Why is Enda Kenny's rating so low?

blues2 · 13-02-2010 1:09pm #1

I really don't understand why Kenny's personal rating is so low as per todays Irish Independent poll.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fine-gael-surge-but-kenny-slips-further-2061826.html

He has brought the FG party back from a devastating election in 2002 to be the largest party in the country (by today, and recent poll results). This indicates a man of significant ability.

He has tried to be progressive by calling for the abolition of compulsory Irish in the leaving Cert, abolition of the seanad and reduction in the number of TD's in the Dail. I don't agree with all of these recommendations but at least he is putting them on the table for discussion.

His low rating is widely believed to be because he is "wooden" during interviews. Much has been said on this website about this topic, but shouldn't his performance in politics, not interviews, be the yardstick?

It has been said that he would be an embarrassment representing the country with foreign dignitaries such as Barack obama. Surely our current taoiseach is no less embarrassing.
In fact he is quite similar to President Obama in that Obama's personal rating stands at around 50% down from 83% when he was elected a year ago.

Kenny has a very able front bench and surely, alongside Eamonn Gilmore and the labour party, can do a much better than our current taoiseach if a FG/labour coalition was formed.

If in power I think he would be a very competent taoiseach if he wasn't concentrating so much on trying to become taoiseach.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 1:21pm

I suspect that the truth lies in that he does not come across well on camera or to the eyes of the public.
While he could be the greatest political thinker of our generation or the most astute re-assembling party organiser in the world, visual perception plays a great deal in people deciding if your giving a person support or not.
It might not be right to look at a person that way but that's what humans do - including those that stand along side our own politicians on the world stage - so whom we send out to represent us, does in fact matter in that we should be seen to be sending a strong charismatic (if possible) equal representative.

...thats the short version of my rambling thoughts anyway.

trapsagenius · 13-02-2010 1:26pm

I'd say it has something to do with the fact:

1.He is completely uncharismatic (I know it shouldn't really be a factor but it is so we have to deal with it)
2.He gave a woefully inept performance on the Late Late where he couldn't give a reason not to go into government with SF
3.He doesn't know his own party's policy on water charges
4.His incessant criticisms of EVERYTHING the government do is just childish.
5.He let what was a potentially a great TD in George Lee slip through his fingers(I know, this wasn't entirely his fault but he's being blamed for it in some quarters).

All of the above I'd say.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:30pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

I'd say it has something to do with the fact:

1.He is completely uncharismatic (I know it shouldn't really be a factor but it is so we have to deal with it)
2.He gave a woefully inept performance on the Late Late where he couldn't give a reason not to go into government with SF
3.He doesn't know his own party's policy on water charges
4.His incessant criticisms of EVERYTHING the government do is just childish.
5.He let what was a potentially a great TD in George Lee slip through his fingers(I know, this wasn't entirely his fault but he's being blamed for it in some quarters).

All of the above I'd say.

6. His mad grin on the LLS . . how could you trust a man with a grin like that ?
7. His bid to get rid of the senate . . great idea but he forgot to tell his senators
8. "From now on, I am going to be myself" - What the heck was that all about ? ?

colly10 · 13-02-2010 1:35pm

blues2 wrote: »

He has brought the FG party back from a devastating election in 2002 to be the largest party in the country (by today, and recent poll results). This indicates a man of significant ability.

Id say nearly anyone could do this with the way things are at the moment, everyones going to want to vote out the gov and the next biggest party will become the most popular as they are not blamed.
I think FG would do better with another leader, I personally will never vote for FG with him in charge

johnnyskeleton · 13-02-2010 1:41pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

6. His mad grin on the LLS . . how could you trust a man with a grin like that ?
7. His bid to get rid of the senate . . great idea but he forgot to tell his senators
8. "From now on, I am going to be myself" - What the heck was that all about ? ?

9. He seems no less corrupt and incompetent than Cowen.
10. He doesn't come across as entirely honest and open.
11. Many of FG's policies don't sit well with the people.
12. Those that do (e.g. immigants out, lock up them people accused of crimes - we all known dems crminals) are not put out that often for fear that FF will pounce on them.
13. He can't handle the slagging given by FF and this makes him seem weak.
14. He plays up his thick country accent which doesn't sit well with city folk.
15. He acts like he is a really popular figure because he is very popular in FG. But floating voters see this as somewhat arrogant and aloof.

sesna · 13-02-2010 1:45pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8F-9nmZ5I

Now see that is true charisma from Biffo, our dear leader alternative who gets no bashing in the media.

Lets return inept FF to government - "the divil you know is better than the one you don't", or some crap.

baalthor · 13-02-2010 2:22pm

He comes across as not fully competent particularly when it comes to economic issues.

He doesn't help when he refers to himself as someone who is good at getting the best out of highly skilled people like Richard Bruton. It reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon about leaders surrounding themselves with more intelligent subordinates: this must mean that the leader is the dumbest person in the organisation!

As for FG being ahead of FF in the polls: given what has happened under FF, most people would expect FG to be even further ahead.

Idbatterim · 13-02-2010 3:42pm

personally I am extremely frustrated with FG and Kenny! We all want a viable alternative to FF, I feel that FG are so close to being this alternative, but Kenny is the stumbling block! there was a good analogy on the frontline the other night comparing the success with the Irish rugby team under the current and previous coach! Kidney & O'Sullivan. That they both have different skills, that OSullivan provided the platform but was not capable of bringing it to the next level. I want a hardline straight talking no nonsense head of FG, i think the country is screaming out for this! (Shane Ross?) I think we have all had it with the cronyism, lack of planning, corrupt, incompetents we have had in goverment for the last god knows how many years!

Idbatterim · 13-02-2010 3:45pm

This is the easiest way for me to sum up why im so frustrated with kenny! because I think Enda Kenny will let FF off the hook in the next eletion! He is what will stop FF being decimated! and that notion is hard to stomach!

I.Am.A.Panda · 13-02-2010 4:23pm

FG is basically FF with slightly differing policies.

The most notable one for me is that FG wants to make Irish non-compulsory, which gets my vote.

However, I really do think we need some viable alternative. The Greens are to busy trying to keep power with FF, FF and FG haven't really offered much progress from their inception other than stumbling through each decade, and Labour is too moderate. Unfortunatley the only man in Irish politics who has come to conclusions and uses some form of logic is Joe Higgins. The only road block here is that he's a Trotskyist >.<

sesna · 13-02-2010 4:54pm

I.Am.A.Panda wrote: »

FG is basically FF with slightly differing policies.

FG hasn't turned this country into an economic wasteland.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 5:16pm

I.Am.A.Panda wrote: »

FG is basically FF with slightly differing policies.

I have heard this time and time again, yet when you look at it, their policies on the economy, banks, health, education, public transport and many other issues are actually very different.

Why do most people say they're basically the exact same, without backing it up with proof?

Mr. Incognito · 13-02-2010 5:20pm

1. He is not credible. He is the longest sitting TD and speaks fluent politick. i.e talks for hours and says nothing. No-one believes a word coming out of his mouth.

2. He has no personality. NONE, he speaks slowly in rehearsed tones in a monosylabic way and no emotional emphasis. He doesn't believe or feel a thing he says and neither do we.

3. He comes across as condecending, probably a hark back to his days as a teachers. He seems to be lecturing you instead of agreeing with you.

4. He comes across as exactly what he is, a political animal and is the pot calling the kettle black when faced with other career political animals over on the other side of the house.

5. It's is highly likely that there will be absolutely no change in the country under his leadership. Just him ducking and diving and employing the over priced spin doctors. THIS is the main reason that FF keep getting in- the devil you know after all.

Ordinary man · 13-02-2010 5:28pm

He is a waffler, it seems like every answer is just temporary until he checks it out with his party later. I guess he's been a politican so long that it seems normal to him now.

trapsagenius · 13-02-2010 5:30pm

sesna wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8F-9nmZ5I

Now see that is true charisma from Biffo, our dear leader alternative who gets no bashing in the media.

Lets return inept FF to government - "the divil you know is better than the one you don't", or some crap.

What, you're criticising him for having a laugh?Come on lad, if you're going to criticise have a proper reason, don't invent one!

Biggins · 13-02-2010 5:34pm

Sulmac wrote: »

Why do most people say they're basically the exact same, without backing it up with proof?

At the last referendum I asked a FF politician on my door step to actually state to me the difference between FF and FG.

All he could come up with was and I quote "well we are are power and they aren't".
That left me with a number of impressions.
a. He couldn't answer the question
b. He was an idiot for the smart-arsed, not funny answer.
c. He thought little of me and my genuine, serious question quandary to give me such a flippant reply.

Can anyone state the ideology (not policy) difference between FF and FG parties please - because the number of politicians I have asked so far, have ALL (both sides) dodged the question and couldn't give an answer?

sesna · 13-02-2010 5:34pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

What, you're criticising him for having a laugh?Come on lad, if you're going to criticise have a proper reason, don't invent one!

No lad, I'm just appalled to have this man as Taoiseach. I didn't invent this video or the fact that FF with Cowen as Minster for Finance/Taoiseach have turned this country into an economic wasteland.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 5:50pm

Biggins wrote: »

Can anyone state the ideology (not policy) difference between FF and FG parties please - because the number of politicians I have asked so far, have ALL (both sides) dodged the question and couldn't give an answer?

I think that's a rather tricky thing to try and define, since both of them can be said to be made up of different ideological "groups" themselves - like the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic wings in Fine Gael (particularly in the 1980s).

Fianna Fáil call themselves the "Republican Party" while Fine Gael are the self-titled party of the "progressive centre". I think we can agree these are, for the most part, throwaway terms that have little importance on the actual ideology of either party.

If you look at their European Parliament groupings, Fianna Fáil is in the Liberal group and Fine Gael in the Christian Democratic group; though this doesn't usually impact their policies at home.

They can both be said to be centrist (centre-left or centre-right, depending on the issue and time) and populist [Fianna Fáil in particular] - a phenomenon happening across major parties throughout Europe in recent years, but something we've had for decades.

However, as I said originally, it's a very hard thing to define.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 6:00pm

Sulmac wrote: »

I think that's a rather tricky thing to try and define, since both of them can be said to be made up of different ideological "groups" themselves - like the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic wings in Fine Gael (particularly in the 1980s).

Fianna Fáil call themselves the "Republican Party" while Fine Gael are the self-titled party of the "progressive centre". I think we can agree these are, for the most part, throwaway terms that have little importance on the actual ideology of either party.

If you look at their European Parliament groupings, Fianna Fáil is in the Liberal group and Fine Gael in the Christian Democratic group; though this doesn't usually impact their policies at home.

They can both be said to be centrist (centre-left or centre-right, depending on the issue and time) and populist [Fianna Fáil in particular] - a phenomenon happening across major parties throughout Europe in recent years, but something we've had for decades.

However, as I said originally, it's a very hard thing to define.

A genuine "thank you".
Thats more of a reply than I have ever gotten than in ALL the attempts to illicit an answer from the folk themselves.
A couple of follow-on thoughts:
* I noticed that at the last referendum the FF pole posters didn't mention FF as a "Republician Party". That part of the writing was either dropped or very tiny on them. A number of political commentators have mentioned this alone. Is FF now quietly dropping this once claim?
* If FG are the "progressive centre" - I'd like to hear from them what exactly that is - besides a nice throwaway soundbite for the populace!
* If FF are the liberal party, they won't like the new one that's being formed at www.Liberal.ie
Little details of which I can post. I know who is behind it but its not for me to publicly say till they come forwards themselves and announce their intentions.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 6:18pm

Biggins wrote: »

A genuine "thank you".
Thats more of a reply than I have ever gotten in ALL the attempts to illicit an answer from the folk themselves.
A couple of follow-on thoughts:
* I noticed that at the last referendum the FF pole posters didn't mention FF as a "Republician Party". That part of the writing was either dropped or very tiny on them. A number of political commentators have mentioned this alone. Is FF now quietly dropping this once claim?
* If FG are the "progressive centre" - I'd like to hear from them what exactly that is - besides a nice throwaway soundbite for the populace!
* If FF are the liberal party, they won't like the new one that's being formed at www.Liberal.ie Little details of which I can post.
I know who is behind it but its not for me to publicly say till they come forwards themselves and announce their intentions.

* I have to say, I didn't notice the lack of "Republican Party" on the FF posters at the referendum (mind you, there were so many posters I managed to ignore them all

), but it's still proudly displayed on their site and if you Google them. It's also on the poster in this photo (albeit hardly noticable, but the FF logo isn't that big either) dated September 2009.

* I think it's best to let FG answer this themselves, but here's a link to the "Our Values" section on the site where they mention being the "progressive centre".

* I honestly wouldn't consider FF a "liberal" party, particularly a socially liberal party - you only have to look at them dragging their heels with this joke of a Civil Partnership bill despite the fact a series of opinion polls have shown over 60% of people in favour of full gay marriage. That's just one example. Economically, they were "liberal" when it suited them (e.g. with the banks and developers) and look where that got us - NAMA is an ultimate form of state intervention in the economy. Bear in mind, too, that they only joined the Liberal EU group last year, before that they were with the Nationalist group - though they really didn't belong there. It is often said they would have joined the Christian Democratic group had FG not beaten them to it - something I think is true.

mike65 · 13-02-2010 6:35pm

He has no edge to him, from his flat country accent to his flat-pack thinking on policy there is very little to catch the eye about him. He's just damned dull.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 6:37pm

mike65 wrote: »

He has no edge to him, from his flat country accent to his flat-pack thinking on policy there is very little to catch the eye about him. He's just damned dull.

That could just as easily be Brian Cowen you're describing.

Biggins · 13-02-2010 6:43pm

mike65 wrote: »

He has no edge to him, from his flat country accent to his flat-pack thinking on policy there is very little to catch the eye about him. He's just damned dull.

Sulmac wrote: »

That could just as easily be Brian Cowen you're describing.

Laurel and Hardy?

I.Am.A.Panda · 13-02-2010 6:46pm

sesna wrote: »

FG hasn't turned this country into an economic wasteland.

You'll find FG didn't attempt to put in any legislation to regulate the economy, even when the recession was predicted back in 2006.

mike65 · 13-02-2010 6:47pm

Sulmac wrote: »

That could just as easily be Brian Cowen you're describing.

Could be but the difference is he's in power and Kenny isn't.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 6:50pm

mike65 wrote: »

Could be but the difference is he's in power and Kenny isn't.

Biggins wrote: »

At the last referendum I asked a FF politician on my door step to actually state to me the difference between FF and FG.

All he could come up with was and I quote "well we are are power and they aren't".

We've come full circle.

I.Am.A.Panda · 13-02-2010 6:53pm

Sulmac wrote: »

I have heard this time and time again, yet when you look at it, their policies on the economy, banks, health, education, public transport and many other issues are actually very different.

Why do most people say they're basically the exact same, without backing it up with proof?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ireland2007.gif

When compared to other nations, such as America
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

And New Zealand (National and Labour)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/nz2008.png

You'll notice the lack of ideological difference is the same. Socially, they are both Anti-Abortion in Ireland, Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-Euthanasia, etc. Their differences stem from a war in 1922, not from the fact an ideological difference exists in a nation.

eamon234 · 13-02-2010 6:57pm

I think this says it all really:

Fiskar · 13-02-2010 7:00pm

I see a nice list of faults with Endas leadership growing, hope I got in their with 16 to 18 before someone else!
1.He is completely uncharismatic (I know it shouldn't really be a factor but it is so we have to deal with it)
2.He gave a woefully inept performance on the Late Late where he couldn't give a reason not to go into government with SF
3.He doesn't know his own party's policy on water charges
4.His incessant criticisms of EVERYTHING the government do is just childish.
5.He let what was a potentially a great TD in George Lee slip through his fingers(I know, this wasn't entirely his fault but he's being blamed for it in some quarters).
6. His mad grin on the LLS . . how could you trust a man with a grin like that ?
7. His bid to get rid of the senate . . great idea but he forgot to tell his senators
8. "From now on, I am going to be myself" - What the heck was that all about ? ? Me, Myself and ? !
9. He seems no less corrupt and incompetent than Cowen.
10. He doesn't come across as entirely honest and open.
11. Many of FG's policies don't sit well with the people. Like when G Lee was pressed, policies are not clear at all.
12. Those that do (e.g. immigants out, lock up them people accused of crimes - we all known dems crminals) are not put out that often for fear that FF will pounce on them.
13. He can't handle the slagging given by FF and this makes him seem weak.
14. He plays up his thick country accent which doesn't sit well with city folk.
15. He acts like he is a really popular figure because he is very popular in FG. But floating voters see this as somewhat arrogant and aloof.
16. He thinks he will be the next Taoiseach by default (forgetting the power struggle with E Gilmore that’s looms)
17. His demeanor on the late late show (like a twitching rooster) does not send out the right signals to the masses looking for an alternative.
18. He has lost 5 seats with the loss of G Lee, he simply did not milk the public swing in taking an FF seat that the result should have delivered.

Sulmac · 13-02-2010 7:02pm

I.Am.A.Panda wrote: »

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ireland2007.gif

When compared to other nations, such as America
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/uscandidates2008.png

And New Zealand (National and Labour)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/nz2008.png

You'll notice the lack of ideological difference is the same. Socially, they are both Anti-Abortion in Ireland, Anti-Gay marriage, Anti-Euthanasia, etc. Their differences stem from a war in 1922, not from the fact an ideological difference exists in a nation.

I agree with you to an extent, but in that post I was talking about policy difference, not ideological difference (or lack thereof).

Why is Enda Kenny's rating so low?

Comments