French opposition UMP party as united as ever in perfect disharmony

Exciting news from France's opposition centre-right Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (Union for a Popular Movement, UMP).

Jean-François Copé and François Fillon have agreed to let members decide on whether to hold another vote for the post of party leader.

Breathe deeply before you read on. Some of what follows will be more than confusing.

The UMP is in a bit of a mess at the moment. Actually it has been for quite a while now.

For example, take its reaction (sorry to have to mention this again) to the anti same-sex marriage "Manif pour tous" march in Paris last weekend.

Among those taking part in the demonstration were the party's president, Jean-François Copé, Henri Guaino - a former speechwriter to Nicolas Sarkozy when he was in office and now a member of parliament in his own right - and Laurent Wauquiez, a former minister and a supporter of Copé's "defeated" challenger for the leadership of the party - François Fillon.

Notable by their absence though were Fillon himself, Alain Juppé - a former minister of just about anything you can think of and the current mayor of Bordeaux, and the party's likely candidate for next year's race to be mayor of Paris, Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (NKM).

Copé - ever the slick opportunist - was plainly using the demonstration as a means by which to protest against the current government and drum up support for the party in next year's local elections.

While for Guaino, it was clearly a matter of sticking to his principals - even if he had mistakenly voted in favour of the bill to allow same-sex marriage when it passed its final reading in parliament - and he was "proud" to have taken part.

Juppé, who unlike Guiano had managed to hit the right button and say "non" in the final vote - had previously stated he would be a no-show as the law had been passed and it had to be respected.

And NKM, who had abstained in the parliamentary vote, obviously had other more important issues on her mind namely that of the far-right Front National's call  to vote against her when polls open in the UMP's primary to choose its candidate for mayor of Paris.

Phew!

On the subject of "voting" that brings us back neatly to an issue that remains unresolved and illustrates the state of health of the party...the struggle for the leadership.

You thought it was over?

Wrong.

Jean-François Cope and François Fillon (screenshot from i>Télé report)

Remember Copé's glorious "victory" over Fillon in last year's battle when both men declared themselves to have won and how the party split in two for a while after claims of vote-rigging and fraud?

The debacle dragged on for weeks until the two men and their supporters managed to bury the proverbial hatchet (somewhere) and reach some sort of working agreement.

They created an internal structure stuffed to bursting point with vice presidents to represent the two very different directions the party was trying to take at the same time.

Even though Copé perhaps has had the upper hand - after all he's the one who holds the post of party leader - his legitimacy has been questioned, and the issue of whether to hold another vote has never really gone away...until now.

Because on Monday the two men announced a solution which will put an end to divisions within the party and steer it on a true red, white and blue course for the future.

They've agreed to let party members decide whether there should be another vote to choose the party president.

Yes in other words (and sorry, there's no way to make this clear without constant repetition) their recommendation is that party members vote in June on whether they should vote again in December.

Now doesn't that make complete and utter political (non)sense?

Pass the gin.

France's 2012 presidential election campaign begins - officially

Yes it might seem like a rather strange headline given that the French have been bombarded with politics for the best part of a couple of months (and more) now.

But campaigning in the two-round presidential elections has now officially begun with television advertising spots and posters on approved local authority notice boards up and down France.

Local authority notice boards - ready for posters (screenshot BFM TV)

And the rules are very strict - if somewhat antiquated.

As far as TV spots go, each of the ten candidates has a fixed amount of airtime - 43 minutes in total - rigorously enforced and controlled by the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA), the country's broadcast watchdog.

The contents of what they can and can't talk about during their allotted 18 slots is also subject to the most "polite" and perhaps anachronistic rules with no banging the drum for donations allowed and an interdiction on "denigrating opponents".

Broadcasters have already had to provide equal airtime to all 10 candidates no matter how big or small since the wise men on the Conseil constitutionnel (Constitutional council) validated their eligibility to stand back on March 19.

Posters, which started appearing on most local authority notice boards on Tuesday, are also subject to the most stringent of rules.

They mustn't be printed on a white background because that's only reserved for official announcements, and woe betide candidates who try to use any combination of red, white and blue, the colours of the French tricolore. It's against the rules and if broken will result in a fine.

French presidential election 2012 posters - against the rules (screenshot BFM TV)

And those posters - two for each candidate - are only allowed to appear on the notice boards put in place the local authority specifically for the election - although that's not always a rule to which party supporters adhere.

The French can also expect to hear pamphlets and letters plopping through their letter boxes as the postal campaign to woo the 45 million registered voters is now also allowed, but again size and format have to be the same for each candidate.

And as "officially" as the campaigning starts, so it will end...at midnight on April 21, the day before the election, together with a ban on candidates making public statements and opinion polls being published.

NKM contradicts Guéant...and Sarkozy on vote for foreigners and halal in canteens link

Ah it must be wonderful to have your spokesperson seemingly contradict not only what you've said, but also a statement made by one of your closest political allies.

Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet (screenshot from Canal + interview)

Such was the case on Sunday when Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, who's thankfully more commonly known in France by her initials NKM, seemed to distance herself from one of the ideas expressed by interior minister Claude Guéant on the reasons for not extending the right to vote to non-EU residents in France.

Remember what he said? And in particular the sort of "threats" such a move would pose to society.

"We don't want foreigners becoming elected local councillors and then making halal meat obligatory in workplace canteens or public swimming pools being segregated according to sex."

Well, the link Guéant made between the reasons for not extending the right to vote to non-EU residents and faith-based meals in canteens, wasn't one NKM particularly appreciated.

She doesn't approve of either it appears, but also thinks the connection between the two is an "unnecessary" one.

And she said as much during an extended interview with Anne-Sophie Lapix, the presenter of the weekly political magazine Dimanche + last Sunday (of course) on Canal +.

Asked by Lapix whether she had the same fear that extending the vote would also lead to halal food in canteens, NKM took quite a somewhat different approach to that of Guéant - and indeed seemed to criticise him.

"I think there are enough reasons to be against extending the vote to foreigners in terms of it being the right of citizenship, and I think there are enough reasons to be against faith-based meals in canteens," she said.

"It's not necessary to make a link between the two."

(You can hear her say that at around nine minutes into the video)

DIMANCHE+ du 04/03 - Partie 1

Hum.

That's all well and good: NKM not agreeing with Guéant, the man, who until he became interior minister in February 2011 had been a close political advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy for nine years.

In other words, Guéant rarely says something without having had it green-lighted by Sarkozy.

But worse, as far as NKM's comment was concerned, Sarkozy had made exactly the same link between the two as Guéant during a lengthy interview in Le Figaro just days before he officially announced he would be running for re-election.

"If non-EU foreigners could vote in France today, just think what would happen at a local level," he said.

"Questions would start being asked about whether halal food be introduced into school cafeterias and public swimming pools being segregated," he continued.

"Is this what we want? My answer is no. Voting must remain linked to citizenship."

You see?

Precisely the same ideas and argumentation linked in a way which NKM said was "unnecessary".

Oh well.

Perhaps NKM hadn't been briefed sufficiently well as at the time she was still the
minister for ecology, sustainable energy, transport and housing, only stepping down once she had been appointed spokesperson for Sarkozy during his presidential campaign.

French presidential elections - the 500 signatures rule, undemocratic or transparent?

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.

signatures "promised" so far (screenshot TF1)

signatures "promised" so far (screenshot TF1)

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?