Talk:Union for a Popular Movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Liberalism

Many members of UMP like Madelin are liberals, so can we add liberalism as one of the ideologies of the party? Checco 08:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but keep in mind that what is meant there is economic liberalism (Madelin is also socially liberal, as far as I know, but his followers are not). David.Monniaux 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but UMP is in general socially liberal if compared to many other EPP parties: as far as I know it doesn't oppose abortion, stem-cell reasearch, single-sex unions... Instead I don't agree with the changes you made in the factions' section. Radicals and CNIP are associate parties, but their members are also members of UMP (to be precise some 30% of the Radicals are members of UDF, such as Cornillet, and of other minor parties). Finally I was aking myself if Dupont-Aignan and his movement are still members of UMP: if they're not we need to eliminate them from the factions' section. --Checco 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associate parties

What parties are officially associate parties to UMP? I'm sure only of Radicals, CNIP, FRS and Blue Ecologie. What about Debout la Republique and RPF? --Checco 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, Debout la République 's leader, wanted to be candidate in the presidential electiopn aigainst Nicolas Sarkozy. He could not because he did not obtain the 500 sponsorships of mayors. He left UMP but, at the June 2007 legislative election, UMP did not present another candidate in his constituency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.234.112 (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factions link to French Wikipedia?

Why do some of the factions on the English Wikiepdia link to the French Wikipedia? If I spoke French why wouldn't I be reading this article in French? The French article is much more in-depth and probably provides a more knowledgeable source for information on the subject.

I say redlink those links that we do not have an English page for, it may encourage someone to make an English Wikipedia article on it.

You're right, but I thought it was better to have a link than having no links. Anyway I will put redlinks in place of links to French Wikipedia. I hope that someone will write the articles missing, as also you are hoping. --Checco 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the five missing articles about UMP faction. There's a lot of work to do about them, anyway. I hope that someone will help them. --Checco 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location's relative political concepts

Hello,

I find a bit confusing the use of center-right with UMP... Is this relative to what a center-right party is in US and UK? I mean, during the first round of the presidential election, the key of the success of N. Sarkozy was to grab people from extreme-right, whereas center people voted massively for the UDF candidate, F. Bayrou...

Another thing that trouble me is the use of conservatism for the UMP. I have to admit that I'm not very skilled in political knowledges, but are not conservators supposed to keep what is traditional in a nation? Or does this mean that they want to keep more ancient value, as religion and strong hierarchy?

In the first case, I think that the situation is quite different in France than in US. In US, liberal parties are traditionals and more-to-left ones are reformers. But it's the exact opposed situation in France : there is a huge social traditional background, and the reformers are liberals. And that's really what N. Sarkozy claims to do...

OlivierEM 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting... but keep in mind that in Europe conservatism is sometimes a synonim of liberalism when talking of the economy and other important issues. UMP is definitely conservative, but this doesn't mean that it doesn't support reforms: think only about Thatcher and Reagan... We can say that both conservatives and progressives (social-democrats, socialists, greens, social liberals...) want reforms, but conservative reforms differ from progressive reforms. Right or centre-right? You need to think a bit about the fact that what is right in France is probably centre-right or centre in the rest of Europe, and that what is centre (as MoDem) is centre-left. The whole French political spectrum of France is to the left of that of Germany, UK, Italy, etc. De Villier, for instance, is considered very right in France, but in Italy he would be considered as a normal Christian Democrat. Anyway, UMP is centre-right and also many members of it acknowledge the idea: think about the Christian Democrats or the Radicals... --Checco 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, ok, thanks for the explaination, I understand really better, now.
OlivierEM 08:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you... it's always interesting to discuss about such issues. See you. --Checco 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have labeled UMP in the introduction from "center-right" to "right-wing".And I jump precisely in your comment: "You need to think a bit about the fact that what is right in France is probably centre-right or centre in the rest of Europe".Think twice. In the scandinavian political scale for instance, UMP is pure right-wing.And even compared to the british Tories, the sarkozian UMP is in some way more on the right.Under the presidential campaign Sarkozy has been extensively using some far-right topics like praise of colonialism ("les bienfaits de la colonisation") and ultra-nationalistic rhetoric which gave birth to a ministry/state department of "immigration and national identity", despite nobody knowing what is the civil and/or legal meaning of "national identity", relatively to the clear republican concept of french citizenship. In the aftermath of the Paris riots of november 2005, Sarkozy succeded in killing the short-live attempt of the then prime minister (Villepin) to focus on the underlaying economic roots of the riots (chronic important unemployement affecting more the visible ethnically different youth by the side-effect of discrimination), and instead switched his communication onto the nationalistic xenophobic stance. The so-called "lepenisation".Anyway in the article List of political parties in France, UMP is in the right-wing category. --AntonioB 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From an European point of view UMP, a member party of EPP, is clearly a centre-right party. Don't confuse national politics with European and world politics. What you call "lepenisation" is not sufficient to label UMP as a right-wing party. Obviously UMP is right-wing, but it is more precise to define it as centre-right. The List of political parties in France can't be a source because it is a Wikipedia article. --Checco 07:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Obviously you didn't read my previous reserve about UMP in a global european scope. EPP is labeled as "centre-right" by itself, which is not a valid POV. Such a label can even be an ideological device to show a "cool", progressive side, to smooth the core conservative and reactionary aspects connected with "right-wing" parties, in an often pejorative way.Here is the self-naming of the EPP as "centre-right", on their site: http://www.epp.eu/hoofdpagina.php?hoofdmenuID=1 Now, if you can't come with better sources to support your From an European point of view UMP, a member party of EPP, is clearly a centre-right party , we have a POV problem here. We have to define also which coordinate and scale system should be use as valid to define left/right: the one that frenchs apply to themselves, one that could embrace the whole Europe or EU or one at the world level. If we talk from a french point of view, the UMP is just plain right-wing and the correct label here could be something like "UMP is the (big/main) right-wing political party" which says it: right-wing in the french political landscape. In France the center-right was the
2005 civil unrest in France) roots of the lepenization but instead Sarkozy has been playing in a very populist way with the symbolism and the fear of aliens, to appeal to the Front National electorate. And, well, the traditional "Bismarckian" welfare model isn't in itself a criterion to classify the UMP more on the center-right, in case of you bring that argument. As this comment gets long and I need to come later with more links to sources, I just put the NPOV banner on the article by now. --AntonioB 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I read your remarks, simply I don't agree with you. --Checco 17:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it must be possible to find the right designation or a noncontroversial definition of the UMP, accross the variety of personal (political) opinions, despite the task being difficult. Here, on Wikipedia in english, with lot of potential US readers, accuracy is even more important. --AntonioB 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but the problem is that we have different opinions about what is more accurate. --Checco 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, I've got the solution... my proposal is to replace

centre-right with conservative or liberal-conservative: what fo you think about it? --Checco 07:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

In France (contrary to manies European countries), the words "centre-left" and "centre-right" are not often expressed. In Italy, the Union is perceived as "the centre-left coalition" and the House of freedom as "the centre-right coalition". Indeed, in Italy (and manies European countries), "centre-left" and "centre-right" parties refer to the parties of government. In France, the parties of government are called "left-wing" and "right-wing" parties. And the others are called "far left" and "far right" parties. So, in the French political language, UMP is considered as a "right-wing" party. But, in the European political language, UMP is considered as a "centre-right" party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.234.112 (talk) 08:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with you, and here we are working on an encyclopedia not for the French but for the people of all the world. I hope that also AntonioB will understand this point. --Checco 14:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


As it has been said, from an European point of vue, UMP is centre right. however, from a French point of vue, it is indeed right, and more and more right-wing : wouldn't be a good compromise to state that UMP is a centre-right party yet regarded as a right-wing party in French politics, or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.186.10.114 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Besson

On the blog of Eric Besson (http://www.ericbesson.fr/) we can read : « ... Mais je ne rejoins pas pour autant le parti dont il (Nicolas Sarkozy) est issu, l'UMP. » translation -> « … But I don't join the party from which he (Nicolas Sarkozy) arises, the UMP» He is « Secrétaire d'État » of the prime minister (François Fillon) but he isn’t a member of the UMP.

(Sorry for my "spelling mistakes" but I am French ... )

Ok, we can take him out from the list. --Checco (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Éric Besson has finally joined in 2009, as can be seen here: “il a été nommé samedi secrétaire général adjoint”, which translates to “he was appointed deputy general secretary on Saturday”; there is no proper category in the article for this function at the moment, but I guess this is worth noting somewhere. Some more details of interest are available in the French version of this article. --SniperMaské (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centre-right?

The UMP cannot be described as centre right. Perhaps the Modem or the UDF could be. It is the main Conservative party in France. if it is centre-right, who are we going to decribe as right ? I think Nicolas Sarkozy would be very disappointed to think his government party was centre right, since his whole campaign was centred around the idea of being right wing and proud of it Johncmullen1960 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From an European perspective, UMP is centre-right and, to some extent, to the left of many centrist parties in Europe. We did already that discussion: the problem is that here we need to use general definitions, not national ones. --Checco (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. —Nightstallion 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if you define the UMP as "centre-right" why did Bayrou and many others fee a need to form a couple of new parties (Modem and nouveau centre), because they wanted to be "centre-right". I don't know what you mean by European perspective. Perhaps more useful would be a statement of aims...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Bayou is a centrist, not a centre-right politicians, takes socially liberal positions and is founding member of a centre-left European political party, the European Democratic Party. --Checco (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok people, UMP, once and for all, is a right-wing party because this is the way: a. it defines itself b. everyone classifies it in France. centre-right parties in France are: Nouveau Centre (NC), Union des Démocrates Chrétiens (UDC) and Parti Radical Valoisien (PR): they belong to the Presidential Majority of the UMP but UMP STILL is a right-wing party and is even going "righter and righter" in its ideology those times because it wants to gain FN votes for the next election. So it's right-wing (liberal and conservative), deal with it, guys. --86.199.16.132 (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Using an "international" or American or European point of view on the matter doesn't make sense, each country has its specificity. Especially in France when for half a century being "right-wing" was taboo (because of the Vichy government), the fact that the UMP defines itself as right-wing is something important. Aesma (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with adding to the article's intro that the party identifies itself and is identified in France as a right-wing party (you can add this info whenever you want), but as en.Wiki is an encyclopedia devoted to a worldwide public we should use (at least) European standards when classifying a party. --Checco (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal conservatism?

In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely a misunderstanding/misnomer due to the often used yet somewhat dubious classification at www.parties-and-elections.de. And 'liberalism' isn't OK at all. I'd say UMP is not liberal in strict sense at all: it's more socially conservative in French political landscape as well as (still) economically somewhat interventionist. Usually, UMP is classified as a conservative party (of Gaullist/Bonapartist inspiration), whereas UDF and its various offshoots as liberal (both social liberal and classical liberal; of Orléanist trend in French politics). See René Rémond. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UMP is a liberal-conservative party, including both conservative and liberal groups: in fact most members and voters of the late UDF joined the UMP. In some sense also the UMP is an offshoot of the UDF. --Checco (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Miacek. It's kind of a misnomer and it's rather unclear what it means. My guess and opinion is that it refers to the Liberal-conservative wing of the UMP (Sarkozy, Balladur et al, aka Sarkozysts and Balladurians) whose economic views are somewhere between economic liberalism (The Reformers wing) and classical Gaullist dirigisme and whose societal views are quite conservative, favouring 'family values', national pride and identity and a tougher rhetoric on immigration. That is more in the line of conservatism generally...
As for the ideological listings, the French Wiki (IIRC) has decided to go it the easy way by listing all ideologies represented in the UMP (not a bad idea, imo). That would mean including Radicalism (and laicism, social liberalism) as well as Gaullism, Christian democracy, classical liberalism/liberalism and so forth... --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the notion, but Checco re-added it. Checco, please check the thread here and comment on it. parties-elections.de is a
WP:SELFPUB website, or a blog. It doesn't offer anything that would substantiate on how the person classified those parties.
I still think it's misleading to characterize the UMP as liberal conservative - I'd say this would fit the UDF better. UMP is of a conservative, statist, Gaullist tradition, that is historically pretty state interventionist, which distinguishes them from the UK conservatives of the post-Heath era. And if all conservative parties equal 'liberal conservatives' (some users add this label to each and every conservative party infobox!), where the heck do we have 'simple' conservatives remaining? MIaceK (woof!) 13:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand your opinion, but I cannot agree with your judgement of Wolfram Nordsieck's website, which is the best, most complete and only website including all the European electoral results and a classification of all active political parties. The "liberal-conservative" label is precisely what a party composed of conservative, Christian democrats and liberals deserves. Moreover the UMP is a member-party of the EPP, which is quintessentially a liberal-conservative outfit, and comprises a majority of the old UDF (only a minority of its leading members followed Bayrou in the MoDem). The UMP has since become more and more what the UDF was before 2002 (a mix of conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals), while the MoDem departed from the UDF tradition.
I think that adding "conservatism" in the article's infobox is redundant, but I can live with it, even if the Gaullist tradition is not exactly conservative (in fact, Nordsieck describes the party as liberal-conservative, Christian-democratic and Gaullist, the third being the tradition coming from the RPR, and I agree with him). If you look at this discussion, you are the only one to be strongly against to "liberal conservatism". Novis-M simply put forward a question, while Petrovic-Njegos proposed that all ideologies relevant to the UMP should be listed in the infobox (including "radicalism" and "liberalism"), something I agre with. --Checco (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Petrovic actually said I agree with Miacek. It's kind of a misnomer and it's rather unclear what it means.. I agree that Nordsieck's website is very informative, but still, over the years, I have disagree with his characterization of some Eastern European parties (well, one can't be a specialist in all of those, of course:)). I will reply to your further explanation later, once I have studied some additional material. MIaceK (woof!) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question of leadership

I have decided to put Xavier Bertrand as the name for 'leader' and removing Sarkozy's name. Why? Firstly, Sarkozy has no official leadership role within the UMP (just as Mitterrand had no leadership role within the PS 1981-1995) and we're not the ones deciding whether or not he's the unofficial leader and whether or not he has leadership roles. Whatever the case, he has no OFFICIAL role in the party structure and Bertrand is the one named by the media and everybody as the leader. In the European elections, the polls read: une liste de l'UMP soutenue par Xavier Bertrand and not une liste de l'UMP soutenue par Nicolas Sarkozy. Listing Sarkozy in the infobox would be like listing Barack Obama as the leader of the Democratic Party. The relation between party leadership and government leadership in France is not like in parliamentary systems where they are often the same, but more like in Brazil, Mexico, USA and so forth. Lula isn't listed as the leader of the PT and Calderon isn't listed as the leader of PAN. Sarko shouldn't be listed as leader of the UMP. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, I completely disagree. Sarkozy is clearly the unofficial leader of the UMP and this is the typical case in which we use "leader" in the infobox. In fact "leader" is frequently used in those cases when a leader of a party does not hold party official leadership posts. Other opinions? Anyone showing up in this discussion? --Checco (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that it's not for us to judge about party's unofficial leaders (while I obviously agree on this matter of opinion about Sarkozy's role in his party), since a lot is a matter of opinion. While the meaning of 'leader' in these infoboxes are extremely ambiguous and ought to be changed, I keep saying that the 'leader' in these cases should be the person who holds an official leadership position within the party, whether President or SecGen etc. This, for example, is used for the page of the Mexican PAN, where the President of PAN is listed as leader and not President Calderon or whoever.--Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand your point of view, nonetheless I continue to think that "leader" in party infoboxes is there fore those people who are de-facto leaders of a party, without holding offcial party roles. This is the case of Sarkozy, who was in fact not replaced as president of the party by anyone... --Checco (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republicans

Any thoughts on the article title given the upcoming name change? The Republicans (France) currently a redirect. [1] -- 03:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.3.77 (talk)

In my view,
Gaullist party: Rally of the French People, National Centre of Social Republicans, Union for the New Republic, Rally for the Republic, Union for a Popular Movement and... The Republicans. It is better to mark the transformation/refoundation of the UMP with a new article. --Checco (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Strongly agreed, it should be a new, separate article.--Autospark (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a renaming/rebranding before? The parties you mentioned were formally dissolved or merged, so it is not the same. Are there any notable policy changes that differentiate Les Républicains from UMP? I would be in favour of moving this article to
Totie (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
For the RPR , it was of a merger But there, it's just not legal name change.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The transition from the UMP to The Republicans is quite similar to the transition from the UNR to the RPR (and also the latter was not a merger) and to the FI/PdL/FI case. For the sake of clarity (and consistency), I would thus keep the articles on UMP and Reps separate. --Checco (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Union for a Popular Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union for a Popular Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_for_a_Popular_Movement&oldid=1212785898"