Debate on the Great Debate

[sen-no-sen]

So I'm coming back to my hobby the problem is politics or the French?

The problem is the politicians AND the French.
The leaders do not understand much that they are committed to their ideologies of growth, and the popular masses meanwhile hardly understand the situation stuck in their daily problems.

[Grelinette]

If there is a positive thing with GJ is that more people will move their ass to live democracy: discuss daily problems with the Mayor, participate in public meetings, vote, submit candidates with or without election tags, escalate transportation issues to the department, region, etc., etc.

But not only ...

I watch some debates between GJ and pro / anti GJ, citizens, elected officials or politicians, with great interest, which I did not do before. I also watched the debate on C8 led by Schiappa-Hanouna which I often found very interesting on the merits, with speakers who presented very interesting facts too.

On the one hand, I note that certain speakers have very judicious remarks and underline very surprising situations (I think in particular of this entrepreneur, owner of restaurants, and this young lawyer). I learn a lot more each time about the functioning and certain cogs (some opaque) of our society and its economy.

On the other hand, I also note that the floor is now given to speakers of all social levels (and who have not been previously selected), even if, it is another observation, dialectic and rhetoric are Arts of Speech that are not mastered by all. (As such our President Macron seems to be an expert on the subject!).

It is also interesting to note that some GJs have atypical and unconventional profiles: it is very new that a citizen who paid the ISF says: "I actually pay a lot less tax now, but I did not need this money which could have benefited those who really need it, or for public services".

Some CSP ++ therefore realize that social and societal inequalities are harmful for all.

There remains the GAFAM, multinationals, financial lobby and other billionaires (and politicians *) who are still untouchable in their ivory tower, but their case is now put on the table and at the center of the debates ... That's already it!
(* the case Mr Cahuzac was mentioned: by the principle of suitable sentences, he went through justice without too much consequence for him ...).

In short, the YG movement will also have the effect of making citizens more interested in the politics and economy of their country. We will see if this renewed interest translates into more participation in the next elections.

As to whether the proposals that emanate from this Great National Debate will be followed up, that is another question ...

[Petrus]

The big debate is kidding!
Personally I have no illusions, we have to do with a government that rejects all proposals not emanating from the presidential party, so believe that they will listen to beggars who are not even part of their caste, do not dream !

The main measures which will be taken at the end of this "great debate" have certainly already been decided a long time ago (as for the increase in the activity bonus), will obviously be of liberal inspiration and therefore in the long term harmful for yellow vests.

I expect social contributions to drop, with obviously a reduction in the rights and services associated with them. A drop in unemployment insurance seems to me quite indicated, given the emerging crisis which will greatly increase the number of unemployed (even without a crisis, automation will take care of it) lowering the cost of unemployment insurance is a priority for the government.

After, there will surely also be social-looking but painless measuring spoons for the system (and therefore ineffective), there we can imagine that some of these measuring spoons come from the great debate, but I expect nothing more.

[ENERC]

The big debate is kidding!

I agree, the 4 questionnaires are boats. it's more like an opinion poll than a real reflection tool on what should be done.
Basically, the GJ movement is a problem of land use planning: more work in the countryside -> people go to town -> the cost of housing increases -> people go back to the countryside to work far away in the city.
There is, however, a simple solution: put the job back in the country.

Every day, out of the 500 people crowded into public transport to reach an office in an openspace with a view of the pollution screed in a tower in defense, how many think of going to work in a technopole with a view of greenery? Having a crèche or school near work?
They are very numerous. The downside is that for a family to move you need several types of jobs. This is why an industrial zone alone does not work. Ditto for a technopole alone.

Lots of people around me want to "go to the country", but don't because changing two jobs at the same time is not easy.
This is why it is necessary to organize local, inter-municipal employment zones that cover as many types of jobs as possible.

Just an example of what it could be:
- design offices: thermal balance, architects, ENRs,
- startups in new technologies,
- an organic cooperative
- a cake factory with local fruit
- a factory for making clay / straw bricks
- etc

For that, you have to think about regional planning in the 21st century and really integrate the ecological transition. This is not the direction in which the great debate is going for the moment.
As long as we stay in the logic of tax, tax, deficit, public spending we do not move forward.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

It is also interesting to note that some GJs have atypical and unconventional profiles: it is very new that a citizen who paid the ISF says: "I actually pay a lot less tax now, but I did not need this money which could have benefited those who really need it, or for public services".

Some CSP ++ therefore realize that social and societal inequalities are harmful for all.

There remains the GAFAM, multinationals, financial lobby and other billionaires (and politicians *) who are still untouchable in their ivory tower, but their case is now put on the table and at the center of the debates ... That's already it!
(* the case Mr Cahuzac was mentioned: by the principle of suitable sentences, he went through justice without too much consequence for him ...).

In short, the YG movement will also have the effect of making citizens more interested in the politics and economy of their country. We will see if this renewed interest translates into more participation in the next elections.

The voilou, I hold it ... It is him that I also heard on France Inter ... very interesting indeed.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Good after complaint my question ended up being put online ...

FYI I only filled in the comments box.

I am very surprised at the little involvement of elected officials: 276 proposals out of 32000

[izentrop]

I attended one of the last great public debates, it was in the next village.
The presenter was a volunteer who had volunteered with local MP LREM, who organized the local debates.
It was in the village hall with PA and wireless microphones. No theme imposed, free speech but each in turn.

There were not many of us, about fifty with a majority of mayors, teachers, people from the public services, a few farmers, pensioners, but not sure that we heard a GJ, but they are mostly silent.
It started with a guy who wanted Monsanto and glyphosate. I was afraid that we would leave in a sterile debate, but no, after 2 hours, many interesting themes were discussed. There was even a farmer who said that he preferred to drink a glass of glyphosate than a glass of Bordeaux mixture.
Of course, it was mainly the people used to speaking in public who spoke and spoke again, but it went well without a rat race.
It turns out that people in public services can no longer cope with the non-replacement of retirements and the overload of files. Services that only go online and leave a lot of people on the floor. there are also pensioners who complained and also some young people who spoke. entrepreneurs to be overtaxed
Several times I heard that there was money and that it was necessary to go to seek it from the rich.

At the end, a lady from the city said quite rightly that it was businesses: the wealth of the country; at the same time, we find that more and more of them are closed and not small ones. I wanted to say: "the problem is that they depend on oil to be competitive and that climatologists ask us to do without it so as not to make the earth unlivable in two decades." But hey, by the time I think about it, the debate was over and they would have looked at me with big eyes.
The theme of RC has not been addressed, I have the impression that it is the last concern in the countryside.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Interesting to have feedback

I would have commented on your post yesterday I would have said the same thing.

Now the hard part begins for the initiator of the debate: to prove his good faith by acts and laws.

Few people believe it.

I don't know, I will judge on parts.

To be continued.

[Gaston]

Now the hard part begins for the initiator of the debate: to prove his good faith by acts and laws.

Few people believe it.

Even with the best will in the world, as soon as we are going to make a summary which will retain less than 10 points out of the thousands mentioned, 90% of the participants will say "Hey, but we did not remember what I have said"
And probably also "But, what was retained was not said in month meetings ".

From there, we will conclude "it's a scam, the proposals were written from the start".

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Now the hard part begins for the initiator of the debate: to prove his good faith by acts and laws.

Few people believe it.

Even with the best will in the world, as soon as we are going to make a summary which will retain less than 10 points out of the thousands mentioned, 90% of the participants will say "Hey, but we did not remember what I have said"
And probably also "But, what was retained was not said in month meetings ".

From there, we will conclude "it's a scam, the proposals were written from the start".

Faith again, I do not know.

Everything will depend on the proposals.

If it is like in the debates: "you are right but that does not prevent that I am not going to change a comma" it is sure that is likely to heat up.

To see, to follow, for them to play.

I do not know the calendar elsewhere: answers and proposals before the European results or after?