O'Gorman stands for PD's

Macy

trippy30 wrote:

"He was terrible on the Sunday Supplement, sounded every bit the politician - avoiding the question, speaking mistruths, misquoting. "

Thats pretty serious accusations there Macy... care to back them up with fact by any chance, or is that a political opinion you might be expressing there.

I heard sunday supplement too - Id be interested to hear what youd say cos I know a thing or too myself on the topics covered.

Hardly that serious an accusation for a politician to be speaking mistruths and misquoting is it? Seems to be part of the job description for the Government parties.

The misquoting was clear of Eddie Hobbs on the programme - Eddie Hobbs pulled him up on it several times. The mistruths I can't remember now nearly a month after the event that you decide to pull me up on them :rolleyes: , I'm sure there were some about the health service, and decentralisation (they'd be the two that would make me angry anyway). Sure get the transcript off South Frederick Street if you're still trawling the net this long after the event.

mickcarroll10

Macy wrote:

Hardly that serious an accusation for a politician to be speaking mistruths and misquoting is it? Seems to be part of the job description for the Government parties.

The misquoting was clear of Eddie Hobbs on the programme - Eddie Hobbs pulled him up on it several times. The mistruths I can't remember now nearly a month after the event that you decide to pull me up on them :rolleyes: , I'm sure there were some about the health service, and decentralisation (they'd be the two that would make me angry anyway). Sure get the transcript off South Frederick Street if you're still trawling the net this long after the event.

Are there no moderaters on this side,Macy should be banned for her remarks

Macy

Banned for what? Criticising a politicians performance on the radio, or criticising someone dragging up a thread from weeks ago for no apparent reason?

road_high

I can't see Colm O'Gorman taking a seat here.
I have spoken to alot of different people in Wex and they say the same- he will poll well but won't get the transfers and neccessary quota to make it.
The 3 FF candidates are relative light weights, will struggle at best to keep their two seats. FG have 3 well known and formidable candidates-Wex has always been a stronghold for them.
Labour are assured of a seat with Brendan Howlin in Wexford town.
Don't know about SF or any others running down there.

trippy30

Firstly a couple of things

I heard it too, and your take on it is frankly biazarre

Macy - you imply that Colm is a politican.
He isnt, he is standing to become one - there is a difference you know.
I suppose that once someone becomes a politican - does that mean they automatically become a liar


Secondly you have made accusations - stand over them
Give reasons!
I heard it as well and I think he did well, but if you are going to call someone a liar and say they misquote etc etc. You need to back it up.

You assumptions about what is happening at One in Four is also wildly speculative - grounded in very little fact. For instance its a charity - the people who acccess its services are not members. They are clients for instance.

Thats the problems with forums like this, it all very well make up what you like and frequently all too often it goes unchallenged.

As for Colm in wexford and whether he will get a seat - who knows. All I do know is that compared to the FG candidates he is much better. More articulate and an alternative too. Normally Id vote SF but I think I might reconsider.

Wexford has changed a lot and Colm is respected by a lot of people too, so I think its really down to what happens between now and the election.

Macy

trippy30 wrote:

Firstly a couple of things

Sunday sumplement wasnt week agos like you imply, it was on the 19th.
I heard it too, and your take on it is frankly biazarre

He may have been on the Sunday Supplement one the 19th May, but how did I managed to post about his appearance on the 2nd May? Give me strength. :rolleyes:

How can you assert I was wrong when you're not even talking about the same programme?

trippy30

I was about to correct it but you beat me to it.

Apologies - my slip up.

However I still stand over everything else.
I have questions as to your assertions. You called him a Liar, thats pretty serious to be honest.

So are you saying the Ferns Inquiry was lies? Are you thinking what he did in the past was lies too?

The reason why Im raising what you said is cos I think you bang out of order to be honest. You didnt response to what I said, you just cherry picked what was a mistake

Are you going to stand over you accusations, or you going to pick on me so that you 'can be always right'.

I would say Im not defender of governemnt here either, so please dont accuse me of that.

I think you agenda is clear - Ill let you carry on with your party politcal rant - just dont call people liars cos they dont fit in with your politcal views.

Its a bit much to be frank

Macy

I will stand over the fact that Eddie Hobbs had to correct him several times when O'Gorman tried to misquote him.

I will withdraw the mistruth comments, only because it is so long ago I can no longer remember specific examples, but only for the reason. If you had pulled me up on it on the 2nd or 3rd I'm confident I would have the specifics.

I stand over the fact that I don't see how someone can go from criticising Government when representing a support group, that this Government nearly put out of Business, to running for one of the same Government Parties, as O'Gorman has clearly done.

trippy30

Why you think hes doing it then?

I hear that you dont like the PD's, but does that mean he has compromised himself and become automatcially become bad?
Cos you dont like the party he joined.

Its a bit unfair to leap to conclusions about someone without informing that. To try to make sense of it that way. Id never thought Id vote PD but recently I got to know some of the parties and engaged with politicans and a lot of em were not what I expected them to be. My own politcal views have changed as a result. Having informed myslef.

Im sympathic to SF, PD and Green (which on paper is bizarre I know)
lol

As for Sunday Supplment

I dont remember Eddie Hobbs tackling Colm
In Fact - I do remember that Eddie (himself) getting pulled up on getting the European central bank interest rate wrong the previous night on Ryan Tubberty.

So maybe your getting confused on that.

Macy

trippy30 wrote:

So maybe your getting confused on that.

I am definite that O'Gorman was pulled up on misquoting Hobbs several times. I am not confused about this at all.

I do have a problem with the PD's, and do find it surprising coming from the support/charity sector could find a home in that party. However, that is not really the point. Someone (anyone) that decides who to run for what they are getting out of it, rather than what the party represents is in there for all the wrong reasons.

Parlon before him, with his choice of FF/FG/PD (at least similar politics) based on who was offering what, and now O'Gorman with the frankly bizarre decision between Labour and the PD's (who are nowhere near each other politically) are the two most high profile examples. It's total career move, not conviction (and that would stand regardless of who they chose). Hopefully they'll both get the result they deserve in the next election, Parlon belatedly.

road_high

Macy wrote:

I am definite that O'Gorman was pulled up on misquoting Hobbs several times. I am not confused about this at all.

I do have a problem with the PD's, and do find it surprising coming from the support/charity sector could find a home in that party. However, that is not really the point. Someone (anyone) that decides who to run for what they are getting out of it, rather than what the party represents is in there for all the wrong reasons.

Parlon before him, with his choice of FF/FG/PD (at least similar politics) based on who was offering what, and now O'Gorman with the frankly bizarre decision between Labour and the PD's (who are nowhere near each other politically) are the two most high profile examples. It's total career move, not conviction (and that would stand regardless of who they chose). Hopefully they'll both get the result they deserve in the next election, Parlon belatedly.

Parlon is a prime example of 'jumping on the band-wagon' politics, as is O'Gorman.He will get his comeuppence next time for sure.
I agree with you, totally ridiculous that someone from a charity could run for a party so individual centred and uncaring about society as PDs.Then again I suppose they were the only party willing to take him on board, they welcome blow-ins in the PDs it seems!

trippy30

Well Macy you seem to be unable to support your assertions. So perhaps you will stop saying it - as it appears to be unfounded.

It was Eddie Hobbs that was being corrected I remember it well. But I didnt want to presume what you said to be wrong until I gave you a chance to respond.

As for the other stuff.

"Someone (anyone) that decides who to run for what they are getting out of it, rather than what the party represents is in there for all the wrong reasons. "

Have you asked him, have you listened to him?

I mean thats just crap and speculative in the extreme. We all assume thngs I know but how are you judging him on this, on what basis??
I mean if someone who is respected and has integrity joins a party you dont like = Liar, careerist etc

Its not logical at all. But then I guess there is a lot of people that think like you. Rather than challenge assumptions about parties, you will spout this stuff on boards. Believe me I was one of them, I used to be Labour supporter - but then I got to know the party and I quickly changed my opinion.

If you dont like the PDs grand, if you dont like what they stand for grand, but as for someone involved a charity joining a party. Whatever happened to freedom of politcal expression. So do you still consider yourselves to be liberal now? Im guessing you think yourselves as liberal. But I notice than only goes as far as the personal political boundaries that people are bound to.

As all charity workers who join a party you dont like doomed then? Are simply carreerists, based on your knowledge of Tom Parlon.

Give me a break.

As for the PDs would only take him, thats incorrect too. :rolleyes:

You both also appear to be misinformed, did you not hear that three parties were after him Labours, FG and the PDs.

As for him joining them, Im surprised. But Im not going to judge someone for getting stuck in, not this early and this irrationally.
Irrespective of the party. I think its good to see someone other than the obvious background get involved in politics. Maybe it will challenge some beliefs of what the PDs are.

As for your assertion that the PD's are uncaring - that’s the sort of opinion thats based on the media. Populist opinion to be honest, that works on those who buy into that belief of what we are told in the papers.

Do you know about Liz O'Donnel for instance and the work that she does?

I mean how is anyone gonna get involved in politics if this is the sort of rabid response they get.

And if the PD's are truely uncaring, then isnt it a good thing that he has joined?

Isnt that to be welcomed if thats what you are concerend about.
I mean - have you not considered that he might be getting involved for other reasons?

Or is it politcal/ idelogical beliefs getting in the way there.

Rock Climber

mfitzy wrote:

party so individual centred and uncaring about society as PDs.Then again I suppose they were the only party willing to take him on board, they welcome blow-ins in the PDs it seems!

How exactly are the pd's any more individual centred than say FF or FG? I'd imagine Labour is a little less individual centred than the other 3 parties but it still pandours to whatever way the political wind is blowing (eg it's not going to increase personal taxes because it knows individuals en masse dont vote for that sort of thing whereas real socialists wouldnt care whether there was a vote in it or not,they'll still advocate it)

You've made a sweeping statement about one party there that it seems to me, is just a popular notion in a lot of peoples heads used to justify a dislike or more acurately to justify a tiredness with a party/government.

Frankly if the alternative lot get in, they'll do much the same as the current lot,nothing much would change.It's been that way always and evcen more so now as voters are selfish and think more of their pockets that most other things.

As for blow ins, havent FG and FF accepted "blow ins" as you'd like to call them over the years aswell.

road_high

I think you're misinformed-all 3 other parties had decent candidates lined up well before O'Gorman came knocking on their doors.
Labour wouldn't run him as they only have one quota (=one seat).If they ran two they risk loosing the single seat- this is how politics and elections work in Ireland, on a quota (of votes) system.
FG and FF already had two seating TDs each- they weren't going to allow an outsider with no real record in their parties come in on their ticket, and thus it was the PDs he's running with.
Anyway good luck to him, he'll need it thats for sure.

trippy30

mfitzy wrote:

I think you're misinformed-all 3 other parties had decent candidates lined up well before O'Gorman came knocking on their doors.
Labour wouldn't run him as they only have one quota (=one seat).If they ran two they risk loosing the single seat- this is how politics and elections work in Ireland, on a quota (of votes) system.
FG and FF already had two seating TDs each- they weren't going to allow an outsider with no real record in their parties come in on their ticket, and thus it was the PDs he's running with.
Anyway good luck to him, he'll need it thats for sure.

Thats actually not true.

What made you think O'Gorman appraoched them?
On what basis did you make that assumption.

Thats just plain wrong, as it happens to be honest

Everyone who knows anything about politics knows that the parties were after O'Gorman as he is a powerful advocate, with a strong social background. Hes been successful in his work for One in Four.

He has a track record to prove it, have you saw anything of what he did at all?

As for Labour, your completely wrong there - Bredin Howlin even mentioned the party had approached Colm in the week in politics.
Although fair play to him he said he wasnt happy that the party talked to O'Gorman and admitted it.

Perhaps thats why Colm didnt run with them - Bredin Howlin factor - who knows.

Although one thing might give reason. I remember something somewhere where he said that he was nobody's trophy candidate.

So perhaps that explains why he didnt run with them or FG

Everyone knows that Bredin Howlin would feel very threatened by any candidate running on the party ticket alongside him. I live in wexford and I know the man well.

As for FG, well thats untrue also, the party were seeking him ages ago, although they wanted him running in another area.
As for the Pd's - I dont know if you know this - but there wasnt a candidate in wexford as such either.
So who are you referring to as such I dont know.

Can you illuminate?

trippy30

mfitzy wrote:

Labour wouldn't run him as they only have one quota (=one seat).If they ran two they risk loosing the single seat- this is how politics and elections work in Ireland, on a quota (of votes) system.

You know what I think is funny about this post is that you seem to imply the rest of us dont know anything about politics.

Let me tell you something about Labour in case you haven’t noticed.
Labour is actually quite dysfunctional, and Howlin has always been at Rabbittes heels (biting at them).

Its obvious Labour have internal issues, that sometimes spill out into the public domain.

Labour might go into collation with FF, if it weren’t for Rabbitte. Most people know this. Labour like all parties want to be in power, they dont care how (with the exception of Rabbitte and few within the party)

Now if you put two and two together I suspect, that the possibility exists that Labour wanted Colm for possible other reasons. But not shall we say very healthy ones.

I mean why didnt Howlin know? He was annoyed right, when he found out the party talked to him.

Think about it - thats all Im saying. One seat exists for Labour in Wexford you say, so if your assumption is correct.

Labour would lose that seat, or Howlin, or Colm would win so why did Labour want him to run?
Have you thought that about that...

Reasons might be

They might have wanted Howlin out
The wanted a trophy candidate - just before the election, but never thought he would win an actual seat.

If any of the above reasons are true then it is perhaps not surprising he didn’t run with the party. I mean who would...right

And if they did genuinely believe he could win, he would have to have dealt with the Labour stonghold that Howlin has created. Howlin certainly wouldnt be working with him - lets be honest here.
We have all seen what happened in FG with the introduction of Mairead McGuiness, remember that?

Howlin was scared for his seat last time, and had reason to be.
He had alienated some of the traditional Labour supporters here in Wexford.
Believe me I was one of them.

Colm would have had to faced that sort of crap.
And its well known that Labour are not particularly good for looking after new candidates.

So all in all, its not really a surprise they failed to win him over. To be honest I think its almost quite obvious why he didnt go with Labour.

Its a shame though, it did seem like his 'natural' home. However like I said earlier, a lot of parties are not what they seem.

So Im not shocked - more surprised.