Has Kenny shot himself in the foot?

Frankie Lee

No it just continues Fine Gaels long standing association with an unpopular right wing party from another country whom the general Irish public would not support.

It reminds me of the embarressment caused when John Bruton gave Charles Windsor a very warm welcome.

oscarBravo

Frankie Lee wrote: »

No it just continues Fine Gaels long standing association with an unpopular right wing party from another country whom the general Irish public would not support.

That "unpopular right wing party" is quite likely to form the next government over there. Which begs the question: unpopular with whom, precisely?

It reminds me of the embarressment caused when John Bruton gave Charles Windsor a very warm welcome.

I don't recall being embarrassed by that.

jmayo

Frankie Lee wrote: »

No it just continues Fine Gaels long standing association with an unpopular right wing party from another country whom the general Irish public would not support.

It reminds me of the embarressment caused when John Bruton gave Charles Windsor a very warm welcome.

Frankie will you ever move into this, the 21st century please.
Have you seen New Labour recently, gone are the days when they were cloth peak caps and socialists.
Conservative party is not that right wing nor that unpopular anymore.
BTW Cameron is probably going to be the next leader of UK so helps to have at least met him.
Maybe you should watch one of those evil foreign channels like the BBC News sometime.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Frankie Lee

jmayo wrote: »

Frankie will you ever move into this, the 21st century please.
Have you seen New Labour recently, gone are the days when they were cloth peak caps and socialists.
Conservative party is not that right wing nor that unpopular anymore.
BTW Cameron is probably going to be the next leader of UK so helps to have at least met him.
Maybe you should watch one of those evil foreign channels like the BBC News sometime.

Just because New Labour are right wing it doesn't mean the Conservatives are not, my point was that it is a not good for Kennys PR to be seen with the tories because the average Irish person does not like the Tories and what they have always standed for.
There is little or no difference in policy between FG and FF, the same way there is no difference in policy between NL and the Conservatives, the only thing that matters is public perception.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bmaxi

nesf wrote: »

Actually, this is the first thing he did that made him look like a potential leader in my eyes. It's not populist, it makes sense to address an obvious problem in our system and it may hopefully lead to referendums on issues that can be less technical and more intelligible to the general public. Anyone who wants decisions on legalise being made by anyone but legal people need their heads checked tbh. More broadly speaking, I don't think any of the rabid "democrats" of the No to Lisbon campaign were going to be FG voters anyway.

He may have had very good reasons for suggesting it and I, for one, would be very much in favour of "dumbing down" official language but the main issue is to do with public perception. Coming on the back of the Lisbon defeat it may be seen by the public as pique and could alienate he and his party from the electorate.

nesf

bmaxi wrote: »

He may have had very good reasons for suggesting it and I, for one, would be very much in favour of "dumbing down" official language but the main issue is to do with public perception.

You can't dumb down treaties between countries though without making them less precise which is a problem. Not everything can be stately simply enough to make sense to someone on the street which presents us with the awkward problem of having a system where we ask the people to make decisions on things that they can't fully understand or grasp. Democracy is only useful when voters can make informed decisions. Something like abortion is simple and straightforward and the average guy on the street can form an opinion on it, you can't make an international treaty between a large group of countries that simple, no matter how much you dumb down the official language. The length of the document alone makes that impossible given that people won't go to the trouble of reading it before voting on it.

old boy

no matter how good he is in the flesh, it how he comes across to the populance that matters, to me as a floating voter e.k. is dry, boring and at times makes me cringe.

He's not a leader.

bmaxi

nesf wrote: »

You can't dumb down treaties between countries though without making them less precise which is a problem. Not everything can be stately simply enough to make sense to someone on the street which presents us with the awkward problem of having a system where we ask the people to make decisions on things that they can't fully understand or grasp. Democracy is only useful when voters can make informed decisions. Something like abortion is simple and straightforward and the average guy on the street can form an opinion on it, you can't make an international treaty between a large group of countries that simple, no matter how much you dumb down the official language. The length of the document alone makes that impossible given that people won't go to the trouble of reading it before voting on it.

Officialspeak, like lawyerspeak, is maintained, IMO, for the purpose of confusion. I agree absolutely that Joe Soap will not be able to understand it. With regard to Lisbon, many eminent minds admitted that they were confused by it. Because of this the people were confused and voted it down. The Irish constitution says that the people are sovereign, not the politicians, it is, therefore, the duty of the Government to explain where explanation is necessary. Fianna Fail, in their arrogance, couldn't be bothered to do this until it was too late and the seeds of doubt had been sown.
In the Czech Republic, during the week, the Courts decided that Lisbon was not contrary to Czech law. It emerged later on that not all details of the treaty were submitted to them. One has to ask, how did this happen? Could the Government cherry pick those parts it wanted to submit to the Supreme Court? How would we know?
Successive Governments, over the last forty years, including those formed by Kenny's own party, have bred mistrust among the people and I think this latest will be seen by most as an attempt to undermine the constitution.

The Raven.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Donegalfella, I am surprised at this statement. To admire a leader just because they stand for ‘something’ is somewhat baffling.

I lived in England and suffered under Thatcherism. I can’t let this go without comment. Yes indeed Thatcher stood for something. Her divisive economic policies created a culture of greed and selfishness, and resulted in poverty, social disquiet, industrial strife and high unemployment.

Frankie Lee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you admire Hugo Chavez?

nesf

bmaxi wrote: »

Officialspeak, like lawyerspeak, is maintained, IMO, for the purpose of confusion.

Legalise is essentially jargon, similar to any professional field. Engineering documents are indecipherable to the average guy on the street but that doesn't mean that the jargon's only purpose is to obfuscate. The normal layman's vocabulary is simply not sufficiently precise for a lot of the concepts that are dealt with in specialised fields, be it law, medicine or whatever. Yes, jargon can be used to obfuscate things but that's not its primary use or why it's maintained.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sdanseo

Kenny cannot be allowed to become Taoiseach, he'd make a mockery of us. He lacks the charisma nessecary.

...and Cowen is as bad.

Bring back Bertie. For all his alleged undertable deals, he wasn't a half-bad leader.

Bob Z

nesf wrote: »

You can't dumb down treaties between countries though without making them less precise which is a problem. Not everything can be stately simply enough to make sense to someone on the street which presents us with the awkward problem of having a system where we ask the people to make decisions on things that they can't fully understand or grasp. Democracy is only useful when voters can make informed decisions. Something like abortion is simple and straightforward and the average guy on the street can form an opinion on it.

But cant we get that wrong too? Didnt we have a referundum on abortion one time where people thought they were voting against but because of its wording it turned out they were actually voting for it?

Frankie Lee

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How can you admire someone with such a defeatist attitude.

thebman

I think FG and Kenny's main problem is they come out with a weird statement about some policy they'd introduce and you don't know how they ever thought it was a good idea.

That kind of thing is really damaging to a party trying to sway votes when voters have the attitude of there is no alternative.

I think Kenny would probably be fine in power as I don't think the stupid decisions would be implemented if they got it.

As another poster mentioned, the other main members of FG seem very capable even if Kenny can come across as not being leader material at times. This suggests he is doing something right.

I think FG should work that angle more.

Personally I can't justify voting for FF in the next election and I'm from Brian Cowen's constituency. The man seems indent on destroying any chance we have for economic recovery. Regardless of what he does for the area, if there are no jobs, what is the point of the new shopping centre or hospital I can't afford to be treated by?

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Kenny cannot be allowed to become Taoiseach, he'd make a mockery of us. He lacks the charisma nessecary.

...and Cowen is as bad.

Bring back Bertie. For all his alleged undertable deals, he wasn't a half-bad leader.

I honestly cannot understand that logic. Just because things were good when Bertie was in power?

The man rode on the success of others and got out just before the bubble burst. He is just lucky. As for charisma, if Brian Cowen was in a position to declare tax cuts for all tomorrow, you'd probably be saying he had charisma. This isn't the same country it was when Bertie was in charge and bringing him back, wouldn't achieve or fix the economy. The hole was dug in Bertie's time and he got out before FF had to lie in it.

jmayo

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Kenny cannot be allowed to become Taoiseach, he'd make a mockery of us. He lacks the charisma nessecary.

...and Cowen is as bad.

Bring back Bertie. For all his alleged undertable deals, he wasn't a half-bad leader.

Ah yes lets bring back bertie after all he only presided over the administration that had Biffo as finance minister that allowed our economy be based on residential construction and retail.
Do you really think the man that gave into the unions everytime there was a wage demand, that flung money at every problem, that blew loads of OUR money on stadiums that never were, on prison sites, on e-voting machines that couldn't be proven to function correctly, should be our leader now that we have no money at all.

This does not even mention the fact he was walking around Dublin with bags full of cash of different currencies, and that put corrupt politicans into some of the hghest ministries in the government, that signed blank cheques for his former leader.
Take out his work on Northen Ireland, we see very little achievements for all the money spent and we will be paying for the legacy of his regime for the next 40 years.

thebman

Also ignores that he was a minister for finance with no bank account.

How could he be corrupt when he didn't even have a bank account. Poor guy had not a penny to his name and I'll not here a bad word against him

lostexpectation

what your opinion on state corporatism donegalfella?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Bob Z wrote: »

But cant we get that wrong too?

Of course. The question being which is more likely to be wrong. No system we can ever implement will be perfect unfortunately.

tricky dickie

it's bad enough a offaly man in power.
a mayo man would really feck up the country all together

bring back john burton

limklad

I am not happy with Kenny comments about changing the way the Irish Constitution should be amended.

The Irish people are the Gate holders of our "Irish Constitution", while it is not perfect and has flaws, I would trust any politician/Government amended it without the Electorate (People Of Ireland) permission. "Irish Constitution" is meant to show the morality of the Nation rules and make up of the State. Constitutions in direct control of the government can be abused by them and can be used as justification for unwanted policies.

Currently we the People of Ireland own the Constitution and The Supreme court are the Protector/Guardian of the "Irish Constitution".
The Protectors or Guardians do not always make the right choice for the people and should not set the morality for amending or changing the Constitution. They should only enforce the "Irish Constitution" no matter how bad it is.

Most politicians do not like Direct democracy as it prevent them from doing anything they want without approval from the people.

If Politicians want to make changes they should do what they always have to when this Irish constitution was put in place(+4 years) was to look to the people for approval for the amendments.

Kenny is just embarrassed about the Lisbon Treaty failure and now with other politicians are looking to undermine the people of Ireland.

It looks like picking the best of the "rotten apples in the barrel" is getting smaller for me when voting in the next general election.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh, look around.

oscarBravo

limklad wrote: »

The Irish people are the Gate holders of our "Irish Constitution", while it is not perfect and has flaws, I would trust any politician/Government amended it without the Electorate (People Of Ireland) permission. "Irish Constitution" is meant to show the morality of the Nation rules and make up of the State. Constitutions in direct control of the government can be abused by them and can be used as justification for unwanted policies.

In principle, I agree. But what happens when the people abuse their responsibility? If the electorate's vote on a constitutional amendment is influenced by anything other than the actual issues in question, or if they vote capriciously, is that acceptable?

We entrust our politicians with the responsibility of voting for legislation. If your TD voted down a bill that you felt was important, and when questioned said that he actually hadn't understood what it was he was voting on - or that he was voting against it just to piss the other party off - would you consider that he had acted responsibly?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

We entrust our politicians with the responsibility of voting for legislation. If your TD voted down a bill that you felt was important, and when questioned said that he actually hadn't understood what it was he was voting on - or that he was voting against it just to piss the other party off - would you consider that he had acted responsibly?

That's what happens anyway. Government whips get their TDs to vote with the government. Opposition vote against. TDs don't read legislation. You're naive if you think they do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.