Bet noir: Macron’s electoral gamble backfires

The Economist. Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. I'm Jason Palmer.

And I'm Rosie Bloor. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

It's a mixed bag for freedoms in Thailand at the moment. It's the first country in the region that will legalize same-sex marriage, and neighbors will take note. At the same time, a reformist party that won an election last year is being systematically quashed.

And we've reached that agonizing point where penalty shootouts could decide who goes through to the next round of the Euros. How can players prepare for that moment when millions of people are watching and they have a split second to make a choice? First up, though. A new era has begun in France. Last night, Marine Le Pen's hard-right party took a massive lead in first-round voting for the lower house of parliament. Her National Rally party has never done so well before. Le Pen's protégé, the 28-year-old party leader Jordan Bardella, made it clear that he intended to become President Emmanuel Macron's prime minister. The time has come for leaders who understand you, who consider you, and who love you as much as France, he told supporters. In Paris, thousands protested against National Rally. But many of them were supporting not Macron's centrists, but a coalition on the left. And like the right, the left also made great gains in the first round. Macron called the snap election last month after his centrist alliance performed poorly in the vote for the European Parliament. He hoped that the poll would lead to a "moment of clarification" for France. The results of yesterday's vote were indeed clear. —a massive snub for the centre, and the very opposite of the mandate Macron had wanted.

Emmanuel Macron's gamble has backfired, and in quite spectacular fashion.

Sophie Pedder is The Economist Paris bureau chief.

There was a very big turnout for Marine Le Pen's hard-right party, the National Rally. Emmanuel Macron's centrist alliance came in third place. They did a little bit better than expected, but it was a crushing result for his centrist movement.

Spell out for me just how bad a night it was for Macron.

Well, if you take the first-place party, that's Marine Le Pen's National Rally. It's never come this close to forming a majority in Parliament. That's not done yet. There's a second round of voting on July 7th. But in the outgoing Parliament, she had 88 seats, and the projections suggest that she could get something around 230, maybe to 280 seats. But possibly even, according to some polls, the 289 she needs to form a majority. There was a very high turnout. Two-thirds of voters, registered voters, came and voted. You could see it in polling stations. I mean, amazing. Not quite queues around the block, but a lot of people waiting to cast their votes. And the idea that this was going to be a moment of clarity, as Macron put it, that people would show whether they really wanted the national rally or whether it was just a protest vote, has turned out to be a gamble that just has not paid off. And people really do seem to want this party to be in power.

Why do you think that the National Rally has become so popular with voters? In the past, it was always seen as a party of protest. Is it now seen as a party of government?

Well, I think that's the way you have to read these polls. This is a vote about who occupies seats in the National Assembly. It's not a vote about the European elections, which some people consider a sort of remote institution with no direct effect on their daily life. This is a vote about which government will take power and how their daily lives will be affected. So in the past, yes, I think the National Rally, and certainly its previous incarnation as the National Front under Marine Le Pen's father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was convicted for all sorts of moments of antisemitic and other racist comments, it's a party that has really cleaned up its image. You should see the people who sit in the National Assembly in the outgoing parliament for her. They're all in their suits and their ties. They're all well-behaved. She's made a big effort to try and clean the party up and then draw up policy. This is a party that's got policy on everything from you know, nuclear energy to the tax structure to foreign policy. So I think people see it now as a party almost like any other. That's what's really changed in France. And that's, I think, why, you know, there is obviously an unpopular president. This is partly a protest vote against him, against Emmanuel Macron's party. But it's also, I think, it's a vote in favor of a party that people seem to want to govern France.

Tell us what's happened on the left, because the left did well too.

The left's done very well. Yes, it's going to probably turn out to be the second biggest bloc in Parliament after second round voting on July 7th. It's made up of four parties. So it's got Jean-Luc Mélenchon's Insubmissive France, that's on the hard left. And then it's got communists, it's got socialists, it's got Greens. It's really a sort of hybrid group that reaches from moderate social democrats, not very far off the center of French politics, all the way out to sort of anti-capitalist and former Trotskyists on the left. So it's an unholy alliance where the constituent members don't really agree on very much. But they have managed to get together. They formed an electoral pact. They drew up a common manifesto, and they did very well by getting 28% of the national vote. But if you look at the map of France, they did particularly well in big cities, in the sort of multicultural suburbs. They're very popular among minority populations, partly because of their very clear support for the creation of a Palestinian state. So I think we are looking at that bloc becoming the second biggest bloc in parliament.

So we've got an unholy alliance and a former party of protest. Are those two going to dominate, do you think, in the runoff on July 7th, or what will happen next?

Well, the big question that's going to be on everyone's minds in the next 48 hours is who will actually, of the qualifying candidates— you had to get 12.5% of registered votes to go through to the runoff, but you're not obliged to go through. And what you're finding is who of those is behind the scenes means today and tomorrow you will have a lot of backroom discussions about which of those candidates who will actually go forward. And the logic is this: it's the idea that if you are a third-place candidate, let's say for Macron's party, and the second-place candidate is from the left-wing alliance, and the first-place candidate is from Marine Le Pen's party, do you pull out as Macron's candidate in third place and let the left-wing alliance go forward to take on the National Front as part of a tactical deal to keep her out. And that's what we're going to see. It's a very difficult decision for a lot of third-place candidates to make. In the way that Macron's party's officials have been putting it to me is that it depends on the constituency and it depends on who is that second-place candidate from the left-wing alliance. If it's a moderate, then it's a no-brainer and Macron's party will pull out. We've already seen a number of those doing that already. If it's someone from the hard left, it's a much more difficult choice. But then it becomes, you know, what version of the extreme do you prefer? There was a very strong message from the French Prime Minister last night, Gabriel Attal, which is, you know, we have to do everything to keep the National Rally out. If those deals go ahead, if you see a lot of third candidates withdrawing before the official deadline on Tuesday, July 2nd, then it could actually bring down the National Rally's final results at the second round vote.

And what would your prediction be? Do you think that the hard right could secure a majority in the second round?

I think we need to wait and see about the lineup, which we will know by late Tuesday evening. Once we've got that lineup, then it'll be possible to make that call. I don't think it's impossible for them to get a majority, and we've seen that in some of the poll projections. It doesn't look like the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario remains probably a hung parliament, so no majority for any single party, and then that really opens the door to a period of complete uncertainty, as the constitution requires the president to name a prime minister but doesn't say under which circumstances he should do this. So Macron will probably ask the first, the biggest party to, to form a— try to form a government. But that at the moment looks like the most likely scenario ahead of the second round voting.

And talking of complete uncertainty, what could happen to Macron now? Do you think there's any chance he'd stand down?

Well, he is a president until 2027 under the Constitution. That's when his term officially ends. He said very clearly that he is going to be president until the last, very last minute. So his public declarations make it clear that he is not contemplating doing that. But then, having said that, none of us expected him to dissolve the National Assembly. People around him were saying that the European result would have no implications for domestic politics, that this was not a moment that affected the national parliament. And yet Macron went ahead and dissolved Parliament and called that snap election. So I think one could never rule things out. But at the moment, the expectation is that he remains in office, even if the National Rally does gain a majority at the second round voting on July 7th.

Sophie, thank you so much for your time. I know it's been a long night. Thanks, Rose.

It's always good to talk to you.

Thailand will soon become the first Southeast Asian country to allow same-sex marriage. A broad marriage equality bill passed on June 18th. It comes at a time when other freedoms are being curbed, but Thais gathered to celebrate the gay rights victory.

Congratulations to all the love.

Love in all its forms means beauty and equality.

Congratulations! It was an incredibly happy scene.

There were some LGBT activists there who had spent, you know, years campaigning for this.

The Economist's Asia news editor Joshua Spencer was there.

There were gay couples who were looking forward to getting married. There were even TV stars there who had appeared in these boys' love Thailand TV dramas about gay romance. So it was a mix. People were posing for photos, they were dancing to music from a live band, and it was all happening on the Prime Minister's lawn, which was surrounded temporarily by a rainbow carpet. I'd like to earnestly congratulate all Thais. And also there were politicians there, including Varawut Silpakarcha, a Thai minister who spoke on stage. I'm saying this to the world: if you want to come to Southeast Asia, if you want to get married, please come to Thailand. Congratulations everyone. So it's hard to say whether this was something that people across Thailand were celebrating. Thailand is still quite a socially conservative country, but at least for the LGBT people that were at the celebration and across the country, and of course the activists who've been fighting for this for so many years, it was a huge win and an important day.

So that's it then, for Thailand anyway, it is law of the land?

Not quite yet, but pretty much there. So Parliament first passed the bill in March, and then on June 18th There was a really seismic vote in the Senate, which was what the celebration was for. Senate passed the bill, and now we're just waiting for the Thai king to endorse it. And 120 days after that, it will become law.

And what exactly does the law say? It says a lot, really.

It's actually a pretty comprehensive and quite a liberal bill, taking into context the rest of Asia. So in Thailand's civil code, marriage will soon be defined as something between two persons rather than between a man and a woman. But in addition to that, LGBT couples are also going to get inheritance and adoption rights, which are things that previously, you know, you'd only get if you were a straight married couple. So that's big news for gay couples across Thailand, but also I think across Asia, where activists and same-sex couples are going to be inspired by this bill. Because regionally, I think progress has been a bit mixed. It has seen some progress. We've seen obviously Thailand, we've seen Nepal and Taiwan legalizing same-sex marriage in recent years, but overall progress is kind of slow and uneven. And in In some cases, gay people still face a lot of discrimination.

Yet Thailand seems to have done this in a fairly comprehensive way. I mean, how? It's complex.

There's a lot of reasons, but I think a big one in Thailand is social acceptance. So if you look at polls, for instance, they put support for same-sex marriage at around 60%, which is one of the highest in Asia. And one reason for that might be social acceptance in general. I think that LGBT people quite commonly appear in Thai media. As I was speaking about earlier, there are these boys' love TV shows which are hugely popular across the internet and online. And you also have LGBT influencers that promote acceptance across the country. Another reason is religion. In Thailand, Buddhism is dominant, and there's nothing in Buddhism that's expressly against same-sex marriage. Whereas if you look at other countries in Asia, for example Indonesia, powerful Muslim groups there tend to oppose same-sex marriage, and that can slow down progress. And even in Singapore, which is where I live, conservative Christian groups help to sort of slow progress here.

So those are the social to even religious factors here, but still ultimately it was a political move. Absolutely, Jason.

I mean, none of this could have happened without political will. Previous governments had considered legalizing civil partnerships, which obviously provide less rights to the couples than marriage, but this bill is pretty comprehensive and it had pretty much bipartisan support across Thailand, which is pretty remarkable when you consider that nearly all the MPs in the parliament and most of the senators voted for it. It really became a campaign point at last year's general election. Both the ruling Pheu Thai party and also the Move Forward party, which is a big opposition party, helped to push the bill forward and campaign for it. So in many ways, June 18th was a great day for politicians in Thailand as well as same-sex couples. However, on the same day, Move Forward faced some other challenges. Go on. The Constitutional Court in Bangkok said it would consider a case to disband the Move Forward party over its campaign to reform Thailand's lese-majeste laws, which forbid criticism of the royals. And actually, I was speaking to one of Move Forward's most important MPs when this same-sex marriage vote went through the house, Peter Limjarinrat. He's a former leader of the party and he's now advisory chairman for the Move Forward party, and he told me what he made of the moment.

And to celebrate, but it doesn't speak only about gender rights but also a lot of things about the country, especially politics of possibility. So time to unite, not divide. We over me.

So same-sex marriage is one of many reforms that the Move Forward Party has pushed for and were a big part of its election campaign. The Move Forward Party submitted this same-sex marriage bill to Parliament in 2020 first. So in some ways, the bill's passage is a good day for the party, but this constitutional court case is also a threat to its future and its existence. So democratic representation generally in Thailand is also facing challenges, even on a day when social liberals in Thailand and gay couples across Asia are celebrating.

Josh, thanks very much for your time. Thank you very much, Jason.

The European Football Championship has reached the knockout stage. On Saturday, hosts Germany beat Denmark to reach the quarterfinals and Switzerland did the same to Italy. Yesterday, Spain easily overcame Georgia, but it took a dramatic last-minute equaliser from England to take them into extra time against Slovakia.

Helped on, and it's in! Jude Bellingham!

Salvation! During which they scored the winning goal.

Goes from Esser and deflected back in to Kane!

Now hear the Lions roar! First the Boy Wonder, Ah!

Now it's Kane and Captain. That meant the team avoided the dreaded penalty shootout. Dreaded by players, coaches, and supporters because they're agonisingly tense and the outcome is often seen as one of luck. Teams wanting to get an edge, though, might be interested in some new technology.

I think anyone who's seen one will know that penalty shootouts are a pretty brutal, if effective, way to determine the winner of a football match.

David Adam writes about science and technology for The Economist.

They're pretty common. They determine about a fifth of the knockout games in both the World Cup and the European Championships. But despite that, players, pundits, and coaches disagree on the benefits of practicing penalties. Now, scientists have got a new augmented reality technology, and it does seem to show that penalty success rate can be improved.

Before we get onto the technology, I'm really surprised to hear that there's any debate about the value of practising penalties, given how important they are. Surely, practice is the right thing to do.

Well, it comes down to the very particular conditions that a penalty shootout takes place within. These are players that have already played, usually, an hour and a half, and then another half an hour of extra time. They're exhausted, and there's huge pressure, because for a team game, suddenly, it all comes down to individuals. They have to walk from the halfway line. Penalty takers in the past have described it as stepping into a void, and they know that millions and millions of people are watching them. The pressure can make even the best players hit dreadful penalties. And this is why a lot of people who have played football are so adamant that you cannot recreate that pressure. But the scientists at Freiburg University in Switzerland who developed this technology, their argument is that you can improve technique They haven't tested this in a full-on penalty shootout, but they have tested it with international-level youth players, so seriously good footballers, and they have managed to improve the technique of these players and therefore their success rate.

So obviously they can't recreate this horrific experience of stepping into the void, as you put it, but how are they then increasing the success rate of penalties? So, they focus on a particular type of penalty.

It's actually the most common strategy. About 3/4 of penalty takers wait for the goalkeeper to move, and then try to kick it into the empty part of the goal. They went to Swiss Super League teams, FC Basel and FC Luzern, in Switzerland, and they worked with the under-18 squads to take penalties in a real goal, with a real ball, but with no real goalkeeper. They had a headset on, and that essentially projected the image of a goalkeeper. Scientists engineered the test to indicate one side of the goal that the players were supposed to kick the ball into. And in most of the cases, the goalkeeper dived in the opposite direction. But in some cases, the goalkeeper dived in the same direction. You have to then try and change your strategy, and you kick it in the other corner. The footballers have about half a second to process this information, to stop doing that and do something else instead. And they found that after 10 sessions of 20 kicks each, the players could react more quickly. They bought themselves about 100 milliseconds extra time, which is over a quarter faster than they were doing before. And this increased their chances of scoring the penalty. The scientists had to estimate how the changing technique would've resulted in goals they would've scored in a real penalty shootout. And their estimate was about a third more goals.

And do we know that this is definitely increasing their reaction time and not just their psychological preparedness to deal with the situation and not be, I guess, terrified by the void, terrified by the situation that they're facing? I don't think they know for sure.

I think that it's quite difficult to distinguish, but I do think there's almost certainly a degree of mental preparedness in taking a penalty. And I think that practicing and getting better at something, you would think, has to make you more resilient and more able to be prepared, maybe even subconsciously.

So even if there is a bit of mental preparedness as well as better reaction times, why do you need augmented reality? Why can't you use a real goalkeeper?

I think the benefits of using this system are that if you want to check how much better people got, you know that the goalkeeper reacted in the same way each time for each player. So the results are more reliable and easier to compare. And also, as far as the coaches are concerned, each player here took 10 penalties. If you have a squad of 20 players, that's 200 penalties that you're asking a real goalkeeper to dive onto the ground. You could get injuries, they could get tired. They frankly could be doing something a lot more useful, practicing saving the ball rather than in many cases just diving out of the way of it.

And a final question for you. You were talking about nerves. Is any of this gonna make it any less nerve-wracking to watch the horror of penalty shootouts?

I think a headset, a bit like a blindfold, might do that.

David, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. You can get in touch at podcast@economist.com. We'll see you back here tomorrow.