RTE debate between leaders of the smaller parties

redspider

That was an interesting debate. There should be more of those really. In fact, all 6 leaders/deputy leaders should be in several debates. Even a Q&A session.

It was a case of 3 against one at times, with McDowell clearly an easy target for a lot of the flak.

I thought that Sargent did okay. He got some reasonable points across and he only had venom for McDowell. I think he has kept the door ajar to work with FF if they got rid of Bertie post-election, although he doesnt think GP and FF will have the numbers.

McDowell likes such debates and fended his corner well, although not necessarily endearing him to voters for other PD candidates perhaps. He has a personal distaste for Gerry Adams and wears his heart on his sleave in that regard. Of course, the 'big issue' was his emotional claims that Adams was involved in the A) IRA 25m/FARC C) I forget what that was now (see previous posts above). Adams was right that it was irresponsible for a Minister for Justice to be making claims like this against a person on TV. It was out of bounds for a policy debate. McDowell has of course done such stunts before. 25m for training FARC sounds far-fetched to me. 250k more like! In those days (90's) Adams did have of course close links with the PIRA heads but to say that he was personally involved is far-fetched.

Rabitte did okay and wasnt caught out on anything. Realising Labour are competing with SF's expansion, he dug some heels in with SF but nothing major and his main vent was against the PD's. But a swing away from the PD's wont gain Labour so much. If anything, its votes for GP and SF which Labour should be competing for.

Gerry Adams I thought did quite well. As the only person not being a member of the Dail (why doesnt he run, or does the GFA preclude that?) and not debating head to head on a regular basis with McDowell, Rabbite, etc, he held his own and got the key SF points across I thought.

Overall, I wouldnt give any one person a 'winner' award. Its also debatable if the debate would influence that many voters as at times the discussion was on the rowdy side. Where is that Frank Luntz chap when you need that analysis of 100 voters?

I expect the debate tonight between FF and FG to be different. It is a big stage test for Kenny, and it could win FG more votes if he holds his own.

Redspider

dodgyme

nacho libre wrote:

However, he (McDowell) still lost the debate ...... McDowell only seem comfortable in one enviornment- when he is debating.

mmm Your point doesn't make sense, which brings me to the point that you dont like McDowell but are too pigheaded to admit he won the debate. I am honest which means I have to admit this whether I like it or not. I would rather rabbitte to win but he didnt, he came second and not a close second. And as for Sergent and Adams, there more fringed seating positions were justified, because they looked on the fringe and Adams looked very uncomfortable with his leg shaking and a gaunt look anytime a difficult question or McDowell missle came flying. Sergent basically looked stupid with the writing on his hand. Like a schoolboy cheat caught brilliantly by the camera. And ask for News2 which was on the other channel a five minutes after the debate showed the most unprofessional analysis I have ever seen between the news reader and the some prime time researcher. If anyone else saw this tell me what ye thought and be honest.

kevmy

As regards the winner of the debate it would have to be the person who either solidified wavering supporters or won over undecideds. In this regard I would say the outright loser would have been Adams. For a man who is usually such as polished performer it was poor. Nobody else will vote for then now, could possibly slip a percent (going to socialist/independents or Labour)

Pat Rabbitte performed like a Tanaiste in waiting. In a potential Tanaiste debate he won hands down, intelligent, smart, passionate, funny, understands the issuses (and most importantly shut up and didn't talk over the others too much which really annoys the casual viewer)

McDowell fought his own corner really well and did highlight what he and PD's belived. Wheter he won over any undecideds is highly unlikely but he would have stopped leakge.

Sergeant showed that at heart that Gormley should be the leader of the Greens. Sergeant is the type of guy who would know his brief and be able to preform it well but he's not an out and out leader. Looking at the Green campaign you would swear Gormley is the leader (especially after the Rumble in Ranelagh).

Overall 1) Rabbitte 2) McDowell 3) Sergeant 4) Adams

A good performance by Enda tonight coupled with Rabbittes performance here would be a boost for the Alternative and could bring them over the line with the Green in the boot by default of numbers. Personally I'd vote for Labour but my constituency means that I'll have to vote FG to ensure I'll get FG/Lab

Edit: I personally don't think Adams should be allowed to debate here as he is not running down here. I understand he is the leader of the party but he still won't have anybody voting for him

JerkyBoy

MikeHoncho wrote:

I suppose I was torn between voting PD on economic issues or voting green on social / enviromental issues.

Im my opinion McDowell won the debate. It is quite clear that he was the only one at that table with the chops to keep this country going from an economic perspective.

MikeHoncho, can you actually quote any of the PDs policies for the economy going forward? Because McDowell didn't put any forward last night (beyond his usual empty soundbites), while accusing the opposition of same.

Please tell me what actions McDowell and the PDs plan to take to "keep this country going forward from an economic perspective"??

They've simply ridden the benefits of foreign investment, which has come about by our low corporation tax rate...a rate which I might add was set by the Rainbow Coalition.
PDs seem to be going out there taking all the credit for it though.

What are their economic policies?
What are the PD plans for sustaining the ecomomy if external financial influences land us on harder times or if the construction industry receeds, as it is expected to???

dodgyme

kevmy wrote:

Pat Rabbitte performed like a Tanaiste in waiting.

What was he waiting for an alarm clock?

Rock Climber

lads this is a critque of last night.
Start new threads if you want to debate bigger issues.

AidoCQS

kevmy wrote:

Edit: I personally don't think Adams should be allowed to debate here as he is not running down here. I understand he is the leader of the party but he still won't have anybody voting for him

I think its disgusting how people are able to pretend that Ulster is somehow a faraway country, and there were lots of hints at it last night. When I lived abroad - I knew lots of Nordies, did not like very many of em , but they were Irish in my eyes, whichever religion.

NB. Not a shinner, but I advocate political competition, similar to how the PD's advocate free markets for everything else.

LuckyLloyd

This thread has probably run its course in terms of useful debate (and Redspider has provided his match report ) so I would only wish to add that we should have more of these types of things coming up to an election.

dodgyme

JerkyBoy wrote:

.
Much like they've destroyed our Health System.

Your not very old are you? The PD's have not destroyed a health system which was fairly crap to start with. If they are allowed free reign to keep going with the privatisation type plans if re-elected they will make our bad health system even worse in the long run but use your vote to stop this rather then just soundbiting out statements like above.

bill_ashmount

My thoughts:
I thought Adams was useless. Can't believe how bad he came across. I always assumed he was a good communicator but he was shown up tonight for his lack of knowledge/policies. Kind of scary that 10% of the Irish electorate are going to vote for his party.
I thought McDowell was by far and away the best of the bunch, although i don't like the air of arrogance that always seems to be there with him.
I thought Sargent and Rabbitte were extremely average as well. Wouldn't inspire confidence to be honest.

Luckily for me I have decided not to vote, so i won't have to chose between them. Although I might go up and spoil my vote just to say I used it.

is_that_so

bill_ashmount wrote:

My thoughts:
I thought Adams was useless. Can't believe how bad he came across. I always assumed he was a good communicator but he was shown up tonight for his lack of knowledge/policies. Kind of scary that 10% of the Irish electorate are going to vote for his party.
I thought McDowell was by far and away the best of the bunch, although i don't like the air of arrogance that always seems to be there with him.
I thought Sargent and Rabbitte were extremely average as well. Wouldn't inspire confidence to be honest.

Luckily for me I have decided not to vote, so i won't have to chose between them. Although I might go up and spoil my vote just to say I used it.

Hmm probably not the kind of comment you want to be posting on a politics forum. It's also a very odd way to talk about voting. Exercise your right and use your vote.

I agree on Adams' performance. I thought Rabbitte came out best but the other two got useful exposure.


Here's Mark Hennessy from the Irish Times in his blog.

Heinrich

bill_ashmount wrote:

.

Luckily for me I have decided not to vote, so i won't have to chose between them. Although I might go up and spoil my vote just to say I used it.

Bravo! That's the way to do things.

Senator

Bill, it highlights again the futility of putting Adams in to bat instead of one of SF's TDs who at least knows the basics of the Republic's economy and the main social issues. Adams was lost, out of his depth, inadequately briefed and ultimately - even if voters DID like him personally - unelectable anyway. Another own goal for the Shinners.

nacho libre

dodgyme wrote:

mmm Your point doesn't make sense, which brings me to the point that you dont like McDowell but are too pigheaded to admit he won the debate. I am honest which means I have to admit this whether I like it or not. I would rather rabbitte to win but he didnt, he came second and not a close second. And as for Sergent and Adams, there more fringed seating positions were justified, because they looked on the fringe and Adams looked very uncomfortable with his leg shaking and a gaunt look anytime a difficult question or McDowell missle came flying. Sergent basically looked stupid with the writing on his hand. Like a schoolboy cheat caught brilliantly by the camera. And ask for News2 which was on the other channel a five minutes after the debate showed the most unprofessional analysis I have ever seen between the news reader and the some prime time researcher. If anyone else saw this tell me what ye thought and be honest.

I'm saying his forte is debating, it's where he seems comfortable, yet he still lost this debate in my opinion. Rabbitte countered most of his attacks effectively and was not caught out on detail. Mc Dowell on the other hand contradicted himself several times and resorted to attacking Rabbitte rather than sticking to attacking his policies. Which usually is a portent that someone is losing an argument.
I would just add i don't like many of McDowell's views or his demeanour but i admire him for sticking to his beliefs- not just engaging in soundbytes for public consumption.
Are you sure you wanted Rabbitte to win?;)

irishsurfer

Lennoxschips wrote:

there should be one big debate between all parties to be honest.

Thats how the Dutch do it, really works. 6 way debate

AidoCQS

bill_ashmount wrote:

My thoughts:
I thought Adams was useless. Can't believe how bad he came across.

Agreed, I have attended some speeches he has given and his presence and ability to deliver a keynote address is not unlike Bill Clinton, he is a great speaker (Please dont jump on a 'he is no Clinton tangent' - agreed but I have seen both and he is as close as we can muster on our little island).

But I guess there is a difference between a debater and a speaker.

It also makes sense when you consider the way politics is in the north, and if you consider the leaders of the two biggest parties rarely are in the same room, never shake hands let alone debate each other. It makes you wonder what passes for 'value' political leadership in the north.

yomchi

McDowell likes such debates and fended his corner well, although not necessarily endearing him to voters for other PD candidates perhaps. He has a personal distaste for Gerry Adams and wears his heart on his sleave in that regard. Of course, the 'big issue' was his emotional claims that Adams was involved in the A) IRA 25m/FARC C) I forget what that was now (see previous posts above). Adams was right that it was irresponsible for a Minister for Justice to be making claims like this against a person on TV. It was out of bounds for a policy debate. McDowell has of course done such stunts before. 25m for training FARC sounds far-fetched to me. 250k more like! In those days (90's) Adams did have of course close links with the PIRA heads but to say that he was personally involved is far-fetched.

Just on that, I think it was disgraceful of Mark Little to allow this personal attack on Adams character. The worst performer of the night was indeed Little. I think someone like John Bowman would have made it a much more interesting debate as he's top class at steering the debate in a direction everyone wants to see.

AidoCQS

Agreed the FARC thing did add a touch of the sureal to proceedings. I mean if he is Minister for Justice and he has evidence of at the very least, membership of an illegal organization, why did he not just arrest him? Why does the country have to watch a debate partly funded by 'Narco-terrorists' is it not the job of the minister of justice to prevent that?

stevoman

i personally didnt think gerry adams came across well last night, which is a pity for him because he is an excellent public speaker and he is usually able to tackle any question thats comes his way faster than many of us. i thought pat rabbite did very well and also did trevor sergeant.

i would just like to note this as my opinion which as we all know we are all intitled to in this state, thank god. i think michael mcdowell is a pompus little weener. trying to have a debate with a man like that i would class in the same catagory as having an argument with a ten year old boy who doesnt want to go to school or doesnt want to do his homework and has a stupid and childish answer for everything.

his charge on gerry adams last night about the ira army council receiving 25 million from columbian narco terrorist was part of his little smear campaigns he has been using against all parties, as also was his snide remark about the bank of northern ireland owning his house in relation to the robbery some time ago. i think gerry adams was the better man in not responding to his childish remarks........ gerry adams knows not to entertain that...... none of us in the republic of ireland seen mr mcdowell running to ulster to help save the conflict when catholics where being burned from their houses.

although i am not from a strong nationalist family nor or are any of these views expressed in my house from family members, i will give my vote to sinn fein this year as I BELEIVE THEY ARE ONE OF THE VERY FEW PARTIES LEFT IN IRELAND WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE WELL BEING OF THEIR COUNTRY, THAN THEY ARE WITH THEIR PARTIES AND THEIR PERSONEL WEALTH!!!!!

LuckyLloyd

AidoCQS wrote:

Agreed the FARC thing did add a touch of the sureal to proceedings. I mean if he is Minister for Justice and he has evidence of at the very least, membership of an illegal organization, why did he not just arrest him? Why does the country have to watch a debate partly funded by 'Narco-terrorists' is it not the job of the minister of justice to prevent that?

It's either a demonstration of gross incompetence on McDowell's part; or there is no actual truth or foundation to the accusations. Take your pick.

yomchi

Well the Columbia 3 were cleared of training FARC guerrillas and were charged with travelling with false documentation only. So the authorities in Columbia found them not guilty AND they weren't arrested in this state on return and now travel freely around the state without fear of arrest - so what does that say about that headers (mcdowell) jibe at Adams - completely false in my opinion and way out of line.
The man has no inter-personal skills whats so ever.

The_Minister

I think (just remembered this last night) that McDowell scored big points on immegration, by reminding everyone that Labour, Greens and SF have all opposed his immegration reforms and the citizenship referendum.

yomchi

Thats because it was blatantly right wing

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

yomchi

misinformed by scaremongering Dave

Infact since 9/11 the population at an international level has seen an increase in right-wing rhetoric and scaremongering. Terrorist attacks, influx of foreign nationals, imminent bankruptcy under a left leader - this kind of right wing politics breeds and lives by scare tactics.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dodgyme

Jon wrote:

misinformed by scaremongering Dave.

No not really - Country being abused by people who manage to take multiple flights through many different countries to abuse our lax laws. - FACT

yomchi

Sure, but what about the rights of the parents of non-nationals born here?

dodgyme

nacho libre wrote:

Are you sure you wanted Rabbitte to win?;)

If he woke up - yes

Voipjunkie

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

In fairness Rabbites point is that we need worker protection so that there is no incentive for employers to take on foreign Nationals purely because they can pay them less and treat them worse ala Irish Ferries.
That is not anti immigration or racist it is the exact opposite it about the protection of all workers irrespective of where they come from.
IF employers are allowed to replace workers with foreign Nationals that they c an pay less that will breed resentment and play into the hands of racists