The French presidential campaign of 2027 changed pace between 7 and 13 November. Teddy Ringer’s entry into the competition, the clarifications on a right and centre primary and the confrontation of public service projects added concrete choices to the alliance discussions. The surveys published this week shed light on these recompositions, but they do not measure all the same applications or the same subject matter.
The great oral speech of 12 November made the differences on the number of public employees particularly visible. On the left, job creation and remuneration are central. To the right and center, several candidates defend reductions, according to different mechanisms. This opposition, however, does not sum up all the programmes: school, Europe, taxation and institutions also separate candidates from one side.
This file deals with the verified developments from the week of November 7 to 13, 2026. Previous proposals recalled to include the discussion are dated as such. A declared candidacy, a hypothesis tested in a poll and legally validated participation in the ballot remain three different statutes.
Utilities: eight candidates, opposite paths
On November 12, Fabien Roussel, Bruno Retailleau, Marine Tondelier, Raphaël Glucksmann, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Gabriel Attal, Éric Zemmour and Édouard Philippe were asked successively about public services. This was not an adversarial debate involving the eight around the same table. Marine Le Pen and David Lisnard had declined the invitation.
Roussel defended 500,000 recruits over five years. Tondelier mentioned 250,000 to 350,000 posts. Retailleau proposed 400,000 non-replacements, of which 300,000 are associated with the expected gains in artificial intelligence. Zemmour has advanced 800,000 abolitions over five years, saving teachers, police, military and caregivers.
Glucksmann reaffirmed the upgrading of teachers, from 10% to 25% depending on the situation. Philippe defended the autonomy of schools. Retailleau proposed a sixth entry examination. These commitments therefore concern both the organization of missions and the number of staff. No announced productivity gains are, at this stage, a budgetary savings achieved.
Attal favours voluntary departures
On 12 November, Gabriel Attal stated that his target of 100,000 departures from the public service would be voluntary and allowance, rather than immediate and uniform abolition of posts. It presents this mechanism as an accompaniment for agents wishing to change career paths.
The difference is important in assessing the proposal: voluntary departure involves applicants for the scheme and initial funding. The number shown does not, therefore, alone indicate the amount of net savings. Compensation, possible replacements and the distribution of departures between trades would condition the result. The discussion on staffing does not exempt the consideration of retention of competencies in each department.
The question of wages goes beyond the countryside
In its report of a meeting with David Amiel on 10 November, the CGT Public Service called for an immediate increase of at least 10% in the index point, its indexation on inflation and a recast of the grids. She also called for the abolition of the waiting day and the full restoration of pay on regular sick leave.
The union found the government’s response inadequate and called for mobilization on 17 November. These are union demands, not an agreement with the government. Their proximity to certain campaign commitments does not automatically support a candidate. However, they explain why the debate on public services simultaneously concerns recruitment, the treatment of staff and the attractiveness of trades.
In the centre and right, a primary still to be built
Bruno Retailleau proposed the dates 31 January and 7 February 2027 for a primary, in a letter dated 10 November addressed to Gabriel Attal, Édouard Philippe and David Lisnard. A team meeting is announced for November 17. This timetable is a proposal for negotiation, not a procedure definitively adopted by all the trainings concerned.
Philip’s refusal to submit to this primary remains a major political obstacle. His entourage maintains an independent application strategy. The existence of exchanges between teams therefore does not mean withdrawal of candidates or agreement on a single offer.
The scope of the competition would be as decisive as its dates: who could vote, who could compete, what guarantees would be required and what commitment would bind the losers? Without common answers, primary education remains a project. The scores of separate candidates cannot be added up to announce in advance that of a possible winner.
Ringer enters the campaign, without a complete program comparable
Teddy Ringer announced his candidacy on November 9. This entry is a new political fact, distinct from the echo of networks or opinion surveys. It presents itself outside the traditional opposition between left and right. In his statement issued that day, he said, « I will do it with you and for you. »
Its first orientations include economic activity and pensions. On these, it emphasizes solidarity and penitibility, without excluding a place for capitalization. These indications are not yet fully detailed: contribution rules, transition between systems and financing cannot be deducted from a general formula.
A trip to the Delafontaine Hospital in Saint-Denis was announced on 13 November. This announcement is not presented here as proof of an actual visit. His presence at the Salon du Made in France, on 14 November at 2 p.m. Paris time, is also included in the announced calendar. A campaign agenda and its execution must remain distinguished.
Citizen reactions, without turning them into a poll
In a radio report broadcast on 9 November from Guadeloupe, at the time of the Route du Rhum, Jean-Gabriel welcomes this application: « I am for change. This testimony reflects the expectation of an interviewee interviewed on the spot, not a measure of Guadeloupéan or French opinion.
A qualitative summary published with the Odoxa survey also relays this critical comment: « A great athlete does not make a great president ». It comes from a selection of online reactions by Backbone, whose individual author is not identified in the synthesis. It illustrates an argument, not its frequency in the population. These two reactions reveal different expectations, political renewal on the one hand, experience required on the other, without allowing them to be given a statistical hierarchy.
LFI specifies the content of its offer
The new edition of Future in common, released on November 6, then carried in the campaign of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, serves as a programmatic reference. LFI announces 1,069 measures, including 238 new and 118 amended. These numbers describe the claimed architecture of the program; they do not themselves provide information on its cost or feasibility.
The income chapter proposes a net SMIC of €1,700, wage indexation on prices and a 10% increase in the index point. The tax reform includes fourteen income tax brackets, a wealth tax with a climate dimension and a 2% tax guarantee for assets over EUR 100 million.
The text also provides for the abolition of the flat-rate levy on capital income and an inheritance ceiling of EUR 12 million. It thus articulates an increase in labour income and a redistribution of wealth. This is a tax transformation programme, not measures that have entered into force.
On ecology, the program wants to include a rule limiting nature sampling to its regeneration capacity. It provides for business carbon planning, accounting and special attention to overseas energy and food autonomy. The question of implementation arises at several levels: national objectives, investments, obligations imposed on enterprises and the means of control authorities.
Ukraine: Finalization of the Unsolicited Candidate · Global Voices
On 9 November, LFI published a clarification following the controversy about Mélenchon’s comments in the Bourget. The movement affirms that any territorial transfer should be subject to the vote of the populations concerned. It defends a negotiated peace involving Europeans and recalls its reservations about sending long-range troops and missiles.
This declaration establishes the position claimed by LFI. It is neither a peace agreement nor an acceptance of this approach by Ukraine. The conditions for consultation in occupied territory and security guarantees are not governed solely by a voting principle. The controversy therefore revolves around the means of achieving peace, as well as the stated objective.
Glucksmann, Tondelier and Roussel: three distinct paths
Raphaël Glucksmann’s educational project is not an oral one. As early as August, he had submitted a five-year plan combining teachers’ salaries, lower enrolment per grade in primary school and renovation of buildings. His proposal to pay work better by taxing the largest legacies also belongs to this earlier offer, recalled here to situate the November interventions.
He also defended a ten-month compulsory civic service and a citizen’s convention on immigration, followed by a parliamentary debate. These mechanisms differ from both the migration restrictions put forward on the right and the institutional reforms carried out by LFI. A common theme, such as rising wages, does not mean the identity of means.
Marine Tondelier said on November 9: « I will not withdraw. » At the same time, it left open environmental participation in a coalition. The maintenance of an application and the availability for a collective agreement therefore do not necessarily describe two contradictory announcements: everything would depend on the framework and content of this agreement.
In a text signed the same day, it defends « a federation of states, decentralized and ecological ». It proposes to mobilise public procurement in favour of European production, with thresholds varying according to sector, and to finance the transition through European borrowing. Its vision also includes a reorientation of the European Central Bank’s agricultural policy and action. This is a project of European transformation, for which a French Presidency could not decide alone.
The PCF reaffirmed its line on 7 November. Its National Council recalls that Fabien Roussel was chosen on 6 September by 72% of the members consulted. He considers that a member supporting another candidacy is outside the party’s choice and cannot speak on his behalf. This declaration underlines the persistence of an autonomous communist offer; It does not allow for the creation of a list of individual exclusions.
RN prepares its funding, Reconquest outlines its priorities
On 10 November, RN treasurer Kevin Pfeffer announced a pre-agreement with two non-French European banks for a €10.6 million loan for the Marine Le Pen campaign. He awaits a final response before the end of the month and has not appointed the institutions. This pre-agreement does not mean that the funds were disbursed.
Eric Zemmour confirmed his candidacy on his campaign site and announced a launch meeting on 21 November in Toulon. Its priorities combine the cessation of legal and illegal immigration, the reservation of non-contributory benefits to the French and the abolition of state medical aid. These are proposals from Reconquest, not provisions of the law in force.
In particular, it offers an additional 100,000 prison places in 24 months. On revenues, it promises to abolish the CSG and reduce fuel taxes by 40 cents. The gains associated with these changes are campaign objectives: their funding and effects cannot be considered acquired.
Cluster17: four election offers, not four forecasts
The Cluster17 survey commissioned by Politico, referenced on 11 November, was conducted online on 9 and 10 November among 1,242 adults, including 1,164 registered. Sociodemographic quotas and political adjustments are applied. The weighted numbers of the four scenarios are 899, 888, 883 and 899.
In the first three hypotheses, Philippe, Attal or Christine Lagarde alternately occupy the central position. Marine Le Pen collects 30.5%, 31% and 30.5% respectively; Melenchon 20%, 20.5 % and 20.5 %. Philippe obtained 13.5%, Attal 11% and Lagarde 14%. David Lisnard is 10% in all three cases. Tester Lagarde is not worth an application.
With eighteen names simultaneously, Le Pen reached 27%, Mélenchon 19%, Philippe, Lagarde, Glucksmann and Lisnard 8% each; Riner and Attal 2% each. The package leaflet indicates approximately ±3 points around 30% and ±3.3 around 50%. Differences between scenarios are not chronological changes.
Toluna: a survey conducted before the candidacy Ringer
The Toluna Harris Interactive survey for M6 and RTL, published on 9 November, was conducted online from 3 to 5 November: 2,436 adults, including 2,101 registered, with quotas and sociodemographic and electoral adjustments. The terrain precedes Riner’s announcement.
In the scenario of Philippe, Villepin and Lisnard, Le Pen reached 34%, Mélenchon 19%, Philippe 12%, Glucksmann 11% and Lisnard 9%. The basis is 1,370 registered some to vote and expressing a choice. The other four assumptions have bases of 1,336 to 1,367; Pen collects 35% or 36%.
The three duels tested gave Le Pen 68% against Mélenchon, 60% against Glucksmann and 58% against Philippe, on a basis of 1,171, 1,237 and 1,211 respondents respectively. Abstention, white and zero are excluded. The margins reported were ±2.9 points in the first round and ±3.1 points in the second. These simulations neither prejudge the finalists nor the result.
Odoxa: 21% potential does not mean 21% of votes
On 12 November Odoxa published a survey of 1,005 adults for Backbone and Le Figaro. According to the notice filed, the land took place on 9 and 10 November, with quotas and adjustments on the votes of 2022. The method of collection is not specified in the leaflet consulted. The reported margins range from ±1.4 to ±3.1 points.
Ringer has 21% potential, of which 4% « certainly » and 17% « probably ». This question makes it possible to consider several personalities: it does not oblige to choose a single newsletter. The 4% is therefore neither an intention to vote competitively.
Another open question about the personality desired of the presidency gives in particular Le Pen 16%, Mélenchon 10% and Riner 4%. According to the synthesis, 46% do not cite any names. Spontaneous desire, potential and intention to vote must remain separate, even when an identical figure appears in two answers.
What the differences really mean
The first error would be to transform the 34% of Le Pen in Toluna and the 30.5% in Cluster17 into a decrease over a few days. The institutes, dates, proposed lists and treatment of participation differ. To study an evolution, a series built under comparable conditions must be given priority and its uncertainty must be taken into account.
Finally, an indicative margin does not cover all survey biases. The recruitment of respondents, the formulation and remembrance of previous votes also count. The small discrepancies do not allow for the certainty of close candidates, let alone predicting carry-overs after withdrawal.
The next announced deadlines
Teams supporting a discussion on primary education are scheduled to meet on November 17, while a public service engagement is also announced that day. The rules for a possible common selection and the responses to wage claims will therefore form two separate meetings, one election and the other social.
Riner’s announced move to the Made in France show on 14 November and Zemmour’s meeting on 21 November will have to be appreciated on the basis of their actual progress and proposals.
Comments