I don't really know a great deal about Beckett. The caravanning is a cheap shot against her. Should she be farting around the world in a plane to take her hols?

In Italy or the UK, the head of state (president or monarch) has little political power. They are more or less figureheads. When parliamentary elections are held, the head of state calls on the leader of the majority party (or coalition) to form a government. It is in that sense that Italy elected Prodi as Prime Minister. (Though the formalities are not over and he's not yet in the PM's seat).

In France, like in the US, the head of state is an elected president who does have a lot of political power. That, among others, of appointing the executive.

The way it works legally, and the way it works in practice, and especially the way the story is told in the media, differ.

Keep in mind my claim that Western Europe's Parliamentary systems are becoming pseudo-Presidentialistic [France is a separate case altogether].

So, in Italy it just so happens that the President's term expired close to the date of the parliamentary elections.  It need not be that way. [France and the EU find themselves in the same situation, for some extrange reason: maybe this is another sign of presidentialization of the parliametary systems].

In Western European Republics [except France] the President is largely a figurehead just like the Monarchs in our Parliamentary monarchies. However, the president/monarch has some important ceremonial powers...

• signing all laws into force
  
• dissolving parliament [on the advice of the Prime Minister] and calling elections
  
• appointing the Prime Minister [subject to a vote by the Parliament]

Usually the President/King will "ask" the leader of the largest parliamentary faction to "form a government". This may involve forming a coalition to pass the initial parliamentary approval vote.

This is why when people elect their parliaments, they vote for their local party or candidate with the national party leader in mind as prime minister. Tony Blair was on the ballot only in one constituency, as was Prodi, as was Villepin. not nationwide.

Imagine for a minute that the US electors were actually (as opposed to just numerically) your congresspeople. Then people would have to vote for their local member of congress with a view to who they want in the white house [except on midterm elections].

It is possible for a government to fall without triggering an election. The PM would go to the king/President and resign. Then the King/Prez would decide whether to call an election or ask someone else to form an alternative ruling coalition. This happened in italy all the time: 4-year parliaments with 3 or 4 different prime ministers. Similarly, Villepin could resign without triggering an election. The UMP still has a huge majority in the national Assembly.

Is that confusing enough?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

The difference with the American Veep is that s/he is elected on a ticket with the pres. As you know, the Veep exercises more or less power. Cheney is very much on the more side.

In fact, there is no equivalent in the American constitution to the French PM. Or imagine that, when the president appoints the Sec of State, of Defense, the Attorney General, etc, he also appoints a coordinator of executive activity. Sounds stupid because the president is in fact (with more or less help from the Veep) that coordinator.

My personal view is that the French system on this point is full of BS. The PM is there to support a polite fiction, which is that the president is above the fray and doesn't mind the shop. The PM's work is real, but his main function is to make it look as if things are getting done, and to take the rap if not. He is often a lightning conductor for the president -- he gets fired when things go wrong, the president sails on regardless.

That leads to an answer about whether it's a vote of confidence to be appointed PM. Yes. But it's a very risky position. Ideally, a presidential candidate would want to keep away from it. (So why did Villepin take it on? No doubt because he has a high opinion of his ability to make France fall in love with him [his actual words on this seem to have been more buccaneering...])

The US VP analogy is possible but potentially confusing since for it to be more accurate you'd have to imagine the VP as representing the senate majority (actually it would have to be the congressional majority) not necessarily the president's party or choice. France had many years of "cohabitation" governments in which the president was from the right or left and the PM was from the opposite party which was the ruling majority in parliament. Presidential terms in France were for 7 years up until 2001 when they were reduced to 5 years. This was plenty of time for the electorate to decide they had had enough and change the parliamentary majority thus forcing a cohabitation government.

The brookings institute's web site has an article by Olivier Duhamel, Professor of Constitutional Law and Political Science at Sciences Po Paris, that discusses the French electoral system and provides this graph of the 5th republic presidents and prime ministers illustrating the cohabitation of red and blue:

The recent change in the presidential mandate from 7 to 5 years has not yet been tested in a cohabitation situation, but I don't expect it to be different.

With the presidential and parliamentary terms now in lockstep with each other, I don't think the likelyhood of cohabitation in the future is very high...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

I agree Jospin's five-year PMship significantly moved the cursor towards PM and ministerial autonomy. I'd submit that Chirac's last four years, particularly with non-entity PM Raffarin, have ignored that movement.

In future I'd expect the trend to be towards more actual power to the PM, but there's no guarantee of this. Seeing the autocratic tendencies of a Villepin, for example, makes me wonder what kind of PM he would appoint and what autonomy he would give that person if he were PRF. He would have the constitution on his side if he chose to act like a monarch (which many, don't forget, considered Mitterand did in his time...)

I would like to see changes in the constitution linking the PM more directly to the parliamentary majority, as happens by convention during cohabitation periods.

Can you give an example of a scenario in which the President and the parliament have differed on policy and the PM has not acted in the interest of the President but of the National Assembly instead, trumping the President's power?  How would this work?  Why would the PM not represent the President's agenda?  Who has veto power, does the PM cast deciding votes, or is it mostly a position of influence and lobbying (when pres. has majority) and diplomacy (during "cohabitation")?

Also, I am confused again.  Upthread, afew states that the President chooses the PM, not the parliament:

In France, like in the US, the head of state is an elected president who does have a lot of political power. That, among others, of appointing the executive.
...
(and)
the French pres chooses a PM who draws up a list of ministers for approval (in fact the pres does most of the choosing).

and you say:

the executive power is in fact vested with the PM, chosen by the National Assembly.

Even during "cohabitation" the President still picks the PM, just from a different party.  Who has the final say on policies?  The President or the PM?  

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

Yes, of course; I meant that the PM functions as a CoS only when Pres and Chambre are controlled by the same "famille politique" - eg, Villepin, Raffarin, Juppe, Bere, Cresson and so forth.  The comparison comes to mind because both PM and CoS (when President's coalition controls the Chmbre) really have a constituency of one, the PResidnt. And that in the American system the CoS has most direct relations with the cabinet and legislature.

In the case of a cohabitation, the PM is I think most analogous to the Speaker in an American "cohabitation" (eg, O'Neil/ Reagan; Gingrich/ Clinton).  

Thanks. :)

So he is a populist anti-elite anti-immigrant clown (deprived of his EP seat for physically assaulting another candidate), with an impressive past (decorated veteran of the French paratroops in Indochina, Suez, and Algeria).

Probably a threat mainly to the socialists as he mainly attracts the votes of disgruntled working class people who don't like living next to Arab immigrants, (especially as he focus on being tough on crime)?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

I think asdf is in need of a diary on the French Presidential Election process.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

That is correct, but Le Pen's Front National is considered untouchable and would be shunned in the National Assembly (as it is in the European Parliament), and so has no power as kingmaker.

In the latest parliamentary elections, the FN got 11% of the vote, coming in third place. Can someone explain how it happened that the FN has no seats (according to wikipedia) even though much smaller parties did get seats?

In the 2004 European Parliament elections the FN got 9.8% of the vote and 7 seats.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

The contrast being with the British system where the leader of a 20% party, elected himself in one particular district, can hold considerable power by providing a coalition with either of the other two 40% parties...

There is no significant difference with the British system here: both are FPTP, and both could in theory keep even a 20% party outside Parliament. What makes Britain (or if I want to be more precise, England) different is two things.

One is the strong geographic differences in the vote, the strong local traditions behind one party or the other: a 15% national vote for LibDem could mean 50% vote in some districts.

The other is the reason why three parties with long-running traditions can exist: the historical two-party system of Liberals and Conservatives could be modified due to the dual impact of WWI and a massive expansion of the circle of voters, among whom Labour found a foothold.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

One of the Osadas, Shoichi, used at least to (perhaps still does) have friendly relations with Chirac, who awarded him the Légion d'honneur in 1994.

Luxury hotels, too, Chirac likes...