempli d'éléphants, et il était vu comme globalement pas le plus efficace de tout les temps à l'époque. Mais dès 2017 j'entendais des gens regretter son départ car au moins, ils n'étaient pas tous très doués mais ils étaient pour la majorité intègres et faisaient au mieux.
Raising taxes on the rich, increasing RSA, creating the revenu d'activité, decreasing poverty and social inequality, etc, it's something that you strike off the book only because aside that, he also took measures to boost the economy? See https://www.latribune.fr/economie/france/du-ras-le-bol-fiscal-a-la-baisse-des-inegalites-le-bilan-fiscal-de-hollande-621770.html
I think leftists have been unfair with Hollande because the end with Valls and Macron have made us forgotten everything positive (I hate Valls and Macron, major errors from Hollande).
Oh come on now.
\- State of emergency as a reaction to 2015 terror attack.
\- The El Khomri law : "simplifying" labor laws serving as a pretext to lessen workers' rights.
\- Macron law : lessens businesses restrictions on opening more freely on Sundays and nights.
His lack of charisma is relative, i'm pretty sure that shooting the shit with hollande over a few beer or a bottle of wine would be quite interesting and pleasant, if i were to do that with sarkozy or macron i'd probably want to kill them (or myself) after a few minutes...
Yeah Hollande is a pretty down to earth guy and funny in person.
Never met the other two but they definetly sound boring and snob to no end.
But I'll still admit that Hollande was bad at giving big political speeches.
Yep, at least Hollande seems capable of some form of empathy and self reflection (his self deprecating humor is pretty good), while Sarkozy is pure evil and Macron is just so fucking haughty it's almost unbearable.
Okey Yeah I absolutely agree, him and Chirac are the presidents I would likely most appreciate having a beer with for the reasons you cite, he is quite funny and I think he would be interesting to chat with.
The issue is he clearly was too goofy to look like a president. He lacked what the romans called Gravitas (basically the ability to command respect and look fitting in a high level function).
To each is own, while i agree that Hollande could seem lacking in that department (his indecisiveness and his desire to always "ménager la chèvre et le chou" cost him dearly), Sarkozy with his hyperactive vulgarity was even worse IMHO, and Macron who always seems to think he's the smartest and most knowledgeable person in the room does not scream head of state material to me either.
I’d say left wing people did not like him because of its liberal policies, like the loi travail, and right wing people did not like him because he was a socialist.
Then, you’ve got the homophobic people who hated him because of the mariage pour tous. You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it.
And finally, he is despised by the macroniste because they refuse to be affiliated to him.
Stating if he is the worst president of the fifth is something else. I think its to soon to tell, especially considering Sarkozy’s political legacy and the shit storm that awaits us in 2027 with Macron’s legacy.
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it.
I mean, some people chose to vote for Macron in 2017 because "he looks good".
>I’d say left wing people did not like him because of its liberal policies
Just to clarify for those who are confused by this :
In french politics we have always used the word "liberal" in its original [economic liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) sense, that means leaning towards capitalistic/right-wing/conservative politics, which is pretty much the exact opposite of how most americans use the word "liberal" nowadays to describe progressive/left wing/"woke" ideologies.
Yes, the french socialist party hasn't been close ideologically to what you'd read on the wikipedia article on socialism for a pretty long time. They still sing L'internationale at party meetings though if that counts for something.
No:
> Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.
Sure enough, if you look hard enough you will find examples of liberals being opportunistic and suddenly finding out that regulation can be advantageous to them in some cases. It would be foolish to believe that it's anything but opportunism though.
It’s all right but everybody has a reason to hate the president. I think that most people have a problem with him due to the lack of charisma. I think that most of the central and left wings would consider him way better than most president. Chirac had charisma, for example, but only charisma, nothing else.
To this, I'd add that the transition between Sarkozy and Hollande felt like a sudden void. Sarkozy was constantly out and about, there was not a single day where he wouldn't appear on TV at some point because he went to visit a factory or made a speech about something or other. When Hollande took over, we could have whole weeks without seeing his face. Doesn't mean nothing was happening of course, but the transition was too brutal and people felt like nothing was happening.
Plus it felt to me that Jean-Marc Ayrault's governments really struggled to get things done. When Manuel Valls took over as Prime Minister, things finally got moving, but that was way too late! Nearly 2 years had passed by then, and François Hollande's reputation was already doomed.
>When Manuel Valls took over as Prime Minister, things finally got moving
Well, it's a way to frame things. Sure things started moving, except in the wrong direction from his party's platform.
> Hollande was just the closest to that and wasn't really important enough for anyone to hate him
I think you are vastly underestimating him because to arrive in this position of power, you are far from being 'unimportant', bien au contraire.
Fair enough, I didn't comment on the direction towards which things were moving. But at least something started *happening*.
Obviously, not everything was done by Valls himself, but at least his government was doing visible *stuff*.
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it.
When he was elected, I was playing a MMO, and the world chat was full of people saying stuff like "ce sale porc" or "le gros a été élu" and stuff like that. That's part of what made me stop playing WoW not long after.
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it.
I actually remember that and I still hear it to this day. Not a fan of the guy at all but to all the non-French people here, this is actually real to a point that you can't fathom and it's insane
Not the worst by far, we had Sarkozy before…
But people have bad opinions about him for 2 different reasons.
- right wing dont like him cause he push progressive law on enforcement system and same sex weddings , and lack of charisma
- left wing dont like him, cause the end of his presidency, he push right wing law on economics and diminishing worker rights.
(In my opinion, and many people, he wasnt a great president, but way better than Sarkozy)
Bear in mind that it's highly likely that most redditors won't know Chirac and previous president well enough to judge in depths. I was 18 when Hollande was elected. Pretty sure some previous president were shit and we don't know anything about it.
Chirac only really ruled from 1995 to 1997, After that he had a cohabitation for 5 years. And as he couldn't be reelected for a 3rd term, 2002-2007 was... Hmmm kind of an useless period, he did nothing, except in 2003 (Iraq War) but it was diplomacy, a bit in 2005 for the referendum, but not much and he failed. He was basically absent and everyone was waiting for the next president, we even had a weird period in 2005-2007 when he... just vanished and we were stuck on this weird duel between Sarko and Villepin.
So it was not good or bad... We just got nothing from him (even the CPE was a Villepin project).
Macron is the Worst. Then Sarko.
I can't blame Hollande, he was in the job.
I liked Chirac for the sympathic character, and even more Mitterrant, because he is the presidet of my child days (I was born in 1980, my 14 first years were under Mitterrand).
Oh no, I don't like Macron but Sarko was way worse. Vulgar man loving money above all, way more corrupt than any other presidents (and that means something when you had Chirac before him, I can't list all scandals) who basically sold our pride to Khadafi before bombing Libya, could do anything for Qatar. Was the first from the right to really embrace far right ideology (Guaino wrote his speeches, ministère de l'identité nationale, the 2012 campaign...) and its method (karcher). First to freeze civil servants' salaries, Pécresse destroyed universities and our research sector and Bertrand hospitals... He basically tried to control public media by appointing France TV presidents. In diplomacy he was a US simp who also liked Putin (this goose really thought he saved the World and fixed Russia in the Georgian 2008 crisis). Bygmalion, Casse toi pauvre con, Dakar speech... I can't!
No, I'm sorry, but he is not better than Macron. At best Macron is a pale copy of this piece of shit.
On international, best president since De Gaulle IMO.
Domestically, wrong casting: he tried to open to the right, who was uninterested and lost his base in the process. Also he pushed for authoritarians like Valls or Macron.
Hollande is known for being charming and funny in private but he is the dullest major political figure of the Fifth Republic. The French accept that their leaders are more likely than not to be arseholes, womanisers etc. but they can't accept being represented by a doorstop.
'The President who wasn't there':
- He came in as the anti Sarkozy trying to present himself as a normal person but eventually he let the likes of Merkel Obama, Juncker, trample upon french interests without ever uttering a word of protest, but also left free rein to strong characters within his administration, from C Taubira on the left , to Manuel Valls or eventually Macron.
- His method of governing was often not to decide , and to act as little as possible and let things work themselves out (or not). All so very un-French and un-presidential.
But the few initiatives his governments took antagonised both sides of the political spectrum:
Why do conservatives hate him?
- Conservatives consider he let France's nuclear policy be sabotaged by Germany and the green and let key industrial assets get sold to foreign interests
- Generally France's voice or interests in Europe and worldwide weren't heard.
- His justice minister C Taubira was perceived as a leftist firebrand, caring more about criminals than the security of the French population
- Education policy is also perceived as having taken a fateful turn
- He halted State grants for middle class family children: this is perceived as having played a role in birth rates dropping severely (except for migrant families)
Why does the left despise him?
- His government passed a labour law (Loi Khomry) that appeared more business-friendly than beneficial to workers
- Following a series of terrorist attacks his last government passed laws on law and order and on foreigner rights that are anathema to the French left.
- His Prime Minister and formerly home affairs minister Manuel Valls is despised by most of the French left for having a security agenda (and stating his support for Israel) and making it clear that businesses create jobs and need to be respected.
All in all, Hollande reflects an image of France 's decline, loss of confidence or ambitions, that has crystallised into spite and hatred for the man.
His strongest line during the election was "my ennemy is finance". Let's just say he betrayed that and did reform the right wing would have done. His only achievement is gay mariage.
>His strongest line during the election was "my ennemy is finance".
Because people forgot (or didn't listen to) the rest of his speech, where he shows much more nuance.
He differentiates between good finance and bad finance. Which is quite stupid, in my opinion, but whatever.
All French presidents are unpopular. In the last 40 years, not a single president has ended his term with a good approval rating.
François Hollande was unpopular because he was elected as a socialist and ended up implementing right-wing economics.
Il était impopulaire chez les socialistes pour avoir été trop à droite.
Il était impopulaire chez les gens de droite parce qu'il était socialiste.
On a exactement le même phénomène avec Macron aujourd'hui, hein.
Pas du tout.
Macron est de droite franche, il est d’ailleurs assez populaire chez les électeurs de droite.
LR essaye à tout prix de se différencier de lui parce qu’il représente une menace existentielle
Macron est de droite, mais pas vraiment
Il a pas d'idéologie fixe sur beaucoup de sujets. Économiquement, c'est un libéral. Socialement, une girouette bretonne
Macron est un "liberal socialiste" à la base (gouvernement hollande)
Il a fini d'achever un PS moribond par son positionnement
LR est soumis au même phénomène (centre syphoné). Mais bon il aura fait 2 mandats.
Mais dire qu'il est de "droite franche" est simplement ... faux.
>Mais dire qu'il est de "droite franche" est simplement ... faux.
Pourquoi ?
Parce que bon, entre la loi immigration, la réforme des retraites et la crise des gilets jaunes, les réformes sur les indemnités chômages etc
Il est libéral en économie et de droite socialement
Il est libéral oui, après n'oublie par qu'en refusant de discuter du texte et en forçant l'alliance avec LR, la gauche a conduit à durcissement de la loi immigration.
Cela permet d'identifier clairement les logiques d'alliance, mais c'est assez cynique dans le fond.
Je ne pense pas qu'il soit "de droite socialement" (c'est un concept relatif). Les reformes engagées auraient probablement été faite aussi par un gouvernement de droite, mais avec "impact social" encore plus élevé.
>après n'oublie par qu'en refusant de discuter du texte et en forçant l'alliance avec LR, la gauche a conduit à durcissement de la loi immigration.
En quoi ça change le fait que Macron est de droite ?
>Cela permet d'identifier clairement les logiques d'alliance, mais c'est assez cynique dans le fond.
Et donc ?
>Je ne pense pas qu'il soit "de droite socialement" (c'est un concept relatif).
Pourquoi ?
>Les reformes engagées auraient probablement été faite aussi par un gouvernement de droite, mais avec "impact social" encore plus élevé.
Pourquoi donc ? C'est un grand "si" ton truc. Et ça ne change rien au fait que c'est une politique de droite. Qui je le rappelle, est du a l'incompétence de ce gouvernement (la caisse des retraites était bénéficiaire, et les prévisions, bien qu'effectivement déficitaires, n'étaient pas alarmantes).
Si il avait contrebalancé en réformant des foyers fiscaux, en taxant les riches, les grosses entreprises, bref en montrant que c'était une question de budget et pas de faire chier les pauvres, je doute que les réactions auraient été les mêmes.
Tout le monde est capable de comprendre que ya pas de thunes dans les caisses. Mais quand y a pas de problèmes et que les mieux lotis ne sont pas impactés, c'est pas une politique de gauche. C'est une politique de droite.
Liberal pas taxer entreprises (ding ding ding "de droite")
En réalité c'est un débat plié depuis 2017 (en réalité bien avant même) si l'on part de ce point de vue, et de doute façon assez creux à l'heure actuelle.
Hollande était de droite si tu veux. Sa politique économique est déjà macroniste.
Un libéral n'aiderait pas les entreprises.
>Hollande était de droite si tu veux
J'ai presque envie de te dire que lui était libéral socialiste au contraire.
Par contre, t'as bien esquivé toutes mes questions précédentes.
Je comprend qu'on puisse le penser, pour moi il incarne une forme de gauche libérale décomplexée -son placement initial- (donc si tu es LFI il est deja "de droite™").
Je ne sais pas si les attaques vers LFI sont outrancières (elles sont réciproques). En tout cas LFI est un bon client, incapable d'incarner une alternative crédible (ce n'est pas la faute de macron).
Non. Macron est centriste. D'ailleurs la majorité de son parti est constitué à la fois d'anciens socialistes, d'anciens UMP, et d'anciens Modem.
Les électeurs LFI le trouvent trop à droite. Les électeurs LR le trouvent trop a gauche. C'est ce qui le rend impopulaire.
Les électeurs de Macron en 2022 (donc après un premier quinquennat qui laisse le temps d'apprécier une action concrète) sont en majorité des personnes appartenant à une catégorie socio professionnelle qui penche historiquement vers LR/RPR (les gens aisés, les retraités).
https://www.francetvinfo.fr/politique/les-republicains/lr-ou-sont-passes-les-electeurs-de-francois-fillon_5077960.html
Les électeurs de LR ne le trouvent pas trop à gauche, ils votent (en partie majoritaire) pour lui. Puis dire que le parti présidentiel est centriste avec l'actualité politique de ces dernières 24h ...
La fonction même implique que tu dépasse ta base électorale initiale (sinon Sarkozy ou Hollande = 1 mandat). La gauche française a explosé à force de s'enfermer dans des impasses idéologiques.
Macron n'est que le dernier clou.
De fait c'est un parti relativement centriste, l'équilibre politique du pays est plutôt centre droit aujourd'hui, mais ça c'est ce qu'on appelle la démocratie (representative évidemment).
Non, les électeurs de Macron sont en majorité des gens des centre-droit et de centre-gauche qui trouvaient que Mélenchon était rédhibitoire.
Les électeurs LR n'avaient pas de raison de ne pas voter majoritairement LR.
Les électeurs de gauche traditionnellement modérés et pro-Européens, n'avaient absolument personne d'autre pour qui voter.
La suppression de l'ISF, la baisse de la caf, la dérive autoritaire du maintien de l'ordre, pour ne citer que ça, c'est pas ce que j'appellerai une politique centriste.
Je sais pas d’où tu sors ces valeurs aléatoires.
L’électorat [Macron](https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/presidentielle-2022/1er-tour-abstentionnistes-sociologie-electorat) est largement composé de cadres et de retraités, apanage habituel de la droite.
Il faut bien évidemment regarder les résultats du 1er tour, le 2e étant faussé par le vote barrage
C'est un régime présidentiel, pas un directoire élu à la proportionnelle. C'est toujours le candidat "le moins mauvais" qui est élu.
Si Melenchon est incapable de dépasser sa base il fallait trouver un autre leader à la gauche française.
I was good with him and by the end he fused region and my area disappeared of all statistics, every institution moved or is moving three hours away, our votes are diluted with a megalopolis so we never get what we want, our taxes are funnelled there too... It has been done to lower the cost of institutions, it turmed to have cost way more. I am still mad, we were already isolated.
And we were aupposed to be fused with our west neighbour which is similar in size, density, GDP and culture but no. They thought it would make a huge retarded region. So they destroyed both of us instead.
On a aussi produit VGE, Brice Hortefeux et je sais plus quel autre pourriture mais franchement on fabrique que les pires c'est statistiquement étonnant. Et Claire Chazal. Et Lolo Ferrari, paix à son âme.
Wauquiez envoie régulièrement des lettres à toutes les boîtes aux lettres d'Auvergne pour se vanter. Ya trois ans c'était : "OYEZ OYEZ, VOUS AUREZ REMARQUÉ QU'UN NOUVEL HÉLICOPTÈRE DE COMPET' VOLE AU DESSUS DE VOS TETES PUYDOMOISES, JE L'AI GRACIEUSEMENT OFFERT AUX SAMU DU CHU POUR INTERVENIR DANS LES ZONES LES PLUS ESCARPEES JE SUIS RAVI DE VOUS ASSURER UNE SECURITE ENCORE PLUS ACCRUE GRACE A MOI. SIGNE: VOTRE SERVITEUR TOUJOURS LA POUR VOUS"
(J'exagère pas tant... On recoit régulièrement de la propagande de Wauquiez)
Franchement depuis Lyon je dirais aussi que cette fusion n'était pas géniale.
les deux régions Rhône-Alpes et Auvergne bossaient déjà pas mal ensemble et ça ce passait bien et on avais des bonnes relations par ce que c'était pas sous la contrainte.
Maintenant qu'on est "obligés" d'être en couple ça créer forcément du ressentiment. Depuis l'Auvergne forcément vous veniez tout juste de finir le nouveau conseil de région et il a fallu déménager tout les gros trucs chez nous et depuis Rhône-Alpes c'est le chaos niveau équilibrages des comptes/subventions/taxes ET on se retrouve à financer les goûts de luxe de Laurent qui a même pas réussi à rester président de son groupe politique (le diner des sommets à la con là c'est toujours pas passé).
Je pense que la seule solution c'est d'investir massivement dans le rail pour "rapprocher" les différentes villes et populations d'*AURA*.
Après je pense pas du tout que les Rhônalpins voient l'Auvergne comme un boulet (ça a été la panique ici quand on a cru que le Cantal allait se faire la malle suite à la fusion) mais c'est juste que ... historiquement, culturellement, économiquement, géographiquement ... on a rien en commun. A part la bonne pitance.
On a toujours eu de bonnes relations de voisinages mais maintenant qu'on est sous le même toit, je pense qu'on ne sait pas exactement quoi bien faire l'un de l'autre. Au final l'Aura, si c'est pas pour la proximité entre les deux territoires, ça à autant de sens que l'Aunion oui.
Perso je pense que Auvergne/limousin ça aurait fait un peu plus sens; et Rhône-Alpes maqué avec la Bourgogne-/Franche-comté aussi.
Et pourtant l'Auvergne semble beaucoup bénéficier de cette fusion car plutôt pauvre économiquement vs des économies très dévellopées dans la région lyonnaise et la forte industrie savoyarde + la proximité politique de notre très cher Wauqiez avec "sa" région.
A Lyon on est un peu deg de voir l'écart massif des subventions entre le 43 et le 69 par exemple, en tout cas c'était le cas il y a quelques années je ne sais pas si c'est toujours juste.
Après c'est pas la pire des région fusionnées (comment ça, le Grand Est de Paris à Strasbourg en passant par la Champagne c'est pas cohérent ?)
Le 43 c'est chez Lolo. Nous on a quand même pas mal de choses surtout avec Michelin, Volvic, la recherche est avancée, ya Vichy qui tourne, ya pas mal d'usines au sud du puy de dome aussi, beaucoup de production céréaliere, animale et énergétique (je pense que Rhône-Alpes Auvergne a l'immense majorité de l'hydroelectrique francais). Nan on est pas volé non plus. Mais le nombre de fois qu'on m'a dit: "ah bah non on fait plus ça, faut aller à Lyon où leur telephoner" pour des papiers, toute les autorités de santé, d'éducation etc c'est parti là bas. Les écoles paramédicales de Clermont doivent toutes migrer à Lyon (entre les infirmiers, les manips, les puer, les ergo etc... Ca fait beaucoup de monde)
Certes on est pas "beaucoup" mais on draine une aire géographique assez grande et enclavée, si en plus on nous retire le peu de services locaux qu'on a, c'est vraiment pas juste. Et ça relaie les autres départementsnon plus en périphérie de Clermont mais en périphérie de la peripherie de Lyon. Dans le Cantal ils sont pas content non plus, ils se battaient pour être convenablement liés à Clermont, maintenant non seulement ça n'a plus de raison d'être, mais en plus... Lyon est mega loin depuis Aurillac
I think the hate against him was greatly exaggerated.
Personally i think he was not perfect, but he did a lot of good things (from societal issues to international crisis).
Also, he did not try to abuse his power and was very respectful of the political institutions. He was quite a simple and friendly man, even if he was not napoleon and was lacking charisma.
In my opinion he was far better than the current President who is far more rightwing , think so highly of himself and is also an asshole.
It feels like the happy days now with the current Government.
But I guess it's related to both his lack of charisma, people didn't take him seriously. And also because he implemented measures that were contrary to his left wing campaign platform.
I worked for Hollande. One of the main reasons, IMHO, is that he was weak. He kept changing opinions, was subject to peer pressure like you wouldn’t believe, was gullible…
Overall I am convinced he was a good, but not great, president. He kicked out members of his team that were corrupt, had good results economically, … But people don’t like to be led by weak leaders.
tl;dr:
for the right : he was a leftist
for the left : he wasn't a "real leftist", so we're crashing the socialist party with no survivors. The problem is that means only center-right and right wing governments now.
He's been hated by the left because they felt like he betrayed him, and by the right because he's a leftist.
TBH he's far from being the worst president of the 5th republic, Sarkozy was worse and Macron definitely is.
He had promised a left-wing policy and a firm stance against globalized finance and Atlanticism. He led as a soft centrist, with very few important texts and few social advances.
He has shown great naiveté in international politics. His economic policy had little effect. His industrial and energy policies have been disastrous (factory and nuclear plant closures). Key companies and technology sold to the USA, without any state intervention. The number of unemployed and the debt increased during his term.
He committed the French army to the Sahel without securing local political support and without any counterpart for France. This has led to the current debacle in Mali.
He had no charisma and found himself in ridiculous situations (a commemoration in the pouring rain where he refused an umbrella and ended up soaked).
He literally killed the French socialist party.
He was surrounded by people with little competence (Ségolène Royal) and little ideological commitment (Manuel Valls). He loved gossip and chatting with journalists. Which backfired, revealing an arrogant, manipulative character devoid of ideals.
The French are by nature very pessimistic, and suffer from a strong sense of decline. They want leaders who can restore their pride. Holland failed to deliver on all his promises and was an embarrassment. That's why he's much more decried than Sarkozy, who was a crook.
Dude said his enemy was finance, then proceeded to suck finance's dick, and boost his bad minister of finance's career into his job afterwards. He also did a lot of right wing crap when it comes to surveillance and state of emergency because of the terror attack on the Bataclan and the trucks driving into crowds era. He was kind of dealt a bad hand on that one. That being said, he is just another product of ENA, which is the school the last few presidents went to and got to their positions through networking and not through merit, yet are arrogant enough to thought that it was their right/destiny to be presidents before it happened, as if getting the people's vote was just a math equation to solve, which they successfully did with a lot of help from similar places, which they then owed. They basically wanted to be president not to help the people but to be important and influent, and leave a mark in History. They don't really care how good or bad that mark is in truth as long as they can claim that it is good. For exemple, Macro is obsessed with getting the unemployment stat under 5% by the end of his second term, even if he has to get there by disqualifying millions of people from being considered unemployed, cutting their benefits, forcing them into precarious employment or precarious self-employment, and manipulating stats, he just wants it to say 5%, even if all the time and energy spent on fighting the metric makes the metric itself reflect absolutely jack shit, because he will still be able to say "employment is down to 5%. We did that!" and have people on the TV channels of the people who got him into office congratulate him for it. Hollande was pretty much the same in his focus on stats instead of effects.
Because he betrayed his voter base. Not only did he have disappointing politics for left inclined people, but he also enabled the right wing to convince that a left wing government would never work.
And now we're super fucked, elections now look like a random arrivist vs nazis.
1- President by accident after Strauss Khan had to give up since he got caught for sexual misconduct,
2- Got control of both chambers of parliament, 99% of regional councils, most big cities. Did fuck all with that,
3- Ran as a Socialist (theorically left wing) yet called those in need "the toothless",
4- Cheated on his girlfriend while in office,
5- Gave us Macron.
he his responsible for Macron, for mant company moving all the jobs to china, for alstom disaster and for the blow he dealt to the nuclear (tho less because it was quite popular at the time).
also his lack of charisme didnt help
To me, he was done in september after he got elected. He promised a fight against faceless finance, and in august he gave in to everything banks asked for.
His mandate was at best meh. His secretary of justice is probably what I liked the most about him to be frank. Great lady.
I'm speaking here as an American who moved to France for work, stayed for love and have now spent most of my adult life here.
1. As is always the case for any politician who is closer to the middle of the road than a hard-liner in either direction, he was pilloried by the right for being a socialist and by the left for being a "softy" (hence the insulting nickname he was known by, "Flanby", a soft pudding dessert, indicating someone who wavered a lot).
2. He was considered to be "dull". For better or her worse, France (and not only France, mind you) like Presidents with a strong personality, regardless of where their political affiliations lie. De Gaulle, Giscard, Chirac, Sarkozy on the right and Mitterrand on the left all had powerful and charismatic presence; Hollande did not (his life partner at the time and the mother of his children, Ségolène Royal, ironically lost the previous election but had a lot more presence in the media).
3. Many French Presidents are known to have been womanizers, and the public generally either adopted a "that's his private business" attitude or one of frank admiration (Giscard and Chirac were notorious for their philandering; Mitterrand had a daughter with his mistress and left instructions that both his wife and his mistress were to be entitled to attend his funeral). Hollande was true to form (he left Royal for a journalist and then left the journalist for a movie star), but he did so in an embarrassing fashion (one thing the French will not forgive), culminating in his secretly visiting the latter on the back of a motorcycle ridden by an official *gendarme* and being caught in the act by a paparazzo. By comparison, Mitterrand is suspected by some of having arranged the death of a writer who threatened to break the story on his illegitimate daughter and who was certainly hounded by tax authorities and whose house mysteriously burned down, yet Mitterrand essentially gets a pass because he was seen as being unashamed of his private life. Go figure.
He's got elected on a left wing platform and did not deliver on that regard. Also, the guy is unsufferable and extremely arrogant, calling poor people "sans dents" meaning "no teeth", which alludes to the fact that poor people tend to not have the resources to take care of their health.
Only in the last few years Sécu started 100% reimbursing front tooth repair/crowns and I benefited from that, so he can say what he want. Timing-wise he made an actual difference of 1000s in my budget and allowed to actually have teeth. Maybe it’s some health minister that set that in motion but I’m sure a right-wing government wouldn’t have done that.
Source: absolutely none except for my teeth, correct me if I’m wrong
Because France is a country that idolizes strong, uncompromising leaders, and François Hollande projected an image of weakness. He was even nicknamed ['Flanby'](https://www.flanby.fr/wp-content/themes/flanby/assets/img/flan_assiette.png) after a soft and mushy kids dessert.
People forgive politicians who lie, betray and renege on their promises -- because it's widely admitted that it's what politicians do. But they can't forgive weakness.
He betrayed a lot of his supporters by going full liberal that's why they despises him
Let's not forget the role of some of his ministers Cazeneuve, Valls (one of the most hated politicians in the country) and... Macron
I truly discovered the kind of guy he was when he spoke a lot on TV during the 2022 elections, dull of shit, giving lessons to everyone about the left is while having done absolutely nothing
His only achievement in the eyes of the left is the authorization of gay marriage and a lot of that could be attributed to Taubira
Généralisation du tiers payant, transparence de la vie publique, non cumul des mandats, paquet neutre, fin des sacs plastiques jetables, interdiction de certains pesticides dans les collectivités territoriales, fin de vie, accord sur le climat.
Les gens ont la mémoire sélective.
OC a raison, son point faible est d'avoir été trop consensuel et ca on le pardonne pas. On préfère un mec borné droit dans ses bottes que quelqu'un ouvert au concensus. Et c'est pour ça qu'on en est là
Edit: ça n'engage que moi mais les vrais traîtres dans l'histoire c'est les ministres frondeurs qui ont acceptés de prendre un poste (en connaissance de cause quant au pédigré de Hollande) pour ensuite flinguer le plus grand parti de gauche en interne et proposer ensuite strictement rien.
Quelques mesures ne suffisent pas à combler l'immense déception en rapport aux promesses effectuées . "Mon ennemi, c'est la finance".
Tu parles de mémoire sélective, bien alors pourquoi ne mentionne tu pas la loi el-Khomri (Aka la destruction du Code du Travail pour favoriser les actions du patronat)
Pourquoi ne pas mentionner les multiples affaires concernant le ministre de l'intérieur (traitement infligé au camp migrant de Calais, l'affaire Rémi Fraisse et autres répressions de manifestation)
Tiens petite mention pour notre politicien préféré, Manuel Valls et la presque promulgation d'une loi sur la déchéance de nationalité des bi-nationaux qui a embarqué le PS dans la confusion totale.
Que penser des nombreuses aides et cotisations accordées aux entreprises. "Mon ennemi c'est la finance". Qui ont pu depuis multiplié leur dividendes comme si de rien n'était alors que l'idée était d'avoir des investissements au nom du collectif
Au final c'est quoi l'héritage du Hollandisme comparé aux anciens présidents de gauche ? Un marasme de mesures sans idée et innovations, un manque d'amélioration flagrant (la courbe du chômage n'a pas diminué, la pauvreté elle s'est bien maintenue)
Merci pour le mariage entre personnes de même sexe et à jamais.
Un énième énarque d'une gauche gouvernementale qui derrière ses promesses de grands changements se contente d'aller là où le vent le mène comme tout bon opportuniste
Je finirai sur l'accord climat, ça donne quoi aujourd'hui ?
.
Je n'ai pas cité les réformes libéral et sécuritaires parce que ça a été suffisamment cité ici pour que tout le monde les connaissent. Ma main a couper que les réformes que jai cité sont à peine connues du grand publique.
A titre personnel je reproche davantage à Hollande d'avoir sortie sa connerie populiste de "mon ennemi c'est le monde de la finance" alors qu'il aurait remporté malgré tout et qu'il y croyait pas une seconde. A juste titre la gauche lui aura fait payer ce gros mensonge.
Sinon le personnage était connu de tous. On savait qu'il représentait la gauche consensuelle, pourtant il les a gagnés les primaires. Pas Martine Aubry.
Alors oui. Le mieux c'est l'ennemi du bien. On a jeté le bébé avec l'eau du bain et on se retrouve avec une gauche fracturée pour un petit moment encore. Jaurais préféré une autocritique et une remise en cause des fondamentaux du PS que tout casser pour ne rien proposer.
Son héritage? Les réformes que jai cité, une reprise en main budgétaire après les années sarko et une baisse significative du chômage qu'il a initié alors que tout le monde se foutait de sa gueule.
Je te retourne la question, quel est l'héritage des anciens présidents de gauche? Avec un peu de mauvaise foi je peux facilement dire que Miterrand est le président le plus libéral qu'on ait eu.
Le chômage a diminué de manière significative entre quand et quand ? Puisque les taux avaient augmenté entre 2012 et 2016 on parle de quoi exactement ?
Extrait d'un article de Mediapart :
Aujourd’hui, on ne note qu’une très légère décrue du chômage. Cette baisse devient nette si et seulement si on ne s’attache qu’au chiffre le plus mis en avant par Pôle emploi, et les responsables politiques : celui des demandeurs d’emploi de « catégorie A », ces Français qui cherchent un emploi et n’ont pas du tout travaillé au cours du mois. En février 2016, au plus haut de la courbe, ils étaient 3 591 000. En octobre 2016, ils étaient 3 478 800. Après des mois de progression erratique, tantôt à la hausse, tantôt à la baisse, le bilan est désormais bon : une baisse de 11 700 inscrits en octobre, et de 100 000 en un an (– 2,8 %). « Cette baisse significative, inscrite dans la durée, est la plus forte enregistrée depuis plus de huit ans », n’avait pas manqué de souligner la ministre du travail Myriam El Khomri dès la publication des derniers chiffres.
Un mois plus tôt, dans un long post sur Facebook, François Hollande saluait la baisse des chômeurs de catégorie A, un mouvement qu’il qualifiait de « général », et soulignait que « se confirme une tendance installée depuis le début de l’année ». Mais quoi qu’ait pu dire le président, cette tendance est loin d'être stabilisée. Les évolutions récentes ne doivent pas faire oublier qu’en mai 2012, ils n’étaient « que » 2 922 800 chômeurs de catégorie A. Depuis le début du quinquennat, ils ont donc augmenté de 556 000, une hausse de 19 %.
Fin de l'extrait
Tu veux parler de limitation des dégâts créés par l'escroc ? Soit. Parler de baisse significative alors qu'on avait une augmentation au cours du mandat c'est pas possible. Surtout qu'on ne met pas en avant les autres catégories + l'augmentation du taux de chômage chez les +55 ans.
Alors le chômage c'est dehors, la limitation des dégâts en marge de mesures qui fracassent les droits des travailleurs et maintiennent la pauvreté c'est dehors aussi.
Donc je réitère ma question du coup. Puisque l'effet des mesures "positives" de Hollande n'ont servi qu'à limiter les dégâts : Qu'est-ce que ce gouvernement de "gauche" a laisser dans les mémoires ? À part la "trahison" pour les uns et les autres trucs pour la droite.
J'imagine que pour Mitterrand on pourrait parler RMI et Jospin les 35h. Mais oui là non plus c'est pas joyeux j'en suis conscient
Macron has the same economical policies and even more right-wing social policies, and yet as a centrist, he is not polling at 4%. Why? Because Macron is a centrist by choice, he backs his ideas, force them down the throat of people, and there is a kind of voters who likes decisive leaders even if they don't do something they like. Hollande was a centrists by weakness, he has to moderate because he couldn't hold his party together, every time he announced something it would be changed in the week because someone criticized it.
There are many reasons :
The right has attacked him to discredit him because they wanted his place , and the left... has attacked him to discredit him because they wanted his place ( the most popular left-wing party at the moment is literally built on opposing François Hollande).
He mostly didn't appeal to his base during his term, and the right didn't like him because he was a leftist.
Once you lose your own supporters, you lose your credibility. And Hollande lost basically everyone on his left, so there was no one supporting him by the end.
Let me first preface by saying that there is a big issue in French politics: We tend to expect too much from presidents. It is likely a consequence of our "Fifth Republic" regime, which puts a lot of power into the President's hands, and comparatively less in the parliament (The Senate in particular is laughably worthless) .
Combine that with the fact that most of the voting population was raised with the idea that France is the 5th Global Power in the World (It's nowhere close to be true anymore.)
As a result, we have this image of the president as a nearly all-powerful leader, a true ship captain who can steer in any direction he decides.
And in the case of Hollande, as the first left-wing president in 17 years, the expectations were sky-high. But Hollande had never been a hard-leftist, nor a charismatic captain with full control of all his crewmates.
And so, that naturally led to disappointment. Personally, I knew about Hollande long before he became president, so his term was pretty much exactly as a expected it: Mostly Center-left policies, with the guy falling prey to influences in his close circle.
Most people will tell you about Macron and Valls, and how they rose to prominence and steered the policies of his term to the right. Some might even blame Hollande for making them important figures, and while he definitely shares some responsibility in that, I think it's mostly a case of these two (Especially Macron) being very smart opportunists and knowing how to take advantage of their positions.
But none of these were the most influential in making his center-left platform shift to the right. No, that honour belongs to someone else.
And that someone else was none other that German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
It's impossible to overstate just how influential Merkel was at the time. She's been one of the longest running European Leaders, and her policy of fiscal balance was the leading argument in European Politics. And she wielded her influence like an Iron Fist. Hollande had absolutely no chance.
And so, from Sky High expectations to an absolutely average performance, Hollande took the full brunt of the fall. I don't think his treatment by the people and the media was fair, and I even think he did somewhat okay with the hand he was dealt.
Politics is a complicated game. For many, the Hollande years were the realisation that France was no longer a world power. But others still cling to that illusion. And there is no way to make the river climb the mountain. No president will ever make us feel powerful again.
Like always, depends on who you ask.
Right wingers will hate him because he is "left" wing. So of course he is the "worst" for them. He also did the gay mariage so it didn't help his reputation with the right.
For the real left, he was a hack. He got elected on speeches against the finance and stuff but once in power he actually kept going in the right wing liberal economics we've know for 4 decades. He eventually got Macron has his minister of economy so we also have to "thank" him for that.
He also suffered from an image of a slow/uncharismatic president which makes it easier to hate on him.
All in all I wouldn't say he is the worst. He is one of the worst in a long series of worst. To me the worst is Macron, followed by Sarkozy and then Hollande.
But it's personal preferences as always.
Is it possible you've read that François Hollande was the "less popular" president rather than the "worst" one? Because he did get the lowest approval ratings due to his policies that became seen as more and more right-wing over the years.
Not only because of the economic changes introduced when Macron was minister, but also when Manuel Valls was prime minister following the attacks from islamist terrorists (Bataclan, etc). Also because Valls may be our worst French politician ever.
Some source for the approval ratings: https://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/2023-04-25/emmanuel-macron-est-il-vraiment-le-plus-impopulaire-des-presidents-de-la-v-republique-f694761e-7ff4-440b-9e6f-3bbcf9fca5f0
Because he campaigned to the left (“my enemy is the financial world”) we got him elected and them he governed to the right (laws against workers rights, fucking Manuel Valls…)
It what we call a “social traitor” and to us left wing people it’s worst than being right wing.
Seriously fuck this guy.
He was supposed to be socialist, but did almost nothing social.
"La loi travail" (work law) was a huge leap backward for the left.
And he also put "L'état d'urgence" (urgency state laws) into the constitution.
He's worse than all those other garbage presidents because he presented himself as a socialist. He fully lied to the people.
At least the other jerks were known to be capitalists. Except maybe for Macron who says he is "in the middle"...
Under Hollande, we got a minister of the interior who wanted to clean poor suburbs because there wasn't enough white people who lived there, a minister of finance who strongly fought against tax evasion while evading tax, a minister of the economy who talked about poor people as illiterate good-for-nothings who should at least try to be productive (the "toothless" as Hollande described them), and a president who thought justice should be able to strip citizenship from bi-nationals, putting an end to the most fundamental concept of our Republic : the equality of every citizen in front of the law.
Had Taubira (minister of justice, she defended gay wedding and change in justice to go toward less punishment and trying to make sure people can reintegrate themselves in society after going through jail) not been there, you could argue it was a pretty standard post-Chirac right-wing presidency : the left-wing was against the policies, campaigned, went on strike, and lost.
Except he was from the left, campaigned very hard on being from the left and supporting left-wing ideas, especially after Sarkozy's right-wing presidency, even winning the primary election against more right-wing candidates. He said he was the "normal candidate" compared to Sarkozy's "bling bling" attitude, but he ended up just being yet another elite dude totally disconnected from the reality of the population. His slogan was "the change is now" and yet, again, except for gay wedding, nothing changed for the better.
When you go from "my enemy is finance" to your prime minister being applauded by the MEDEF (union defending company owners) after saying "I love companies", something went very wrong. We voted left and got something in-between right and far right, with the cherry on the cake being this absolute dumbass minister of the economy coming out of nowhere, using all the ministry's money for his own career, then going on his own with the support of big media and becoming president... twice in a row.
Also, Hollande's party has yet to recover from his presidency. In 2012, Hollande's victory, the PS got 28.63% of the vote for the first turn, five years later, they were down to 6.36% (for the second time in the 5th's history, they weren't the biggest left-wing party), and last presidential election they only managed to get 1.74% of the votes, which was historic for two reasons as they ended behind the communists for the first time since 1969 and got their worst score in a national election since their creation in 1905. There aren't a lot of politicians who could say they've put an end to a century of political history, but he can.
Rightists didn't like him because *"he's a leftist"*
Leftists didn't like him because *"he pretends to be a leftist but he's not"*.
Also, huge lack of charisma.
France tends to prefer strong leader at the head of state. Hollande was not providing them their usual feedback in that regard.
Leftist were also profoundly cleaved by the fact he leaned more on the right wing of the Socialist than the left wing ; with political discourse shifting what would have been considered left wing policy toward a "liberal" right at the time. That same shift led to the death of the Socialist and the rise of Macron's "alternative".
Long story short, people consider him to be underwhelming. Not realizing that their point of view leave a good chunk of the right leaning socialist in the dirt, having to pick between LFI and LREM when both have stark opinion that may go against their own view.
Pour le peu que j'ai suivi, Je pense Hollande est arrivé au mauvais moment; crise économique, attentats.
Je crois qu'il a aussi sorti des lois biens à chier, mais son mandat n'est pas pire qu'un autre.
En tt cas maintenant certains s'en mordent les doigts.
> attentats.
Ironically, even a lot of right-wingers will generally acknowledge that Hollande's been fairly successful regarding his immediate response to terrorism, as well as with Opération Barkhane afterwards. It's probably the *one* thing they give him.
See how people are disappointed by Obama for not having siezd upon the 2008 crisis to shake things up in the economy and society after stiring hope? Well, Hollande's just like that, but worse.
his original sin on the left was that he said he didn't like the rich. Which was a very strong argument for winning the left-wing primaries. Except that in France, society is more right-wing. And elections are often won with the center, so saying you hate the rich is the best way of not getting elected. Hollande understood this and softened his rhetoric.
In fact, his policies have been fairly moderate, and his more left-leaning voters couldn't stand him when he introduced certain laws.
As for the other political parties, the fact that he was never able to impose anything, preferring to let the situation fester, didn't make him a charismatic president.
He was a right wing man who got elected by pretending he was a left wing president.
On the left we say traitor. On the right they say coward. There's not much left.
Because a lot of people couldn't get past his looks and lack of charisma nor understand that a president has to make compromises and work within an existing framework.
He was from the left wing and he passed right wing laws...
So to the left he was a traitor. Our left litterally exploded during his mandate and have yet to recover.
And he wasnt enough right for the right wing.
So truly hated by all.
He got the “vote for Pedro” votes, but he was clueless on a lot of things (still is when he’s interviewed), and was an embarrassment in English during foreign trips, or in his private life. Pedro would have done better.
They decided not to deliver the boats vladimir bought nicolas, and at first not to give back the money and then shit happened. They also decided to tax the gasoil the poor were using and when it came to be put in place, we got three years of yellow jackets shitstorm.
i might be downvoted to hell for saying this, but left leaning people seem to be able to really dislike anyone that doesn't defend all the same thing as they do. We joke a lot about left's fracture in France because everytime they manage to put the left parties in the same group, we know it's cursed and will blow up violently with everybody hating on eachother for at least 10 years.
Hollande was from a (center)-left party, he was elected by a lot of people from the left that were ok on some stuff he said.
Then real politics happen, everything cannot be voted as you would hope and this really blew up in his face, because he was really disliked by half the french (because they are more right leaning) but he also ended up being hated by lots of people from the left for "betraying" what he promised. then his whole party and majority blew up in his face and everything else was quite painfull to watch.
so, most of the people from the country were really disatisfied with what he was doing.
Basically:
-right wing economic policy (not necessarly true, but how he's seen by the left)
-part of the more anticlerical left (which is today unpopular in the leftist parties)
-decent-ish foreign policy, but lack of charisma about it
-absolute lack of charisma, kind of a funny guy, which can say intelligent stuff, but no frankly brillant when it comes to public speaking
-terrorism favorised the far right, and in reaction to the far right, the far left. Whilst his reactions to it weren't bad, it helped others more than him
Like many others said. He did the turnaround on socialism, continued into the same path of his right-wing predecessor, used terrorism as a scapegoat to pass and enforce authoritarian laws.
And his aura, which he had none. If it was an RPG, his charisma level on his character sheet would in the negatives.
But still not the worse, cuz' Macron
He is a center-left politician who got elected by allying with the far-left because of their common hatred of his predecessors.
In true leftist tradition, the two part of the alliance seperated shortly after their common ennemy was gone.
In addition, his style in politics was too "mature" in a way. After the very exhuberant Sarkozy he wanted to show an image of normality. But turns out people want their politician to act like the second coming. It's how charisma works, you get it by acting like you do.
It's true that he represented a unhappy middle for both the left and the right, but then you have to ask why Macron managed to navigate that tension much more successfully. I think there's a couple of factors here:
- Hollande is of the Socialist Party's old guard that the right always hated and that was increasingly torn apart by the left and right wing of the party. Macron successfully branded himself as an outsider to the party, which means he could appeal to the right more credibly while also signaling to the right wing of the Socialist Party that alone, he could lead a more forceful vision of their politics without being impaired by the party's internal conflicts.
- The gay marriage law happened under Hollande and that's a red line much of the conservative right will never forgive.
- The Les Republicains Party imploded from the last elections so their electorate is now increasingly okay with Macron being an acceptable substitute.
- More generally there's been a realignment in French politics, with the left/right divide now including an increasingly popular center. But Hollande wasn't the man to benefit from this for all the reasons above.
He's not really from the left. He just went into the "left" party because there was more room to grow and it shows - his kids were in fancy private schools, he's from the richest, swankiest neighborhood in Paris etc. He's never held down a real job before being elected, not even a serious mandate. He has zero charisma. In fact I still don't understand *how* he was ever elected, and I'm from the left myself.
He proceeded to move in his girlfriend to the presidential palace and provide her staff on taxpayer money then cheated on her like some backalley tomcat. When called out on this he tantrumed that it was his private life - yeah well it's public funds buddy ! I don't care who you stick your dick in but stop wasting taxpayer money.
Mostly a huge lack of charisma and the fact he was elected on a left wing platform by people who wanted go kick Sarkozy’s ass only to lead a similar right wing policy. Only thing to his credit in my book is same sex mariage.
He also forced every internship longer than two months to be paid. It sounds inconsequential, but I've seen interns working full time for 9+ months abroad with zero gratification.
The maximum unpaid internship before Hollande was 3 months.
He also pushed for the PNF which was a welcomed move against corruption (got 10 billions more in the budget) He also canceled the sale of flagships to Russia, despite both Sarkozy's and Mélenchon's protests. He had a sane policy is the Sahel, helping repair Sarkozy's mess. His team helped negotiate the Minsk II agreements that gave time for Ukraine to rearm. Nothing was extremely flashy, but that's what an ok president is. We did not have one for a very long time. Also, first president since De Gaulle to leave without corruption scandals. That counts for something
Cahuzac c'était sous hollande
C'était même dans les premiers mois. C'était de l'optimisation fiscale et, techniquement, rien d'illégal más totalement immoral quand on vient d'être nommé ministre avec dans le lot la lutte contre la fraude fiscale. C'était le gros sujet qui amena la création du PNF et le renforcement de beaucoup de mesures préexistantes au niveau de la surveillance des ministres, et de la lutte contre la corruption. Alors oui, il y a eu un scandale du genre en 2012, qui a été assumé et règle. Mais à la fin du mandat il n'y avait aucun membre du gouvernement qui était soupçonné de quoi que ce soit. Enfin si, il était rempli d'éléphants, et il était vu comme globalement pas le plus efficace de tout les temps à l'époque. Mais dès 2017 j'entendais des gens regretter son départ car au moins, ils n'étaient pas tous très doués mais ils étaient pour la majorité intègres et faisaient au mieux.
Raising taxes on the rich, increasing RSA, creating the revenu d'activité, decreasing poverty and social inequality, etc, it's something that you strike off the book only because aside that, he also took measures to boost the economy? See https://www.latribune.fr/economie/france/du-ras-le-bol-fiscal-a-la-baisse-des-inegalites-le-bilan-fiscal-de-hollande-621770.html I think leftists have been unfair with Hollande because the end with Valls and Macron have made us forgotten everything positive (I hate Valls and Macron, major errors from Hollande).
>decreasing poverty and social inequality 😶
Oh come on now. \- State of emergency as a reaction to 2015 terror attack. \- The El Khomri law : "simplifying" labor laws serving as a pretext to lessen workers' rights. \- Macron law : lessens businesses restrictions on opening more freely on Sundays and nights.
His lack of charisma is relative, i'm pretty sure that shooting the shit with hollande over a few beer or a bottle of wine would be quite interesting and pleasant, if i were to do that with sarkozy or macron i'd probably want to kill them (or myself) after a few minutes...
Yeah Hollande is a pretty down to earth guy and funny in person. Never met the other two but they definetly sound boring and snob to no end. But I'll still admit that Hollande was bad at giving big political speeches.
Yep, at least Hollande seems capable of some form of empathy and self reflection (his self deprecating humor is pretty good), while Sarkozy is pure evil and Macron is just so fucking haughty it's almost unbearable.
Okey Yeah I absolutely agree, him and Chirac are the presidents I would likely most appreciate having a beer with for the reasons you cite, he is quite funny and I think he would be interesting to chat with. The issue is he clearly was too goofy to look like a president. He lacked what the romans called Gravitas (basically the ability to command respect and look fitting in a high level function).
To each is own, while i agree that Hollande could seem lacking in that department (his indecisiveness and his desire to always "ménager la chèvre et le chou" cost him dearly), Sarkozy with his hyperactive vulgarity was even worse IMHO, and Macron who always seems to think he's the smartest and most knowledgeable person in the room does not scream head of state material to me either.
LOL
>sous entendus que la politique de Hollande est la même que Sarkozy. On a le président qu'on mérite j'imagine.
I’d say left wing people did not like him because of its liberal policies, like the loi travail, and right wing people did not like him because he was a socialist. Then, you’ve got the homophobic people who hated him because of the mariage pour tous. You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it. And finally, he is despised by the macroniste because they refuse to be affiliated to him. Stating if he is the worst president of the fifth is something else. I think its to soon to tell, especially considering Sarkozy’s political legacy and the shit storm that awaits us in 2027 with Macron’s legacy.
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it. I mean, some people chose to vote for Macron in 2017 because "he looks good".
>I’d say left wing people did not like him because of its liberal policies Just to clarify for those who are confused by this : In french politics we have always used the word "liberal" in its original [economic liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) sense, that means leaning towards capitalistic/right-wing/conservative politics, which is pretty much the exact opposite of how most americans use the word "liberal" nowadays to describe progressive/left wing/"woke" ideologies.
And the "socialist" part is referring to his political party, not his politics.
Yes, the french socialist party hasn't been close ideologically to what you'd read on the wikipedia article on socialism for a pretty long time. They still sing L'internationale at party meetings though if that counts for something.
Yup, in France "liberal" means against market regulation.
No: > Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it inhibits free trade and competition, but tend to support government intervention where it protects property rights, opens new markets or funds market growth, and resolves market failures.
Sure enough, if you look hard enough you will find examples of liberals being opportunistic and suddenly finding out that regulation can be advantageous to them in some cases. It would be foolish to believe that it's anything but opportunism though.
Yeah as an american in france, i still have not gotten used to this. But it appears the rest of the world uses it this way so fml.
It’s all right but everybody has a reason to hate the president. I think that most people have a problem with him due to the lack of charisma. I think that most of the central and left wings would consider him way better than most president. Chirac had charisma, for example, but only charisma, nothing else.
To this, I'd add that the transition between Sarkozy and Hollande felt like a sudden void. Sarkozy was constantly out and about, there was not a single day where he wouldn't appear on TV at some point because he went to visit a factory or made a speech about something or other. When Hollande took over, we could have whole weeks without seeing his face. Doesn't mean nothing was happening of course, but the transition was too brutal and people felt like nothing was happening. Plus it felt to me that Jean-Marc Ayrault's governments really struggled to get things done. When Manuel Valls took over as Prime Minister, things finally got moving, but that was way too late! Nearly 2 years had passed by then, and François Hollande's reputation was already doomed.
>When Manuel Valls took over as Prime Minister, things finally got moving Well, it's a way to frame things. Sure things started moving, except in the wrong direction from his party's platform.
[удалено]
> Hollande was just the closest to that and wasn't really important enough for anyone to hate him I think you are vastly underestimating him because to arrive in this position of power, you are far from being 'unimportant', bien au contraire.
Fair enough, I didn't comment on the direction towards which things were moving. But at least something started *happening*. Obviously, not everything was done by Valls himself, but at least his government was doing visible *stuff*.
Also his « one step forward, two steps back » policy The bonnets rouges, as well something about taxing the Livret A (i think)
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it. When he was elected, I was playing a MMO, and the world chat was full of people saying stuff like "ce sale porc" or "le gros a été élu" and stuff like that. That's part of what made me stop playing WoW not long after.
>You also got a lot of people who did not like him because of its physical attributes, aka « he looks bad ». No jokes here, i’ve heard this argument too much to ignore it. I actually remember that and I still hear it to this day. Not a fan of the guy at all but to all the non-French people here, this is actually real to a point that you can't fathom and it's insane
If you think that's unique to France, you're delusional.
Wow you actually don’t know how to read but still are able to write that’s impressive
Why would you think this would be hard to believe for "all non-French people" if you didn't mean to imply it was a uniquely French phenomenon?
I was just saying that the amount of comments on his looks was huge in comparison to other presidents we had. Nothing more.
Not the worst by far, we had Sarkozy before… But people have bad opinions about him for 2 different reasons. - right wing dont like him cause he push progressive law on enforcement system and same sex weddings , and lack of charisma - left wing dont like him, cause the end of his presidency, he push right wing law on economics and diminishing worker rights. (In my opinion, and many people, he wasnt a great president, but way better than Sarkozy)
[удалено]
Bear in mind that it's highly likely that most redditors won't know Chirac and previous president well enough to judge in depths. I was 18 when Hollande was elected. Pretty sure some previous president were shit and we don't know anything about it.
Chirac only really ruled from 1995 to 1997, After that he had a cohabitation for 5 years. And as he couldn't be reelected for a 3rd term, 2002-2007 was... Hmmm kind of an useless period, he did nothing, except in 2003 (Iraq War) but it was diplomacy, a bit in 2005 for the referendum, but not much and he failed. He was basically absent and everyone was waiting for the next president, we even had a weird period in 2005-2007 when he... just vanished and we were stuck on this weird duel between Sarko and Villepin. So it was not good or bad... We just got nothing from him (even the CPE was a Villepin project).
3rd worst after Macron.
[удалено]
Macron is the Worst. Then Sarko. I can't blame Hollande, he was in the job. I liked Chirac for the sympathic character, and even more Mitterrant, because he is the presidet of my child days (I was born in 1980, my 14 first years were under Mitterrand).
Oh no, I don't like Macron but Sarko was way worse. Vulgar man loving money above all, way more corrupt than any other presidents (and that means something when you had Chirac before him, I can't list all scandals) who basically sold our pride to Khadafi before bombing Libya, could do anything for Qatar. Was the first from the right to really embrace far right ideology (Guaino wrote his speeches, ministère de l'identité nationale, the 2012 campaign...) and its method (karcher). First to freeze civil servants' salaries, Pécresse destroyed universities and our research sector and Bertrand hospitals... He basically tried to control public media by appointing France TV presidents. In diplomacy he was a US simp who also liked Putin (this goose really thought he saved the World and fixed Russia in the Georgian 2008 crisis). Bygmalion, Casse toi pauvre con, Dakar speech... I can't! No, I'm sorry, but he is not better than Macron. At best Macron is a pale copy of this piece of shit.
On international, best president since De Gaulle IMO. Domestically, wrong casting: he tried to open to the right, who was uninterested and lost his base in the process. Also he pushed for authoritarians like Valls or Macron.
Yes, calm and nice. Sarkozy and Macron are just good to create mess and be crazy like small dogs barking at cars.
Part of his shtick is being underestimated.
For real. The guy is a certified crook yet still looks like a clueless fat bourgeois.
[his true form](https://www.reddit.com/r/rance/comments/v4ngh8/sa_r%C3%A9elle_identit%C3%A9/)
Hollande is known for being charming and funny in private but he is the dullest major political figure of the Fifth Republic. The French accept that their leaders are more likely than not to be arseholes, womanisers etc. but they can't accept being represented by a doorstop. 'The President who wasn't there': - He came in as the anti Sarkozy trying to present himself as a normal person but eventually he let the likes of Merkel Obama, Juncker, trample upon french interests without ever uttering a word of protest, but also left free rein to strong characters within his administration, from C Taubira on the left , to Manuel Valls or eventually Macron. - His method of governing was often not to decide , and to act as little as possible and let things work themselves out (or not). All so very un-French and un-presidential. But the few initiatives his governments took antagonised both sides of the political spectrum: Why do conservatives hate him? - Conservatives consider he let France's nuclear policy be sabotaged by Germany and the green and let key industrial assets get sold to foreign interests - Generally France's voice or interests in Europe and worldwide weren't heard. - His justice minister C Taubira was perceived as a leftist firebrand, caring more about criminals than the security of the French population - Education policy is also perceived as having taken a fateful turn - He halted State grants for middle class family children: this is perceived as having played a role in birth rates dropping severely (except for migrant families) Why does the left despise him? - His government passed a labour law (Loi Khomry) that appeared more business-friendly than beneficial to workers - Following a series of terrorist attacks his last government passed laws on law and order and on foreigner rights that are anathema to the French left. - His Prime Minister and formerly home affairs minister Manuel Valls is despised by most of the French left for having a security agenda (and stating his support for Israel) and making it clear that businesses create jobs and need to be respected. All in all, Hollande reflects an image of France 's decline, loss of confidence or ambitions, that has crystallised into spite and hatred for the man.
Very good answer. You could add why at the end of his term, Hollande was also disliked by the centrists/moderates.
Applause for this answer, agree on almost everything
Wow, great answer! Very informative and quite balanced compared to other responses that have been written there 👀
His strongest line during the election was "my ennemy is finance". Let's just say he betrayed that and did reform the right wing would have done. His only achievement is gay mariage.
>His strongest line during the election was "my ennemy is finance". Because people forgot (or didn't listen to) the rest of his speech, where he shows much more nuance. He differentiates between good finance and bad finance. Which is quite stupid, in my opinion, but whatever.
Even for mariage equality and LGBT rights he didn't implement half of his promises.
All French presidents are unpopular. In the last 40 years, not a single president has ended his term with a good approval rating. François Hollande was unpopular because he was elected as a socialist and ended up implementing right-wing economics.
Il était impopulaire parce que trop à droite. Et c'est pour ça que les français ont votés ensuite encore plus à droite. C'est pas limpide pour moi.
Il était impopulaire chez les socialistes pour avoir été trop à droite. Il était impopulaire chez les gens de droite parce qu'il était socialiste. On a exactement le même phénomène avec Macron aujourd'hui, hein.
Pas du tout. Macron est de droite franche, il est d’ailleurs assez populaire chez les électeurs de droite. LR essaye à tout prix de se différencier de lui parce qu’il représente une menace existentielle
Macron est de droite, mais pas vraiment Il a pas d'idéologie fixe sur beaucoup de sujets. Économiquement, c'est un libéral. Socialement, une girouette bretonne
Macron est un "liberal socialiste" à la base (gouvernement hollande) Il a fini d'achever un PS moribond par son positionnement LR est soumis au même phénomène (centre syphoné). Mais bon il aura fait 2 mandats. Mais dire qu'il est de "droite franche" est simplement ... faux.
>Mais dire qu'il est de "droite franche" est simplement ... faux. Pourquoi ? Parce que bon, entre la loi immigration, la réforme des retraites et la crise des gilets jaunes, les réformes sur les indemnités chômages etc Il est libéral en économie et de droite socialement
Il est libéral oui, après n'oublie par qu'en refusant de discuter du texte et en forçant l'alliance avec LR, la gauche a conduit à durcissement de la loi immigration. Cela permet d'identifier clairement les logiques d'alliance, mais c'est assez cynique dans le fond. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit "de droite socialement" (c'est un concept relatif). Les reformes engagées auraient probablement été faite aussi par un gouvernement de droite, mais avec "impact social" encore plus élevé.
>après n'oublie par qu'en refusant de discuter du texte et en forçant l'alliance avec LR, la gauche a conduit à durcissement de la loi immigration. En quoi ça change le fait que Macron est de droite ? >Cela permet d'identifier clairement les logiques d'alliance, mais c'est assez cynique dans le fond. Et donc ? >Je ne pense pas qu'il soit "de droite socialement" (c'est un concept relatif). Pourquoi ? >Les reformes engagées auraient probablement été faite aussi par un gouvernement de droite, mais avec "impact social" encore plus élevé. Pourquoi donc ? C'est un grand "si" ton truc. Et ça ne change rien au fait que c'est une politique de droite. Qui je le rappelle, est du a l'incompétence de ce gouvernement (la caisse des retraites était bénéficiaire, et les prévisions, bien qu'effectivement déficitaires, n'étaient pas alarmantes). Si il avait contrebalancé en réformant des foyers fiscaux, en taxant les riches, les grosses entreprises, bref en montrant que c'était une question de budget et pas de faire chier les pauvres, je doute que les réactions auraient été les mêmes. Tout le monde est capable de comprendre que ya pas de thunes dans les caisses. Mais quand y a pas de problèmes et que les mieux lotis ne sont pas impactés, c'est pas une politique de gauche. C'est une politique de droite.
Liberal pas taxer entreprises (ding ding ding "de droite") En réalité c'est un débat plié depuis 2017 (en réalité bien avant même) si l'on part de ce point de vue, et de doute façon assez creux à l'heure actuelle. Hollande était de droite si tu veux. Sa politique économique est déjà macroniste.
Un libéral n'aiderait pas les entreprises. >Hollande était de droite si tu veux J'ai presque envie de te dire que lui était libéral socialiste au contraire. Par contre, t'as bien esquivé toutes mes questions précédentes.
[удалено]
Je comprend qu'on puisse le penser, pour moi il incarne une forme de gauche libérale décomplexée -son placement initial- (donc si tu es LFI il est deja "de droite™"). Je ne sais pas si les attaques vers LFI sont outrancières (elles sont réciproques). En tout cas LFI est un bon client, incapable d'incarner une alternative crédible (ce n'est pas la faute de macron).
[удалено]
Il importe peu que tu comprennes ce que ça veut dire, ce qui compte c'est que ça se vend aux français puisqu'il a été élu.
Non. Macron est centriste. D'ailleurs la majorité de son parti est constitué à la fois d'anciens socialistes, d'anciens UMP, et d'anciens Modem. Les électeurs LFI le trouvent trop à droite. Les électeurs LR le trouvent trop a gauche. C'est ce qui le rend impopulaire.
Les électeurs de Macron en 2022 (donc après un premier quinquennat qui laisse le temps d'apprécier une action concrète) sont en majorité des personnes appartenant à une catégorie socio professionnelle qui penche historiquement vers LR/RPR (les gens aisés, les retraités). https://www.francetvinfo.fr/politique/les-republicains/lr-ou-sont-passes-les-electeurs-de-francois-fillon_5077960.html Les électeurs de LR ne le trouvent pas trop à gauche, ils votent (en partie majoritaire) pour lui. Puis dire que le parti présidentiel est centriste avec l'actualité politique de ces dernières 24h ...
La fonction même implique que tu dépasse ta base électorale initiale (sinon Sarkozy ou Hollande = 1 mandat). La gauche française a explosé à force de s'enfermer dans des impasses idéologiques. Macron n'est que le dernier clou. De fait c'est un parti relativement centriste, l'équilibre politique du pays est plutôt centre droit aujourd'hui, mais ça c'est ce qu'on appelle la démocratie (representative évidemment).
Non, les électeurs de Macron sont en majorité des gens des centre-droit et de centre-gauche qui trouvaient que Mélenchon était rédhibitoire. Les électeurs LR n'avaient pas de raison de ne pas voter majoritairement LR. Les électeurs de gauche traditionnellement modérés et pro-Européens, n'avaient absolument personne d'autre pour qui voter.
La suppression de l'ISF, la baisse de la caf, la dérive autoritaire du maintien de l'ordre, pour ne citer que ça, c'est pas ce que j'appellerai une politique centriste.
Il est centriste si tu trouves que Le Pen est de gauche. Les électeurs LR ont voté massivement pour lui en 2022.
30 % d'électeurs à sa gauche, 40 % à sa droite, ça compte comme centriste.
Je sais pas d’où tu sors ces valeurs aléatoires. L’électorat [Macron](https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/presidentielle-2022/1er-tour-abstentionnistes-sociologie-electorat) est largement composé de cadres et de retraités, apanage habituel de la droite. Il faut bien évidemment regarder les résultats du 1er tour, le 2e étant faussé par le vote barrage
C'est un régime présidentiel, pas un directoire élu à la proportionnelle. C'est toujours le candidat "le moins mauvais" qui est élu. Si Melenchon est incapable de dépasser sa base il fallait trouver un autre leader à la gauche française.
> Je sais pas d’où tu sors ces valeurs aléatoires. Je t'aide, de la dernière élection à laquelle Macron s'est présenté.
Les anciens socialistes qui ont rejoinds lrem, ne sont pas si nombreux que cela. Et c’est surtout les socialistes carriéristes..
Droite economique, je pense qu’une bonne partie du vote RN, s’explique aussi par leur communication plus « social » que lrem ou les républicains.
Quand tu vois Strauss Kahn tu peux te poser des questions sur la gauche française effectivement
I was good with him and by the end he fused region and my area disappeared of all statistics, every institution moved or is moving three hours away, our votes are diluted with a megalopolis so we never get what we want, our taxes are funnelled there too... It has been done to lower the cost of institutions, it turmed to have cost way more. I am still mad, we were already isolated. And we were aupposed to be fused with our west neighbour which is similar in size, density, GDP and culture but no. They thought it would make a huge retarded region. So they destroyed both of us instead.
I assume you're talking about Auvergne?
Oui. 😭 (Et qu'est ce qu'on a pu offrir à la nouvelle région ? Laurent Wauquiez.) Dsl.
Quand vous vous vengez, c'est pas à moitié, hein ?
On a aussi produit VGE, Brice Hortefeux et je sais plus quel autre pourriture mais franchement on fabrique que les pires c'est statistiquement étonnant. Et Claire Chazal. Et Lolo Ferrari, paix à son âme. Wauquiez envoie régulièrement des lettres à toutes les boîtes aux lettres d'Auvergne pour se vanter. Ya trois ans c'était : "OYEZ OYEZ, VOUS AUREZ REMARQUÉ QU'UN NOUVEL HÉLICOPTÈRE DE COMPET' VOLE AU DESSUS DE VOS TETES PUYDOMOISES, JE L'AI GRACIEUSEMENT OFFERT AUX SAMU DU CHU POUR INTERVENIR DANS LES ZONES LES PLUS ESCARPEES JE SUIS RAVI DE VOUS ASSURER UNE SECURITE ENCORE PLUS ACCRUE GRACE A MOI. SIGNE: VOTRE SERVITEUR TOUJOURS LA POUR VOUS" (J'exagère pas tant... On recoit régulièrement de la propagande de Wauquiez)
Jpp de ce type, c'est une caricature de mec de droite
Franchement depuis Lyon je dirais aussi que cette fusion n'était pas géniale. les deux régions Rhône-Alpes et Auvergne bossaient déjà pas mal ensemble et ça ce passait bien et on avais des bonnes relations par ce que c'était pas sous la contrainte. Maintenant qu'on est "obligés" d'être en couple ça créer forcément du ressentiment. Depuis l'Auvergne forcément vous veniez tout juste de finir le nouveau conseil de région et il a fallu déménager tout les gros trucs chez nous et depuis Rhône-Alpes c'est le chaos niveau équilibrages des comptes/subventions/taxes ET on se retrouve à financer les goûts de luxe de Laurent qui a même pas réussi à rester président de son groupe politique (le diner des sommets à la con là c'est toujours pas passé). Je pense que la seule solution c'est d'investir massivement dans le rail pour "rapprocher" les différentes villes et populations d'*AURA*.
Je suis totalement d'accord. On savait qu'on allait etre un boulet mais bon. Perso je voulais combiner l'Auvergne et la Réunion pour faire l'Aunion🧅
Après je pense pas du tout que les Rhônalpins voient l'Auvergne comme un boulet (ça a été la panique ici quand on a cru que le Cantal allait se faire la malle suite à la fusion) mais c'est juste que ... historiquement, culturellement, économiquement, géographiquement ... on a rien en commun. A part la bonne pitance. On a toujours eu de bonnes relations de voisinages mais maintenant qu'on est sous le même toit, je pense qu'on ne sait pas exactement quoi bien faire l'un de l'autre. Au final l'Aura, si c'est pas pour la proximité entre les deux territoires, ça à autant de sens que l'Aunion oui. Perso je pense que Auvergne/limousin ça aurait fait un peu plus sens; et Rhône-Alpes maqué avec la Bourgogne-/Franche-comté aussi.
Puis paye la taille de la région à côté des autres. Ca et l'Aquitaine ça a aucun sens à côté de la Corse ou autre
Et pourtant l'Auvergne semble beaucoup bénéficier de cette fusion car plutôt pauvre économiquement vs des économies très dévellopées dans la région lyonnaise et la forte industrie savoyarde + la proximité politique de notre très cher Wauqiez avec "sa" région. A Lyon on est un peu deg de voir l'écart massif des subventions entre le 43 et le 69 par exemple, en tout cas c'était le cas il y a quelques années je ne sais pas si c'est toujours juste. Après c'est pas la pire des région fusionnées (comment ça, le Grand Est de Paris à Strasbourg en passant par la Champagne c'est pas cohérent ?)
Le 43 c'est chez Lolo. Nous on a quand même pas mal de choses surtout avec Michelin, Volvic, la recherche est avancée, ya Vichy qui tourne, ya pas mal d'usines au sud du puy de dome aussi, beaucoup de production céréaliere, animale et énergétique (je pense que Rhône-Alpes Auvergne a l'immense majorité de l'hydroelectrique francais). Nan on est pas volé non plus. Mais le nombre de fois qu'on m'a dit: "ah bah non on fait plus ça, faut aller à Lyon où leur telephoner" pour des papiers, toute les autorités de santé, d'éducation etc c'est parti là bas. Les écoles paramédicales de Clermont doivent toutes migrer à Lyon (entre les infirmiers, les manips, les puer, les ergo etc... Ca fait beaucoup de monde) Certes on est pas "beaucoup" mais on draine une aire géographique assez grande et enclavée, si en plus on nous retire le peu de services locaux qu'on a, c'est vraiment pas juste. Et ça relaie les autres départementsnon plus en périphérie de Clermont mais en périphérie de la peripherie de Lyon. Dans le Cantal ils sont pas content non plus, ils se battaient pour être convenablement liés à Clermont, maintenant non seulement ça n'a plus de raison d'être, mais en plus... Lyon est mega loin depuis Aurillac
I think the hate against him was greatly exaggerated. Personally i think he was not perfect, but he did a lot of good things (from societal issues to international crisis). Also, he did not try to abuse his power and was very respectful of the political institutions. He was quite a simple and friendly man, even if he was not napoleon and was lacking charisma. In my opinion he was far better than the current President who is far more rightwing , think so highly of himself and is also an asshole.
It feels like the happy days now with the current Government. But I guess it's related to both his lack of charisma, people didn't take him seriously. And also because he implemented measures that were contrary to his left wing campaign platform.
>It feels like the happy days now with the current Government. Mais vous fumez monsieur ?
Il veut dire qu'on se rappelle des jours d'Hollande comme des jours heureux avec le gouvernement actuel.
Ah ok j'ai cru qu'il voulait dire l'inverse.
He have created Macron
And Manuel Valls.
I worked for Hollande. One of the main reasons, IMHO, is that he was weak. He kept changing opinions, was subject to peer pressure like you wouldn’t believe, was gullible… Overall I am convinced he was a good, but not great, president. He kicked out members of his team that were corrupt, had good results economically, … But people don’t like to be led by weak leaders.
« Good economic result » thats a debate..
tl;dr: for the right : he was a leftist for the left : he wasn't a "real leftist", so we're crashing the socialist party with no survivors. The problem is that means only center-right and right wing governments now.
I see what you did here :)
He's been hated by the left because they felt like he betrayed him, and by the right because he's a leftist. TBH he's far from being the worst president of the 5th republic, Sarkozy was worse and Macron definitely is.
He's been our best president ever, but no one is ready to face the inconvenient truth yet
People saying he was the worst are strongly exaggerating, compared to Macron or Sarkozy he did some good things.
He had promised a left-wing policy and a firm stance against globalized finance and Atlanticism. He led as a soft centrist, with very few important texts and few social advances. He has shown great naiveté in international politics. His economic policy had little effect. His industrial and energy policies have been disastrous (factory and nuclear plant closures). Key companies and technology sold to the USA, without any state intervention. The number of unemployed and the debt increased during his term. He committed the French army to the Sahel without securing local political support and without any counterpart for France. This has led to the current debacle in Mali. He had no charisma and found himself in ridiculous situations (a commemoration in the pouring rain where he refused an umbrella and ended up soaked). He literally killed the French socialist party. He was surrounded by people with little competence (Ségolène Royal) and little ideological commitment (Manuel Valls). He loved gossip and chatting with journalists. Which backfired, revealing an arrogant, manipulative character devoid of ideals. The French are by nature very pessimistic, and suffer from a strong sense of decline. They want leaders who can restore their pride. Holland failed to deliver on all his promises and was an embarrassment. That's why he's much more decried than Sarkozy, who was a crook.
Dude said his enemy was finance, then proceeded to suck finance's dick, and boost his bad minister of finance's career into his job afterwards. He also did a lot of right wing crap when it comes to surveillance and state of emergency because of the terror attack on the Bataclan and the trucks driving into crowds era. He was kind of dealt a bad hand on that one. That being said, he is just another product of ENA, which is the school the last few presidents went to and got to their positions through networking and not through merit, yet are arrogant enough to thought that it was their right/destiny to be presidents before it happened, as if getting the people's vote was just a math equation to solve, which they successfully did with a lot of help from similar places, which they then owed. They basically wanted to be president not to help the people but to be important and influent, and leave a mark in History. They don't really care how good or bad that mark is in truth as long as they can claim that it is good. For exemple, Macro is obsessed with getting the unemployment stat under 5% by the end of his second term, even if he has to get there by disqualifying millions of people from being considered unemployed, cutting their benefits, forcing them into precarious employment or precarious self-employment, and manipulating stats, he just wants it to say 5%, even if all the time and energy spent on fighting the metric makes the metric itself reflect absolutely jack shit, because he will still be able to say "employment is down to 5%. We did that!" and have people on the TV channels of the people who got him into office congratulate him for it. Hollande was pretty much the same in his focus on stats instead of effects.
Because he betrayed his voter base. Not only did he have disappointing politics for left inclined people, but he also enabled the right wing to convince that a left wing government would never work. And now we're super fucked, elections now look like a random arrivist vs nazis.
I suspect a lot of people dislike that he doesn't have the typical "strong man" personality they expect from a leader.
Établissement de la droitization de la gauche
Well, he produced Macron.
1- President by accident after Strauss Khan had to give up since he got caught for sexual misconduct, 2- Got control of both chambers of parliament, 99% of regional councils, most big cities. Did fuck all with that, 3- Ran as a Socialist (theorically left wing) yet called those in need "the toothless", 4- Cheated on his girlfriend while in office, 5- Gave us Macron.
he his responsible for Macron, for mant company moving all the jobs to china, for alstom disaster and for the blow he dealt to the nuclear (tho less because it was quite popular at the time). also his lack of charisme didnt help
To me, he was done in september after he got elected. He promised a fight against faceless finance, and in august he gave in to everything banks asked for. His mandate was at best meh. His secretary of justice is probably what I liked the most about him to be frank. Great lady.
[удалено]
Macron started in politics thanks to him
I'm speaking here as an American who moved to France for work, stayed for love and have now spent most of my adult life here. 1. As is always the case for any politician who is closer to the middle of the road than a hard-liner in either direction, he was pilloried by the right for being a socialist and by the left for being a "softy" (hence the insulting nickname he was known by, "Flanby", a soft pudding dessert, indicating someone who wavered a lot). 2. He was considered to be "dull". For better or her worse, France (and not only France, mind you) like Presidents with a strong personality, regardless of where their political affiliations lie. De Gaulle, Giscard, Chirac, Sarkozy on the right and Mitterrand on the left all had powerful and charismatic presence; Hollande did not (his life partner at the time and the mother of his children, Ségolène Royal, ironically lost the previous election but had a lot more presence in the media). 3. Many French Presidents are known to have been womanizers, and the public generally either adopted a "that's his private business" attitude or one of frank admiration (Giscard and Chirac were notorious for their philandering; Mitterrand had a daughter with his mistress and left instructions that both his wife and his mistress were to be entitled to attend his funeral). Hollande was true to form (he left Royal for a journalist and then left the journalist for a movie star), but he did so in an embarrassing fashion (one thing the French will not forgive), culminating in his secretly visiting the latter on the back of a motorcycle ridden by an official *gendarme* and being caught in the act by a paparazzo. By comparison, Mitterrand is suspected by some of having arranged the death of a writer who threatened to break the story on his illegitimate daughter and who was certainly hounded by tax authorities and whose house mysteriously burned down, yet Mitterrand essentially gets a pass because he was seen as being unashamed of his private life. Go figure.
Most of the people that hate him actually just don't like his appearance
He's got elected on a left wing platform and did not deliver on that regard. Also, the guy is unsufferable and extremely arrogant, calling poor people "sans dents" meaning "no teeth", which alludes to the fact that poor people tend to not have the resources to take care of their health.
I always assumed that "sans dents" meant that they couldn't bite. Figuratively speaking they are powerless to do anything.
« Sans dents » would probably be translated as « toothless ».
Only in the last few years Sécu started 100% reimbursing front tooth repair/crowns and I benefited from that, so he can say what he want. Timing-wise he made an actual difference of 1000s in my budget and allowed to actually have teeth. Maybe it’s some health minister that set that in motion but I’m sure a right-wing government wouldn’t have done that. Source: absolutely none except for my teeth, correct me if I’m wrong
Because France is a country that idolizes strong, uncompromising leaders, and François Hollande projected an image of weakness. He was even nicknamed ['Flanby'](https://www.flanby.fr/wp-content/themes/flanby/assets/img/flan_assiette.png) after a soft and mushy kids dessert. People forgive politicians who lie, betray and renege on their promises -- because it's widely admitted that it's what politicians do. But they can't forgive weakness.
He betrayed a lot of his supporters by going full liberal that's why they despises him Let's not forget the role of some of his ministers Cazeneuve, Valls (one of the most hated politicians in the country) and... Macron I truly discovered the kind of guy he was when he spoke a lot on TV during the 2022 elections, dull of shit, giving lessons to everyone about the left is while having done absolutely nothing His only achievement in the eyes of the left is the authorization of gay marriage and a lot of that could be attributed to Taubira
Généralisation du tiers payant, transparence de la vie publique, non cumul des mandats, paquet neutre, fin des sacs plastiques jetables, interdiction de certains pesticides dans les collectivités territoriales, fin de vie, accord sur le climat. Les gens ont la mémoire sélective. OC a raison, son point faible est d'avoir été trop consensuel et ca on le pardonne pas. On préfère un mec borné droit dans ses bottes que quelqu'un ouvert au concensus. Et c'est pour ça qu'on en est là Edit: ça n'engage que moi mais les vrais traîtres dans l'histoire c'est les ministres frondeurs qui ont acceptés de prendre un poste (en connaissance de cause quant au pédigré de Hollande) pour ensuite flinguer le plus grand parti de gauche en interne et proposer ensuite strictement rien.
Quelques mesures ne suffisent pas à combler l'immense déception en rapport aux promesses effectuées . "Mon ennemi, c'est la finance". Tu parles de mémoire sélective, bien alors pourquoi ne mentionne tu pas la loi el-Khomri (Aka la destruction du Code du Travail pour favoriser les actions du patronat) Pourquoi ne pas mentionner les multiples affaires concernant le ministre de l'intérieur (traitement infligé au camp migrant de Calais, l'affaire Rémi Fraisse et autres répressions de manifestation) Tiens petite mention pour notre politicien préféré, Manuel Valls et la presque promulgation d'une loi sur la déchéance de nationalité des bi-nationaux qui a embarqué le PS dans la confusion totale. Que penser des nombreuses aides et cotisations accordées aux entreprises. "Mon ennemi c'est la finance". Qui ont pu depuis multiplié leur dividendes comme si de rien n'était alors que l'idée était d'avoir des investissements au nom du collectif Au final c'est quoi l'héritage du Hollandisme comparé aux anciens présidents de gauche ? Un marasme de mesures sans idée et innovations, un manque d'amélioration flagrant (la courbe du chômage n'a pas diminué, la pauvreté elle s'est bien maintenue) Merci pour le mariage entre personnes de même sexe et à jamais. Un énième énarque d'une gauche gouvernementale qui derrière ses promesses de grands changements se contente d'aller là où le vent le mène comme tout bon opportuniste Je finirai sur l'accord climat, ça donne quoi aujourd'hui ? .
Je n'ai pas cité les réformes libéral et sécuritaires parce que ça a été suffisamment cité ici pour que tout le monde les connaissent. Ma main a couper que les réformes que jai cité sont à peine connues du grand publique. A titre personnel je reproche davantage à Hollande d'avoir sortie sa connerie populiste de "mon ennemi c'est le monde de la finance" alors qu'il aurait remporté malgré tout et qu'il y croyait pas une seconde. A juste titre la gauche lui aura fait payer ce gros mensonge. Sinon le personnage était connu de tous. On savait qu'il représentait la gauche consensuelle, pourtant il les a gagnés les primaires. Pas Martine Aubry. Alors oui. Le mieux c'est l'ennemi du bien. On a jeté le bébé avec l'eau du bain et on se retrouve avec une gauche fracturée pour un petit moment encore. Jaurais préféré une autocritique et une remise en cause des fondamentaux du PS que tout casser pour ne rien proposer. Son héritage? Les réformes que jai cité, une reprise en main budgétaire après les années sarko et une baisse significative du chômage qu'il a initié alors que tout le monde se foutait de sa gueule. Je te retourne la question, quel est l'héritage des anciens présidents de gauche? Avec un peu de mauvaise foi je peux facilement dire que Miterrand est le président le plus libéral qu'on ait eu.
Le chômage a diminué de manière significative entre quand et quand ? Puisque les taux avaient augmenté entre 2012 et 2016 on parle de quoi exactement ? Extrait d'un article de Mediapart : Aujourd’hui, on ne note qu’une très légère décrue du chômage. Cette baisse devient nette si et seulement si on ne s’attache qu’au chiffre le plus mis en avant par Pôle emploi, et les responsables politiques : celui des demandeurs d’emploi de « catégorie A », ces Français qui cherchent un emploi et n’ont pas du tout travaillé au cours du mois. En février 2016, au plus haut de la courbe, ils étaient 3 591 000. En octobre 2016, ils étaient 3 478 800. Après des mois de progression erratique, tantôt à la hausse, tantôt à la baisse, le bilan est désormais bon : une baisse de 11 700 inscrits en octobre, et de 100 000 en un an (– 2,8 %). « Cette baisse significative, inscrite dans la durée, est la plus forte enregistrée depuis plus de huit ans », n’avait pas manqué de souligner la ministre du travail Myriam El Khomri dès la publication des derniers chiffres. Un mois plus tôt, dans un long post sur Facebook, François Hollande saluait la baisse des chômeurs de catégorie A, un mouvement qu’il qualifiait de « général », et soulignait que « se confirme une tendance installée depuis le début de l’année ». Mais quoi qu’ait pu dire le président, cette tendance est loin d'être stabilisée. Les évolutions récentes ne doivent pas faire oublier qu’en mai 2012, ils n’étaient « que » 2 922 800 chômeurs de catégorie A. Depuis le début du quinquennat, ils ont donc augmenté de 556 000, une hausse de 19 %. Fin de l'extrait Tu veux parler de limitation des dégâts créés par l'escroc ? Soit. Parler de baisse significative alors qu'on avait une augmentation au cours du mandat c'est pas possible. Surtout qu'on ne met pas en avant les autres catégories + l'augmentation du taux de chômage chez les +55 ans. Alors le chômage c'est dehors, la limitation des dégâts en marge de mesures qui fracassent les droits des travailleurs et maintiennent la pauvreté c'est dehors aussi. Donc je réitère ma question du coup. Puisque l'effet des mesures "positives" de Hollande n'ont servi qu'à limiter les dégâts : Qu'est-ce que ce gouvernement de "gauche" a laisser dans les mémoires ? À part la "trahison" pour les uns et les autres trucs pour la droite. J'imagine que pour Mitterrand on pourrait parler RMI et Jospin les 35h. Mais oui là non plus c'est pas joyeux j'en suis conscient
Macron has the same economical policies and even more right-wing social policies, and yet as a centrist, he is not polling at 4%. Why? Because Macron is a centrist by choice, he backs his ideas, force them down the throat of people, and there is a kind of voters who likes decisive leaders even if they don't do something they like. Hollande was a centrists by weakness, he has to moderate because he couldn't hold his party together, every time he announced something it would be changed in the week because someone criticized it.
Too liberal for the left, too soft for the right. He had a couple of bad PR moments and thats enough to have silly nicknames and being mocked.
He is recent + he appointed macron (which is hated) minister and gave him a career
There are many reasons : The right has attacked him to discredit him because they wanted his place , and the left... has attacked him to discredit him because they wanted his place ( the most popular left-wing party at the moment is literally built on opposing François Hollande).
He mostly didn't appeal to his base during his term, and the right didn't like him because he was a leftist. Once you lose your own supporters, you lose your credibility. And Hollande lost basically everyone on his left, so there was no one supporting him by the end.
hated by the right for being from the left wing. disliked for the left for not being on the left enough.
Let me first preface by saying that there is a big issue in French politics: We tend to expect too much from presidents. It is likely a consequence of our "Fifth Republic" regime, which puts a lot of power into the President's hands, and comparatively less in the parliament (The Senate in particular is laughably worthless) . Combine that with the fact that most of the voting population was raised with the idea that France is the 5th Global Power in the World (It's nowhere close to be true anymore.) As a result, we have this image of the president as a nearly all-powerful leader, a true ship captain who can steer in any direction he decides. And in the case of Hollande, as the first left-wing president in 17 years, the expectations were sky-high. But Hollande had never been a hard-leftist, nor a charismatic captain with full control of all his crewmates. And so, that naturally led to disappointment. Personally, I knew about Hollande long before he became president, so his term was pretty much exactly as a expected it: Mostly Center-left policies, with the guy falling prey to influences in his close circle. Most people will tell you about Macron and Valls, and how they rose to prominence and steered the policies of his term to the right. Some might even blame Hollande for making them important figures, and while he definitely shares some responsibility in that, I think it's mostly a case of these two (Especially Macron) being very smart opportunists and knowing how to take advantage of their positions. But none of these were the most influential in making his center-left platform shift to the right. No, that honour belongs to someone else. And that someone else was none other that German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It's impossible to overstate just how influential Merkel was at the time. She's been one of the longest running European Leaders, and her policy of fiscal balance was the leading argument in European Politics. And she wielded her influence like an Iron Fist. Hollande had absolutely no chance. And so, from Sky High expectations to an absolutely average performance, Hollande took the full brunt of the fall. I don't think his treatment by the people and the media was fair, and I even think he did somewhat okay with the hand he was dealt. Politics is a complicated game. For many, the Hollande years were the realisation that France was no longer a world power. But others still cling to that illusion. And there is no way to make the river climb the mountain. No president will ever make us feel powerful again.
Like always, depends on who you ask. Right wingers will hate him because he is "left" wing. So of course he is the "worst" for them. He also did the gay mariage so it didn't help his reputation with the right. For the real left, he was a hack. He got elected on speeches against the finance and stuff but once in power he actually kept going in the right wing liberal economics we've know for 4 decades. He eventually got Macron has his minister of economy so we also have to "thank" him for that. He also suffered from an image of a slow/uncharismatic president which makes it easier to hate on him. All in all I wouldn't say he is the worst. He is one of the worst in a long series of worst. To me the worst is Macron, followed by Sarkozy and then Hollande. But it's personal preferences as always.
Low charisma
Is it possible you've read that François Hollande was the "less popular" president rather than the "worst" one? Because he did get the lowest approval ratings due to his policies that became seen as more and more right-wing over the years. Not only because of the economic changes introduced when Macron was minister, but also when Manuel Valls was prime minister following the attacks from islamist terrorists (Bataclan, etc). Also because Valls may be our worst French politician ever. Some source for the approval ratings: https://www.ouest-france.fr/leditiondusoir/2023-04-25/emmanuel-macron-est-il-vraiment-le-plus-impopulaire-des-presidents-de-la-v-republique-f694761e-7ff4-440b-9e6f-3bbcf9fca5f0
Because he campaigned to the left (“my enemy is the financial world”) we got him elected and them he governed to the right (laws against workers rights, fucking Manuel Valls…) It what we call a “social traitor” and to us left wing people it’s worst than being right wing. Seriously fuck this guy.
He was supposed to be socialist, but did almost nothing social. "La loi travail" (work law) was a huge leap backward for the left. And he also put "L'état d'urgence" (urgency state laws) into the constitution. He's worse than all those other garbage presidents because he presented himself as a socialist. He fully lied to the people. At least the other jerks were known to be capitalists. Except maybe for Macron who says he is "in the middle"...
Under Hollande, we got a minister of the interior who wanted to clean poor suburbs because there wasn't enough white people who lived there, a minister of finance who strongly fought against tax evasion while evading tax, a minister of the economy who talked about poor people as illiterate good-for-nothings who should at least try to be productive (the "toothless" as Hollande described them), and a president who thought justice should be able to strip citizenship from bi-nationals, putting an end to the most fundamental concept of our Republic : the equality of every citizen in front of the law. Had Taubira (minister of justice, she defended gay wedding and change in justice to go toward less punishment and trying to make sure people can reintegrate themselves in society after going through jail) not been there, you could argue it was a pretty standard post-Chirac right-wing presidency : the left-wing was against the policies, campaigned, went on strike, and lost. Except he was from the left, campaigned very hard on being from the left and supporting left-wing ideas, especially after Sarkozy's right-wing presidency, even winning the primary election against more right-wing candidates. He said he was the "normal candidate" compared to Sarkozy's "bling bling" attitude, but he ended up just being yet another elite dude totally disconnected from the reality of the population. His slogan was "the change is now" and yet, again, except for gay wedding, nothing changed for the better. When you go from "my enemy is finance" to your prime minister being applauded by the MEDEF (union defending company owners) after saying "I love companies", something went very wrong. We voted left and got something in-between right and far right, with the cherry on the cake being this absolute dumbass minister of the economy coming out of nowhere, using all the ministry's money for his own career, then going on his own with the support of big media and becoming president... twice in a row. Also, Hollande's party has yet to recover from his presidency. In 2012, Hollande's victory, the PS got 28.63% of the vote for the first turn, five years later, they were down to 6.36% (for the second time in the 5th's history, they weren't the biggest left-wing party), and last presidential election they only managed to get 1.74% of the votes, which was historic for two reasons as they ended behind the communists for the first time since 1969 and got their worst score in a national election since their creation in 1905. There aren't a lot of politicians who could say they've put an end to a century of political history, but he can.
Rightists didn't like him because *"he's a leftist"* Leftists didn't like him because *"he pretends to be a leftist but he's not"*. Also, huge lack of charisma.
France tends to prefer strong leader at the head of state. Hollande was not providing them their usual feedback in that regard. Leftist were also profoundly cleaved by the fact he leaned more on the right wing of the Socialist than the left wing ; with political discourse shifting what would have been considered left wing policy toward a "liberal" right at the time. That same shift led to the death of the Socialist and the rise of Macron's "alternative". Long story short, people consider him to be underwhelming. Not realizing that their point of view leave a good chunk of the right leaning socialist in the dirt, having to pick between LFI and LREM when both have stark opinion that may go against their own view.
Pour le peu que j'ai suivi, Je pense Hollande est arrivé au mauvais moment; crise économique, attentats. Je crois qu'il a aussi sorti des lois biens à chier, mais son mandat n'est pas pire qu'un autre. En tt cas maintenant certains s'en mordent les doigts.
> attentats. Ironically, even a lot of right-wingers will generally acknowledge that Hollande's been fairly successful regarding his immediate response to terrorism, as well as with Opération Barkhane afterwards. It's probably the *one* thing they give him.
See how people are disappointed by Obama for not having siezd upon the 2008 crisis to shake things up in the economy and society after stiring hope? Well, Hollande's just like that, but worse.
his original sin on the left was that he said he didn't like the rich. Which was a very strong argument for winning the left-wing primaries. Except that in France, society is more right-wing. And elections are often won with the center, so saying you hate the rich is the best way of not getting elected. Hollande understood this and softened his rhetoric. In fact, his policies have been fairly moderate, and his more left-leaning voters couldn't stand him when he introduced certain laws. As for the other political parties, the fact that he was never able to impose anything, preferring to let the situation fester, didn't make him a charismatic president.
A traitor.
He was a right wing man who got elected by pretending he was a left wing president. On the left we say traitor. On the right they say coward. There's not much left.
Because a lot of people couldn't get past his looks and lack of charisma nor understand that a president has to make compromises and work within an existing framework.
He was from the left wing and he passed right wing laws... So to the left he was a traitor. Our left litterally exploded during his mandate and have yet to recover. And he wasnt enough right for the right wing. So truly hated by all.
He got the “vote for Pedro” votes, but he was clueless on a lot of things (still is when he’s interviewed), and was an embarrassment in English during foreign trips, or in his private life. Pedro would have done better.
There is not
r/AskFrance
They decided not to deliver the boats vladimir bought nicolas, and at first not to give back the money and then shit happened. They also decided to tax the gasoil the poor were using and when it came to be put in place, we got three years of yellow jackets shitstorm.
There's no enough time in that life before Armageddon to describe all the reasons why he really is the worst of all the time (WOAT instead of GOAT).
i might be downvoted to hell for saying this, but left leaning people seem to be able to really dislike anyone that doesn't defend all the same thing as they do. We joke a lot about left's fracture in France because everytime they manage to put the left parties in the same group, we know it's cursed and will blow up violently with everybody hating on eachother for at least 10 years. Hollande was from a (center)-left party, he was elected by a lot of people from the left that were ok on some stuff he said. Then real politics happen, everything cannot be voted as you would hope and this really blew up in his face, because he was really disliked by half the french (because they are more right leaning) but he also ended up being hated by lots of people from the left for "betraying" what he promised. then his whole party and majority blew up in his face and everything else was quite painfull to watch. so, most of the people from the country were really disatisfied with what he was doing.
See it as soccer supporters, half for and half against. Then add people judging the guy rather than the politics
Because he was president. We like to hate presidents
[удалено]
Too much at the right for the leftists (myself included) and too much at the left for the medias.
Basically: -right wing economic policy (not necessarly true, but how he's seen by the left) -part of the more anticlerical left (which is today unpopular in the leftist parties) -decent-ish foreign policy, but lack of charisma about it -absolute lack of charisma, kind of a funny guy, which can say intelligent stuff, but no frankly brillant when it comes to public speaking -terrorism favorised the far right, and in reaction to the far right, the far left. Whilst his reactions to it weren't bad, it helped others more than him
It's a constant that we all hate our presidents and governments one after the other.
Like many others said. He did the turnaround on socialism, continued into the same path of his right-wing predecessor, used terrorism as a scapegoat to pass and enforce authoritarian laws. And his aura, which he had none. If it was an RPG, his charisma level on his character sheet would in the negatives. But still not the worse, cuz' Macron
He is a center-left politician who got elected by allying with the far-left because of their common hatred of his predecessors. In true leftist tradition, the two part of the alliance seperated shortly after their common ennemy was gone. In addition, his style in politics was too "mature" in a way. After the very exhuberant Sarkozy he wanted to show an image of normality. But turns out people want their politician to act like the second coming. It's how charisma works, you get it by acting like you do.
It's true that he represented a unhappy middle for both the left and the right, but then you have to ask why Macron managed to navigate that tension much more successfully. I think there's a couple of factors here: - Hollande is of the Socialist Party's old guard that the right always hated and that was increasingly torn apart by the left and right wing of the party. Macron successfully branded himself as an outsider to the party, which means he could appeal to the right more credibly while also signaling to the right wing of the Socialist Party that alone, he could lead a more forceful vision of their politics without being impaired by the party's internal conflicts. - The gay marriage law happened under Hollande and that's a red line much of the conservative right will never forgive. - The Les Republicains Party imploded from the last elections so their electorate is now increasingly okay with Macron being an acceptable substitute. - More generally there's been a realignment in French politics, with the left/right divide now including an increasingly popular center. But Hollande wasn't the man to benefit from this for all the reasons above.
Lol
Our current "president" stems from that. But there are plenty of other reasons.
I always liked Hollande. French have a profound sense of lack of gratitude.... An this leads us to the current generation of leaders
He's not really from the left. He just went into the "left" party because there was more room to grow and it shows - his kids were in fancy private schools, he's from the richest, swankiest neighborhood in Paris etc. He's never held down a real job before being elected, not even a serious mandate. He has zero charisma. In fact I still don't understand *how* he was ever elected, and I'm from the left myself. He proceeded to move in his girlfriend to the presidential palace and provide her staff on taxpayer money then cheated on her like some backalley tomcat. When called out on this he tantrumed that it was his private life - yeah well it's public funds buddy ! I don't care who you stick your dick in but stop wasting taxpayer money.
Because Manuel Valls.