FRENCH NEWS - in English of course. Politics, sports, reviews, travel, a slice of life in France and stories you might not necessarily be able to find elsewhere on the Net.
You know the expression about "too many cooks spoiling the broth" don't you?
The idea that there are too many people trying to take charge and the likely outcome is...well programmed chaos.
Sadly it's a proverb the opposition centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) seems to have forgotten in its efforts to put the debacle that was the leadership contest behind it and start afresh - daggered hand-in-hand
A truce - of sorts - between François Fillon and Jean-François Copé, the two main protagonists in the story that "gripped a nation" has been reached.
Fillon has disbanded his breakaway R-UMP (much to the annoyance probably of political journalists who could have continued to have had a field day with the acronym) a timetable has been agreed for new elections and Copé has happily installed himself as president.
There again, once Copé had declared himself the "winner" there was never going to be any going back.
And just to ensure parity between the two previously warring factions, all the leading posts - well nearly all of them - have been shared or rather doubled to ensure that supporters of both men are given a fair say in what happens next.
The result?
The party is awash with vice presidents.
Just take a look at the organisational chart - or organigramme in French - released by the party this week and the number of vice presidents needed to run the political machine that is the UMP.
It's not often we hear anyone admit they made a mistake, is it? And similarly it's probably just as seldom any of us own up to being in the wrong or having failed.
Admitting to either is...well, just not "cool" is it?
More than that it's downright embarrassing and defines us as ........GASP.....losers.
Everyday life usually teaches us to cover up our errors in so far as we can.
On the Net - well there's the security of hiding behind the anonymity of the keyboard which encourages far too many of us to say things we (hopefully) ordinarily wouldn't say face-to-face, refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe sometimes we might be wrong, let alone apologise.
In politics - forget it. "Attack really is the best means of defence". And even if they know their policies are going belly up, or they've failed to carry out electoral promises, politicians simply change their tune reinventing the "truth" to fit the circumstances.
All right so occasionally there's a "mea culpa" such as former French president Nicolas Sarkozy at the beginning of his failed re-election campaign (says it all, doesn't it) or more recently the UK's deputy prime minister (what's that?) Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg "apologising" ad nauseam at the party's conference.
But they're the exceptions rather than the rule.
And in business of course it's the complete antithesis of a company's raison d'être - to be successful.
But here's something of a (not-so) novel idea. We can all learn from our mistakes.
That's the premise behind a one-day conference being held in Paris on Tuesday,
All right so the symposium is aimed at what the organisers Failcon, say are "technology entrepreneurs, investors, developers and designers" and is supposed to encourage participants to "stop being afraid of failure and start embracing it."
That's surely more than spurious self-motivational claptrap and something from which we could all benefit by applying it what ever we do in all aspects of our lives.
So go on - admit your mistakes, own up to having failed, or apologise for being at fault...unless of course - like me - you're perfect.
Yes, just when you perhaps thought you could forget the man who safely guided the Socialist party from government to more than a decade in the wilderness following his humiliating 2002 first-round defeat in the presidential elections, he's back.
Actually Jospin is back, back, because although he announced his "retirement" (never take a politician literally - huh) shortly after his failure to make it through to the second round in 2002, a couple of years later he let it be known that he was "available" should the Socialists decide they wanted him as a candidate for the 2007 presidential election.
The party didn't.
He withdrew his candidacy in the primaries and threw his full weight behind the official contender, Ségolène Royal, happily joining the other disgruntled elephants in the not-so-subtle "Tout sauf Ségolène" campaign.
Anyway water under the proverbial, and if you want a full recap of Jospin's long political career and his time as prime minister (under Jacques Chirac) you can of course begin with that most trustworthy of online resources Wikipedia.
Back to the present and Jospin's latest reincarnation.
The 75-year-old has been appointed to head a commission with the snappy title of "The renovation of public life."
"A political morality commission" (an oxymoron?) with a mission - to boldy go...er sorry wrong gig... "to reflect on how to go about abolishing multiple political mandates and the immunity of the president to prosecution while in office."
Now why exactly a commission is needed for something which, when it comes to the abolition of multiple political mandates, was a) an electoral promise and b) would seem downright logical to anyone looking in from the outside, might escape you.
But a commission is there is to spend time (and money) "reflecting" on how best to go about things.
And let's face it, there'll probably be pretty strong opposition from many parliamentarians who insist that the time-(dis)honoured tradition of multiple mandates is one that should be upheld because it allows politicians to serve simultaneously at a national and regional level and thereby gives them roots in, and a better understanding of, what's happening in their local community and...more money.
Don't question the weird and wonderful ways of the French political system in which any recommendations that might be made could be equally ignored and besides the "morality commission" will also be considering such worthy subjects as, "guidelines for the behaviour of elected representatives in public life, campaign spending and financing and the possible introduction of limited proportional representation."
Groan.
Jospin will be heading a 14-strong team which includes the other half of that promised double act.
Applause please for Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin, the croc-wearing,opera-singing, gay-friendlyclose ally of former prime minister François Fillon and herself a minister under Jacques Chirac (environment) and Nicolas Sarkozy (health and sport).
Bachelot is a recent retiree from political life having decided not to contest the seat she held in the last parliamentary elections.
But she too has "received the call" to join the cross-party commission and is suitably surprised and honoured to be asked to be a member,"(blah, blah, blah) maintaining that she will always be "a woman of the centre-right."
So there you have it.
Jospin and Bachelot "do" morality.
Sounds like a match made in heaven, doesn't it?
A possible double ticket for 2017 when Hollande's mandate will be coming to an end?
Let's see Jospin would be just a couple of months short of his 80th birthday and Bachelot would be 70.
The headlines in France on Monday said it all, didn't they?
The Socialist party had won a healthy majority in the parliamentary elections and are now in a position to go it alone without the "help" of Europe Écologie - Les Verts (EELV) - let's just call them the Greens (not the cabbage variety) for simplicity - or the Front de Gauche coalition of far-left parties.
Some of those long-awaited and potentially far-reaching social policies can now be introduced although the jury is most definitely out on the capacity of this (or any) government to be able to deal with the Eurozone problems, France's debt and commitment to balancing the books.
Don't be surprised to discover the government forced to introduce spending cuts and tax increases along the lines of those centrist François Bayrou outlined in his presidential campaign but nobody else really wanted to discuss because apparently the French didn't want to hear about them.
The weekend's results were a resounding "yes" to what the Socialist party has to offer and a "strong vote of confidence in the new president," as far as finance minister Pierre Moscovici was concerned.
Really?
A "strong vote of confidence" and a resounding "yes" when only 55.41 per cent of those registered to vote in the second round actually bothered to do so.
Yep, once again the abstention rate - logically, if you do the maths - 44.59 per cent was surely a major player in the outcome.
The only "resounding" feature of the result was that a majority government was elected by a minority of the French.
(If you want to do the number crunching, take a look at the interior ministry's official figures for both rounds of voting.)
And therein lies part of the problem; the two-round run-off voting system in France which has meant that most voters have been asked to make their way to the polling stations four times in the past couple of months.
They turned out in force for the two rounds of the presidential elections in April/May (79.48 and 80.35 respectively) so there's surely not argument about the French not being interested in politics or the future of their country.
But the number of times they've been called to the ballot boxes recently must have led to a certain feeling voter fatigue.
That combined with the perception maybe that the parliamentary elections were a "done deal" with the Socialist party virtually guaranteed to have some sort of majority, probably put many off voting even if they had felt so inclined.
And not forgetting that the two-round system of voting will have meant for many that they were left with an option for plumping for one of two (sometimes three) candidates who were - well quite frankly - not of their choosing.
But help is at hand in a manner of speaking.
The government (although undoubtedly happy with a healthy majority) realises there's a problem and is apparently ready to consider revamping the electoral calendar (and there's even talk - heaven forbid - of re-introducing proportional representation).
The prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, has said that shortening the time between the presidential and parliamentary elections could be one solution and there's even the possibility of holding them both on the same day.
"We'll give ourselves the time necessary to think about it," he said on national radio at the weekend. "The next (presidential and parliamentary) elections aren't until 2017.
In the meantime of course the French will still be asked to trot down to the polling stations in the country's seemingly never-ending cycle of elections, although they'll be given some respite for at least a couple of years.
And then it'll be all systems go.
The regional and cantonal elections have been combined to become l'élection des conseillers territoriaux and are scheduled for the same year as the municipal elections - 2014.
And later the same year there'll be elections to the European parliament.
Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (often referred to in the French media as NKM), the former minister of ecology and spokesperson for Nicolas Sarkozy during his presidential election campaign, was the guest on Jean-Jacques Bourdin's programme on RMC radio BFM-TV on Wednesday morning.
It's a daily programme in which Bourdin poses questions to his guests (usually, but not always politicians) on their views of some of the stories making the headlines.
Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet and Jean-Jacques Bourdin
(BFM TV screenshot)
No prizes for guessing how he began the interview with NKM: that infamous Valérie Trieweiler Tweet which seems to have overshadowed any real news stories that might have been around over the past couple of days.
NKM began her reply by saying that mixing private and political matters was never a good idea.
She expanded on her reasoning for a couple of minutes adding that, although a very public figure, she had kept her husband and children out of the usual media glare, refusing requests from glossy magazines (Paris Match) for photo shoots and keeping her private life exactly that.
While admitting that some politicians thrived on the sort of exposure they received and journalists often chased those sorts of stories, NKM said it was a mistake..
She cited an opponent in the constituency she's contesting in Sunday's parliamentary elections, mentioning that he had talked about her family.
And that's where the interview became tricky and decidedly uncomfortable- for Bourdin, NKM and anyone watching.
"You mean your brother's suicide?" Bourdin asked, forcing NKM to respond to something she has not spoken about publicly; the death of her younger brother, Etienne, in May after he took an overdose.
Clearly shocked, NKM hesitated a moment before replying, criticising Bourdin for having asked the question in such an abrupt manner.
"I am a public figure and I have another brother (Pierre Kosciusko-Morizet, one of the founders of the online electronic commerce website PriceMinister.com) who is a public figure," she said.
"But that's not the case for everyone in the family and most definitely not my brother who died," she continued.
"I was shocked when I saw that one of my opponents had posted the information of my brother's suicide on his blog. I found it outrageous for my brother and for my mother."
The real issue though surely has to be whether Bourdin was right to ask such a personal question not just in the manner in which he did, but also in a way which required NKM to reply.
Aren't there or shouldn't there be limits?
NKM could hardly have sat there and said nothing, could she?
Does anyone remember François Hollande saying in an interview with Le Journal du Dimanche during the presidential election campaign that he would "undertake not to have anyone around him either at the Élysée or in government who had been accused and/or found guilty by a court"?
His statement suggested he wanted a "clean" government; one beyond reproach and whose ministers would set a moral example to the rest of the country.
Hey, once the government had been named, Hollande even made them all sign a charter of ethics or code of conduct which, although it didn't explicity make reference to past "misdemeanours", stressed the importance of transparency and "good behaviour".
Among the pledges each minister made were that there would be no conflict of interests, no accepting private presents or invitations that could be called into question, the respect of collective responsibility for decisions taken by the government, to give up any other local or regional political offices they might hold.
And on the more "normal" level they were obliged to travel by train rather than 'plane whenever possible and ensure that they respected the rules of the road when driving or being driven.
Wonderful stuff, isn't it?
But back to that initial undertaking - the one to be surrounded by those with an unblemished past - legally speaking.
How's he doing?
Well for starters there's the prime minister Jean-Marc Ayrault who, back in 1997 when he was mayor of Nantes was handed down "a suspended prison sentence for favouritism in the allocation of a city hall contract".
Then there's the foreign minister Laurent Fabius who was tried but acquitted of manslaughter in 1999 in the tainted blood scandal which took place when he was prime minister in the 1980s.
Let's not forget Christine Taubira, the newly-installed justice minister who back in 2004 was found guilty by an industrial tribunal in an unfair dismissal case brought against her by a former parliamentary assistant.
And bringing us bang up to date of course is the case of Arnaud Montebourg the minister of industrial renewal who has been found guilty this week of publicly insulting the management of the ferry company SeaFrance last year.
All right, they can all be "explained" - they have - and justification made to show that in each case the minister has been "legally rehabilitated" (what?) or the case brought against them didn't have an impact on their "personal integrity".
But - phew.
Barely two weeks into a new government.
What the heck was that campaign pledge all about?
Hot air, it would seem.
And the charter of ethics? Well let's see just how many exceptions are made to that as the days, weeks, months, years roll by.
"Normal" - it's a word that was heard a lot during the run-up to this year's presidential elections in France: François Hollande's proclaimed desire to be a "normal" president or at least introduce an air of "normalcy" into the role.
Fine perhaps as a campaign slogan, but now he's in office is it a realistic possibility?
Come to that, what the heck is "normal"? Is it even possible for the president of any country - let alone France - to be regarded as such? And is it really something to which a political leader should aspire?
Take a look at the non-exhaustive list of synonyms for "normal"; ordinary, average, typical, run-of-the-mill, middle-of-the-road, conventional, mainstream, unremarkable, unexceptional...the list goes on.
Yep, that's exactly what the French and the rest of the world needs. Blandness personified.
Of course Hollande probably means being in touch with the folk, a man of the people, uniting the French and not alienating them, behaving decently, breaking with the excesses and extravagences often associated with the office of president - in fact anything and everything his predecessor wasn't in terms of actions and comportment.
That has to be a good thing. It's honorable and admirable.
But he's the president now, and there's nothing "normal" about the office. It's one the French have traditionally regarded with a certain reverence and his role is perhaps that of a democratically-elected monarch with real political power.
He meets other world leaders, takes decisions that will effect our lives, sets the political agenda for the country,...heck he's the flippin' leader.
Sure, it was endearing to see him getting drenched in the ceremonies immediately following his investiture as he brought a certain dignity to the proceedings, and that photo' on the cover of this week's edition of Le Point raises a smile.
He's human in the way the rest of us are.
But come on François, enough already with the "normal". Stop trying to pull the proverbial wool over our eyes and assume what it is you have become - M. le Président.
Did you spend it as reportedly more than 17 million others did in France, in front of the box watching Le Débat, the long-awaited televised duel between François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy four days before the country goes to the polls?
Well did you?
And what about those loo breaks - did you manage them? Because there were no commercials and the two kept going and going and going for almost three hours.
If you did manage to stick with it, the chances are that you'll have found something to confirm your opinions on both candidates - be that positive or negative - and their relative claims to be the country's choice when the French vote on Sunday.
It probably also depends on where you stand - politically speaking.
But surely everyone must be agreed on one thing.
What the heck happened to the two journalists who were supposedly moderating the debate?
Laurence Ferrari, TF1's nightly news anchor, and her counterpart from France 2, David Pujadas, were there.
You could see them on the screen and occasionally hear them try to get the two "political pugilists" either side of them back on the agreed track in terms of subjects to be discussed.
Somehow though they just seemed to get lost in the crossfire; a fact that didn't go unnoticed by political commentators and viewers alike.
The magical kingdom of the Net of course provided a playground for those not only wishing to parody what Hollande and Sarkozy had to say but also what Ferrari and Pujadas didn't manage to do.
There's a great selection of them on Tumblr for you to peruse at your leisure - it's worth looking through and will certainly raise a smile or two.
But perhaps the best was the one depicting Ferrari and Pujadas as the subjects of an Alerte enlèvement or Amber Alert with the cruelly accurate, "We're currently looking for two journalists who should be chairing the debate between Sarkozy and Hollande. One is wearing a wig and the other makes eyes at Sarkozy. The last time they were seen was playing Scrabble on
TV."
Well it is thanks to the trusty Le Petit Journal on Canal + which, rather tongue-in-cheek, helpfully reproduced in the studio exactly how the figure could have been reached.
Because given the space available and the number of people claimed, it would have allowed just one square metre of space for every nine people.
Entirely feasible?
Well not quite given the demonstration on Le Petit Journal which showed just how impossible it would have been for that many people to have stood still in such cramped conditions let alone wave flags and applaud as could be seen on television footage of the event.
Oh well, what's the odd 100,000 plus between friends.
It was possibly only a slight exaggeration and an event, after all.
Something, which along with hyperbole, seems to have become a trademark of the 2012 French presidential election campaign.
There might well be something to the claims made by former International Monetary Fund boss Dominique Strauss-Kahn that political opponents' handling of the events after his infamous sexual encounter with a maid in a New York hotel in May 2011 amounted to an "orchestration".
DSK arrest in New York (screenshot BFM TV)
After all, it's not the first time such allegations have been made.
But one sentence in a piece by Edward Jay Epstein in Friday's edition of the UK daily national The Guardian surely makes a complete mockery of any arguments there might be to back up that theory and any support he might still have.
"Perhaps I was politically naive but I simply did not believe that they would go that far … I didn't think they could find anything that could stop me," he says.
Politically naive?
Strauss-Kahn might be many things, but surely "politically naive" isn't one of them.
From a man who had a long career in French politics and served as both a member of the National Assembly and two years as finance minister, ran (unsuccessfully) for the 2007 Socialist party presidential nomination and was later appointed head of the IMF after being nominated by Nicolas Sarkozy.
He's having us on right?
When will the media stop running profiles and interviews with a man who was a total disgrace and embarrassment to France and its political system?
It seems to be catching: the problem French some television journalists have with the names of the two candidates in the second round of the presidential elections.
On Monday Ariane Massenet successfully managed to muddle and combine Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande into a not-so-inappropriate compound perhaps of "François Sarkozy".
Appearing on Le Grand Journal on Canal +, Massenet managed the composite presidential candidate not once, but twice.
And a couple of days later it was the turn of BFM TV anchor Mathieu Coache to add another dimension to the naming of the candidates.
It came during an afternoon bulletin on the all-news channel as Coache and co-anchor Florence Duprat rounded up the day's campaign trail agenda for the two candidates.
Sarkozy was in the eastern French town of Cernay "exalting the values of France" in the region of Alsace in which, although he had finished top of the pile in the first round just as he had done five years ago, also witnessed a drop in his support (32.92 per cent in 2012 compared with 36.19 per cent in 2007- and massive gains for Marine Le Pen (22.12 per cent in 2012 and 13.56 per cent in 2007).
He might apparently be ruling out any deal with the far-right Front National, but you can probably draw your own conclusions as to what he's up to by insisting that those who voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round "should not be demonised."
Meanwhile Hollande, was taking journalists' questions at a news conference in Paris.
And it was after a clip showing the Socialist party's candidate in action that Coache almost came a cropper with a slip of the tongue that might just have revealed how he thinks the second round is likely to turn out.
"Pendant cette conférence de presse, François Hollande a une nouvelle fois attaqué sans jamais le nommer Nicolas 'sortant'...'Nicolas sortant'- Nicolas Sarkozy - pardon."
Was it just a simple "lapsus linguae" on Coache's part or a matter of wishful thinking combined with presentiment?
Thankfully Duprat was on hand to clarify (as if it were needed) that her colleague had in fact meant to say "candidate sortant".
"Francois Sarkozy" and "Nicolas Sortant".
Of course Massenet might have been thinking of Sarkozy's younger brother who in indeed called François.
But who is Nicolas Sortant?
Are French TV journalists trying to tell the voters something?
How could anyone imagine for one moment that the French would feel that way about opinion polls?
After all in the run-up to the first round in this year's presidential elections there were only 375 according to the Commission des sondages, the regulatory body which, as its name suggests, oversees opinion polls.
One of many, many opinion polls (screenshot BFM TV)
That figure is a record (surprise, surprise) far outstripping the total number in both rounds during recent presidential elections; 293 in 2007, 193 in 2002 and 111 in 1981.
And the commission sure has its work cut out with newspapers, television and radio constantly turning to the likes of BVA, CSA, Harris, Ifop, Ipsos, Opinion Way and TNS-sofres to question French voting intentions.
In a world that's far from being perfect those conducting opinion polls seem to be...well even less perfect.
Oh yes they might be congratulating themselves at the moment on getting it "almost right" but several of them underestimated by a couple of percentage points the support for the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen and others overestimated for the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
The numbers aren't so dramatic according to pollsters who always give themselves that all so important "margin of error" but that doesn't stop the French from being fed up with the frequency of published polls and the perceived impact they have on voting intentions.
That's according to - of all things of course - a poll.
You just can't get away from them can you?
Even though talking to anyone on the street in France would probably give you much the same result, that would only be anecdotal of course and lacking the "objectivity" of the poll conducted by Ifop.
Anyway, according to this, in a manner of speaking, "poll of polls" 63 per cent (of those questioned) think the media publish too many of them and 60 per cent believe they have an influence on the way people vote.
But here's the thing.
By and large those questioned only consider polls can influence the way other people vote; only 15 per cent say their choice can be swayed.
As far as Frédéric Dabi, the general deputy director of Ifop is concerned, that's proof that polls have a value without distorting the outcome.
(you might need to read the following quote a few times because it seems like a classic case of doublespeak)
"Even if that percentage (believing polls can influence the way people vote) isn't negligible, the fact that the overwhelming majority believes that the surveys do not affect their vote undermines the whole discussion about the influence of polls," he says.
"It's the sort of debate that occurs every time a party or a candidate is in trouble."
Right. Understood.
So 375 opinion polls which reflect (more or less) voting intentions without having an impact on the outcome in the first round and more - many more - to follow in the second.
It's the final stretch as far as campaigning in the French presidential elections is concerned.
And before voters go to the polls in the first round of voting, those kind folk over at the daily satirical puppet show Les Guignols de l'info on Canal + have provided us with some much-needed and surely heartily welcome relief.
Hosted by (the puppet of) Nikos Aliagas (of Star Academy and now The Voice fame) it was a collection of sketches in which four political parties and their candidates were portrayed bemoaning their fate, offering their apologies and airing their fears.
The Top 10 countdown was simple, highly amusing and very affective.
In each case a well-known song was used, the lyrics changed and the scene set to explore themes central, as far as Les Guignols were concerned, to the campaigns of Eva Joly, François Bayrou, Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande.
First up were the Greens in a reworked version of "Le temps des cathédrales" from Notre-Dame de Paris, the 1998 French musical somewhat cruelly described by the Independent when it opened in London a couple of years later as a "load of old bells".
Had the party chosen the wrong candidate in Eva Joly rather the potentially more popular TV documentary maker and environmentalist Nicolas Hulot?
In a version of French singer Bénabar's 2011 song "Politiquement correct", François Bayrou appeared alongside his sidekick Philippe Douste-Blazy proclaiming his centrist values but admitting that he (polite interpretation) "annoyed voters".
To the strains of the 2010 hit "Désolé" by French rappers Sexion d'Assaut, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the rest of his UMP party, apologised to the French and blamed any/all of the country's ills on the international financial crisis.
There's a wonderful moment at the end when a seemingly hyperactive Nadine Morano cannot resist having the last word.
And finally, topping the lot, was François Hollande and the rest of the Socialist party in their version of Belgian singer-songwriter Stromae's monster hit "Alors on danse" in which Hollande fears his campaign could go belly-up in much the same way as his former partner Ségolène Royal's did in 2007 and even worse Lionel Jospin's in 2002.
Just to add to the fun, it's all done karaoké-style so, if you know the tune and feel like joining in, you can.
It's presidential election year here in France and the race is on to qualify for the first round.
Perhaps one of the decidedly weird, and in the eyes of some, not-so-wonderful quirks of the country's political system is the way potential candidates meet the requirements to appear on the first round ballot.
In short (and of course as this is France, it's much more complicated than at first appears) they have to collect at least 500 signatures from the country's 47,000-odd elected representatives and submit them for validation to the Constitutional Council by March 16.
The pool of potential signatories includes the country's 37,000 or so mayors, parliamentarians be they national or those representing France at the European level - as well as general and regional councillors.
Anyone failing to get enough support will not be allowed to stand.
The task of collecting those signatures isn't an issue for the two main parties as they crank up their campaigning machines fully prepared to slug it out in the first and probably second rounds.
But for the so-called "smaller" parties, it's a problem as the lists of officials who sign are made public (they have been since 1976) and, if you believe Marine Le Pen, that appears to present a particular for her far-right Front National.
The Constitutional Council has just rejected Le Pen's request that the list of signatures remain "anonymous" on the grounds that publishing the them ensures transparency of the acts of what are, after all, elected officials.
All of which means that with only 430 "promised" signatures so far, Le Pen could find herself "going down to the wire" just as her father Jean-Marie did in the last presidential elections in 2007 when he just managed 507 signatures.
Or she might fail to meet the required numbers altogether.
Now you might not agree with her politics but, if opinion polls are to be believed, there's no denying that Le Pen has some support among the French electorate; a fact she is often to be heard drumming home in the French media which seems to have decided that she is a credible candidate.
So should she be prevented from standing because of a law that some (and not just Le Pen) claim is undemocratic, weighted against smaller parties and encourages strong-arm tactics from the Big Two?
After all, with just a couple of weeks to go before that March 16 deadline, five of the other declared candidates still fall short of the 500 signatures required, among them former prime minister Dominique de Villepin and Frédéric Nihous, the leader of the Chasse, pêche, nature et traditions (Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Traditions party, CPNT) party.
Earlier this month François Bayrou, the leader of the centrist party Mouvement démocrate (Demoncratic Movement, MoDem) and himself a presidential candidate, suggested that the larger parties, including his, ensure Le Pen's name appear on the ballot by encouraging their elected officials to "sponsor" her, if needs be.
It was an idea not just rejected by the governing centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP) and opposition Socialist party but also Le Pen.
So - and this of course is purely hypothetical - if you were a mayor or an elected representative in France, would you sign Le Pen's list just so that she could stand?
So the talking's over and the first round of voting is scheduled for this Sunday.
Yep, it's the Socialist party primaries, open to anyone - as long as they're a French citizen of course - who's on the electoral register, willing to cough up €1 and sign a pledge "recognising the values of the Left".
Socialist party primaries - televised debate (screenshot BFM TV)
Anyone interested in French politics will surely have found the three separate televised debates between the six candidates an interesting and possibly stimulating exercise; getting to know them, where they stand, what differentiates them from one another and so on.
What's more, they all managed to behave in a reasonable manner (for politicians) foregoing the backstabbing that was so prevalent in 2007 and appearing, on the surface at least, to be cordial.
Heck even the country's prime minister, François Fillon, seemed to have been impressed, maybe wishing that the centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, had someone else to offer (namely himself) other than the incumbent.
Fillon certainly seems to think it's the way forward in future elections.
Anyway, here's a very short and totally unbiased (ha ha) rundown of the six contenders.
Who knows.
One of them might well be a name you'll have to learn to get to know after May 2012.
François Hollande - widely admired among journalists (oh well, that's all right then) and apparently bright with a great sense of humour. Did nothing for a decade as leader of the party - except help Lionel Jospin and (his then-partner) Ségolène Royal lose in their respective presidential campaigns. One factor in his favour - Fadela Amara is (or at least was) a fan.
Martine Aubry - along with Hollande is the other favourite to make it through to the second round run-off. Seen by some (many) as a stand-in for Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Popular among party activists (apparently) although her election as leader was rather contested. Perhaps it's her destiny to fulfil what her father (Jacques Delors) ducked out of doing.
Manuel Valls - too young (48) born in Barcelona (Ahem, the French seem to have no problem with a foreign-born candidate) too Blairish probably but clearly gunning for the interior ministry should the Socialist party win next year's presidential elections.
Arnaud Montebourg - similarly too young (48) and too radical. Big on anti-globalisation, very principled but probably too far to the Left to have a mass appeal.
Jean-Michel Baylet - very pro-Europe, level-headed and seems to speak a lot of sense, but an outsider - so much so that the Beeb doesn't even have a profile of him on its short description of the six-strong field.
Which leaves Ségolène Royal. Gotta love her. She's a political animal through and through and in touch with "the people" (well so she keeps insisting). Appears bonkers at times, but always, at least...er entertaining. Maybe that's the best the French can wish or hope for from her.
The expected run-off on Sunday week will be between those finishing first and second this weekend.
Off to Dhaulagiri
-
The time of year has come and I am heading out on expedition again. Since
having summited Cho Oyu in autumn 2016, I have not attempted an 8,000m
peak, and ...
Slumming it in paradise
-
Every seasonnaire in the Alps, past or present, has a horror story or two
about grotty accommodation. Old chalets so run down that the most
cheapskate of g...
Summer update
-
Here is a summer update. The weather has been quite rainy but the clouds
have been amazing. I got a new camera this week so I have been playing with
it....
12 (“Une douzaine”) restaurant tips . . .
-
*on how to blend in and*
*not to appear too much like a touristin a Paris restaurant . . .(or at
least how to be a good one)*
The following is based on ...
L'hexagone dans le Triangle
-
It's been a while since I have posted to Polly-Vous Francais! I am happy
to report that I am now in the "Triangle" area of North Carolina, where
there is ...
All photos (unless otherwise stated) and text are copyright. No part of this website or any part of the content, copy and images may be reproduced or re-distributed in any format without prior approval. All you need to do is get in touch. Thank you.
Posts
