The Gestapo is making a comeback!

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you for the history lesson. I hope you realise that this is 2009, and McDowell has done quite a lot since then.

I hope this rumour is true, and if it is, good for McDowell. The Dáil has been a less interesting place since he lost his seat.

Do we really need an interesting Dáil? Would it not be far more beneficial to have a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland?

Sand

Do we really need an interesting Dáil?

Uh, yes? Certainly better than the alternative - talking shop, rubber stamp with some mealy mouthed consensus view.

McDowell is loathed by swathes of washed up communists/social partners/consensus politicians when most people cant probably name their local TDs because he is one of the few idealogical politicians Ireland has had in the past few decades. Hes had an impact on Irish politics, and Id rather he was in the Dail than some empty suit who cant think for themselves having been plucked from mediocrity to inherit their daddies seat.

Breezer

Sand wrote: »

Uh, yes? Certainly better than the alternative - talking shop, rubber stamp with some mealy mouthed consensus view.

Well my alternative was more along the lines of a parliament filled with people who get on with the job, instead of getting into shouting matches with Joe Higgins (entertaining as they were) and comparing members of other parties to leading Nazis. I don't believe in controversy for the sake of it.

he is one of the few idealogical politicians Ireland has had in the past few decades.

Aside from disagreeing with much of his ideology, I dislike strongly ideologically driven politics in general. The alternative doesn't have to be mindless people-pleasing, but rather evaluating each situation from an objective standpoint, determining what will be most beneficial in a particular situation, and making a decision based on that, without being blinded by a preconceived agenda.

But when it boiled down to it, McDowell's bark was far worse than his bite anyway. Despite all the ranting and raving, he backed Bertie to the last. In other words, he supported exactly the type of consensus politics you seem to despise so much.

ninty9er

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He was a senior policy advisor to Garrett IIRC, meaning that if they had listened to him rather than forcing him into the PDs, FG could have become an actual alternative, as much as I don't think it suits a small country like us to have radical alternatives, some people would like that, and the die-hard FG vote would have made it happen anyway.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

Do we really need an interesting Dáil? Would it not be far more beneficial to have a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland?

Eh, the problem being that the "good of the people of Ireland" is many different things to many different people and we don't have enough resources to do everything everyone wants so at some point the real politics begins and someone has to decide what gets fixed and what doesn't and that's where the messy part begins.

Politics from the Opposition benches is easy, you never have to implement anything and you can hold to such nice notions as the above, but as soon as you're in Government you have to start making tough decisions about what gets done and what doesn't.


We need an interesting Dáil because otherwise we risk the tyranny of the majority and politicians all playing to the centre.

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

mcdowell while he wobbled over berites bribes was a victim of being too much of a straight talker and not enough of a populist ,

Much furore over 'gun crime'. McDowell launches legislation that makes what was already illegal, illegal, and what were offences, offences, and declares he has done something. That isn't 'populism'?

In the face of a waning vote in his own constituency, he starts numerous seemingly scatty rants, the most memorable being his crackdown on 'fireworks'. Is it not populism when a Minister for Justice is using his dail tijme and departments resources to prop himself up in his own parish with trivia?

His remarks on immigrants. Were they not 'populist'? His claim - denied by the two men involved - that the heads of the countries two main maternity hospitals had expressed concerns concerning foriegn nationals giving birth etc? That wasn't 'populism'?

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

We need an interesting Dáil because otherwise we risk the tyranny of the majority and politicians all playing to the centre.

I doubt the presence of two or three mcdowells (*shudder) would prevent that. Theres insufficient checks on the Dail to prevent kneejerk reactions and the like.

SWL

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

Agree 100% - he was also the only politician who took on Sein Fein, the leaders debate on RTE where he took apart the economic policies of SF, was classic McDowell.

the_syco

Hmmmmm... if he replaces EK, I may vote FG.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Eh, the problem being that the "good of the people of Ireland" is many different things to many different people and we don't have enough resources to do everything everyone wants so at some point the real politics begins and someone has to decide what gets fixed and what doesn't and that's where the messy part begins.

Of course. My point was in relation to McDowell making the Dáil more "interesting:" it's not there for our entertainment, it's there to run the country. Obviously there'll be disagreements but McDowell simply liked causing a ruckus.

jmayo

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

This would be the same McDowell that couldn't figure out whether he would or wouldn't pull out of government regarding bertie's ever increasig weird denials.
Some FF watchdog he turned out to be.
He was more like the ff poodle who had been deballed.

It is noticable how some of our former PD supporting woudl be liberals are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of the great hero returning.
He is one of the major reasons together with Harney why the PDs are now defunct. It is the worse possible decision by FG.
Leave him in the political wilderness and defending sweater cases in the courts.

Lets see what other notable achievements the man has had.
Whilst Atoorney General he did his damnest to make sure the McBeraty allegations in Donegal were ignored.
Oh and if I remember rightly he used his parliamentary priviledge in a not too ethical fashion to out a certain public figure.

His one contribution at time of last election was he destroyed Adams and his lack of an economic policy for our country.

As once said about Conor Cruise O'Brien "he is like a lighthouse in the Bog of Allen, he is billiantly bright but yet useless".

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He is a right winger but he has balls. There is no one like him on the left though, we need people with balls on the left, willing to take on the Unions and other vested interests to make Ireland great again.

Good luck to him. He is intellegent, competent, not my cup of tea politically but a lot to admire about him even though he is a right wing neo con, neo liberal type of guy.

I would love to see where all these balls are.
Where are all the great policy decisions, where was he when bertie was spinning his yarns down in Dublin Castle.
Oh yeah he was still backing him and staying in government :rolleyes:
Would Dessie O'Malley have done the same ?
I don't think so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know little or nothing about the US House of Representatives, so I can't comment. It would appear, however, that what you are looking for could be provided by a broad media.

As nesf points out above, "a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland" is not so easily defined. You might believe that it is for "the good of the people of Ireland" that the government taxes the wealthy and the corporations to the hilt, and borrows billions from China, so as to provide "free" services, fund generous welfare subsidies, recapitalize banks, and buy up toxic assets. Someone else might believe that such policies mitigate against "the good of the people of Ireland," because they will likely leave our country mired in stagnation and debt for decades to come.

But this is precisely my point. Why do we have to subscribe to a "left" or "right" wing agenda? Can we not have a centrist party, comprising competent politicians, who will make decisions on a case by case basis? One that doesn't try, for example, to privatise absolutely everything, or to privatise absolutely nothing, but that privatises some things, based on research into international best practice?

I'm not suggesting that every decision made will please everyone, but I believe a party that takes this type of centrist approach would be more beneficial to Ireland as a whole than a party that consistently leaves one or another sector of society disenfranchised.

I believe FG is that party, which is why I support them. I don't believe McDowell fits that model, which is why I don't want to see him in FG. As evidenced by this thread, there are those that believe FG should be a right-wing party, and that McDowell is the man to create that. What they are actually looking for is a larger Progressive Democrats polling at 30%+. That's not what I want FG to become, and I would not support the party if that's what it became.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

I believe FG is that party, which is why I support them. I don't believe McDowell fits that model, which is why I don't want to see him in FG. As evidenced by this thread, there are those that believe FG should be a right-wing party, and that McDowell is the man to create that. What they are actually looking for is a larger Progressive Democrats polling at 30%+. That's not what I want FG to become, and I would not support the party if that's what it became.

Centrism is as much an ideological position as left or right mate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Centrism is as much an ideological position as left or right mate.

You got me - poor terminology, my bad. I stand by the substance of what I said though.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's precisely what I don't believe in, and why I don't support FF. You're equating centrism with people-pleasing, which is indeed what FF have done. To me, centrism is taking the best decision possible based on resources available, international best practice, future implications, etc. Not the same thing.

I think people would like to see a little bit of political variety when they go to the polling booth. Right now, we have the centre-left, the left, the environmental left, the nationalistic left, and the hard left. If you are politically on the left, you will be happy not to see a right-wing party represented at the polls. If you're a genuine democrat, you will see this paucity of choice for what it is.

I was delighted to see the collapse of a right-wing party that enjoyed little popular support but yet managed to run the country for a decade, yes. I have no problem with the existence of a right-wing party per se, and if people want to vote for it then well and good. But I don't think FG is that party or should be that party, and I don't want McDowell driving it in that direction.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

You got me - poor terminology, my bad. I stand by the substance of what I said though.

What does centrist mean to you though? Politics is at its core a painful choice between multiple worthy alternatives. Ideology is what dictates the list we get around to things to. That and polls.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

To me, centrism is taking the best decision possible based on resources available, international best practice, future implications, etc. Not the same thing.

"Best" is subjective.

Nesf has already defined idealogy as dictating the priority we place on objectives in an enviroment of scarce resources.

Should the government have a minimum wage? Removing it increases competiveness of the economy, and can increase employment if there are people willing to work at a rate below the minimum wage - arguably if the wage was set too low versus the wider economy the would be employer will not find anyone willing to do the job, and certainly only those who were unable to find work elsewhere - i.e. the least productive. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so employers have an incentive to pay more than peanuts. Is that not the "best" decision?

Many would disagree - they would view a minimum wage as protecting workers from exploitation and argue that we cant rely on employers being rational enough to pay "premium" wages to encourage productivity. So now the "best" decision is to have a minimum wage?

What decides the "best" result to any particular individual is their idealogy, and what priority that they place on the results - in the case above economic competiveness & increased employment vs "protection" of workers. The use of " " betraying my own idealogy to some degree. :cool:

Everyone likes to claim to be a centrist, or a moderate and that its all you other people who are crazy. Its reassuring. But being an idealogical politician is not a bad thing. We elect politicians for a period of several years. We dont know exactly what theyre going to be dealing with over the next decade or so, but knowing their idealogy gives us an idea of how theyre going to handle things. Guys like Joe Higgins, you could understand his points of view and where he was going to come from. If you agreed, he would *generally* speaking be a good fit with your own views. The same with McDowell. I found his dithering over Bertie to be demeaning, but he deserves every credit for taking on the Provos and their ilk, making their lives miserable - they still loathe him, especially over his tipping off Chuck Feeney with regards to their plans for his money. Hence, idealogically I could know if I voted for him that he wasnt going to go easy on them. Id have a rough handle on how he was going to deal with things.

"Centrist" or "consensus" politicians, nobody has any idea how theyre going to handle things. They are empty suits, calling for a committee to be formed, to issue a report in 2 years time, with their only skills being stealing photo opportunities, claiming expenses, taking credit and denying responsibility. We elect politicians to lead - not to follow. If they dont have any idealogy other than "Do whatever the civil servant says" then why bother with elected representives in the first place? Might as well just have a benign civil service dictatorship.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Best decision for whom? A majority of people? Their constituents? Their supporters? Their cronies?

I think schadenfreude is the wrong response here.

I don't think it's schadenfreude. The PDs had very little popular support and yet were being allowed to drive Ireland in the direction they thought best. It was the demise of this that I celebrated. I also disagreed with a lot of their policies, so yes, I was glad they weren't going to be able to implement them anymore, just as I'm sure you're glad the Socialist party aren't dictating Government policy.

And yet I presume that you had no problem with Garret Fitzgerald driving Fine Gael in a social democratic direction in the 1980s?

I'm not sure what Garrett Fitzgerald has to do with any of this. The approach being taken by Fine Gael under Kenny suits my beliefs pretty well; the approach taken by the PDs under McDowell didn't, and that's why I wouldn't welcome him being in the party or support a party where he had a strong influence.

Sand wrote: »

Should the government have a minimum wage? Removing it increases competiveness of the economy, and can increase employment if there are people willing to work at a rate below the minimum wage - arguably if the wage was set too low versus the wider economy the would be employer will not find anyone willing to do the job, and certainly only those who were unable to find work elsewhere - i.e. the least productive. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so employers have an incentive to pay more than peanuts. Is that not the "best" decision?

Many would disagree - they would view a minimum wage as protecting workers from exploitation and argue that we cant rely on employers being rational enough to pay "premium" wages to encourage productivity. So now the "best" decision is to have a minimum wage?

So you find a balance between the two: set a minimum wage, but set it at a level that does not cause employers to up and leave. Which is pretty much what we did (and yes, I'm aware this was PD policy), until we started appeasing unions left, right and centre (pardon the pun).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course I don't. It doesn't mean it's not something to be aspired to.

You're describing a structural feature of Ireland's political architecture: In return for being the lynchpin that keeps a larger party in power, a small coalition partner gets to exercise disproportionate influence in government. This has not demised one whit. Just look at the Green Party today.

Unfortunately yes, I am (although I disagree that the Greens are doing this, and I've chastised them for it many times, here and elsewhere).

Being glad that the Progressive Democrats' policies aren't dictating policy, and being glad that the party no longer exists, are two different things, though.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the existence of a right wing party. If the PDs had chosen to linger on in opposition, and attempt to build themselves up again, rather than disband, I really couldn't have cared less, provided they weren't dictating to the Government.

My point is that Fine Gael wasn't always on the social democratic left, where it is today. It was positioned there, largely under the leadership of Garret FitzGerald, and has led to a number of bizarre alliances with Labour.

Very true, but I support the party of today. All I'm doing here is expressing a personal opinion. In times gone by, I may not have supported Fine Gael, and I may not in the future if it takes a direction I don't agree with.

I'd hardly call it a left wing party by the way, just as I wouldn't call it a right wing party.

Sand

So you find a balance between the two: set a minimum wage, but set it at a level that does not cause employers to up and leave. Which is pretty much what we did (and yes, I'm aware this was PD policy), until we started appeasing unions left, right and centre (pardon the pun).

A balance is a nice way of describing a window dressing exercise. If you introduce a minimum wage, but set it so low that it doesnt affect competiveness or employment then its below the price the market is setting already, so why do you need one? The only defensible view is that you are setting a minimum wage above the market wage, trading off competiveness and employment because you value protection of workers more - I.E. an idealogical judgement. I mean, I would disagree - but if someone in favour of such a view was to say "Sand, I value X more than Y, hence Im going with this option" I would tend to respect that more than "Well, Im going with this option, but in such a wishy washy fashion that it wont seriously impact anything in any meaningful fashion".

The best result isnt always a compromise - so long as a decision maker takes on and evaluates all evidence and opinions available, and weights them appropriately ( not all opinions are equal...) with an open mind then they will make the best decision they can. Compromise if often the worst decision, not accomplishing anything other than a politically expedient short term goal. See Fianna Fail over the past decade.

If politics isnt about idealogy, what the hell is it about? Mercs, perks and getting re-elected?

Breezer

My post was a quick response to the problem you posed, and was to illustrate the point that there were options other than the traditional "left" and "right" views that you presented. It would obviously take more than 30 seconds to come up with a coherent government policy, and my reply wasn't intended as one.

Sand wrote: »

The best result isnt always a compromise - so long as a decision maker takes on and evaluates all evidence and opinions available, and weights them appropriately ( not all opinions are equal...) with an open mind then they will make the best decision they can.

And what did I say above?

Breezer wrote:

To me, centrism is taking the best decision possible based on resources available, international best practice, future implications, etc.

Maybe I didn't express myself well enough, but what you've said above is exactly what I was getting at. So I'm glad we agree.

If politics isnt about idealogy, what the hell is it about? Mercs, perks and getting re-elected?

Obviously some ideology will come into play. I never said otherwise. I said strongly ideologically-driven politics can blind people to other, often more viable options.

Sand

My post was a quick response to the problem you posed, and was to illustrate the point that there were options other than the traditional "left" and "right" views that you presented. It would obviously take more than 30 seconds to come up with a coherent government policy, and my reply wasn't intended as one.

My point is that lacking idealogy you end up with a policy that sits firmly in the middle - a minimum wage that is set so low that it doesnt impact competiveness or employment is not worth passing on any measure.

All decisions are a trade off. Seeking to deny that is dangerous because youre denying theres any cost to be paid, when in reality there is. A policy based on such delusion isnt a strong point.

And what did I say above?

You said the best decision. Full stop.

I said the best decision they (the decision maker) can. McDowell and Higgins if both given decision making powers would make different decisions even if presented with the same evidence because they have different idealogies and different viewpoints. They would both believe they were making the best decision. Thats what makes elections worthwhile. The electorate can determine the idealogy they favour. If you only have two shades of gray to choose between, why bother holding an election at all?

Fine Gaels problem has been their public image is "Fianna Fails older, less successful and more socially inept brother". They need to define themselves from Fianna Fail, who are the masters of centrist, idealogy void populist "politics". Otherwise, why should anyone vote for Fine Gael? How are they different from Fianna Fail? What would Fine Gael have done differently from Fianna Fail over the past 10 years? How is their idealogy and political philosophy different from Fianna Fail?

Fine Gael ought not to be afraid of being different from Fianna Fail. Theyve been desperately unsuccessful trying to be the less popular version of Fianna Fail. Perhaps they could try dictating why people should vote for them, other than to punish Fianna Fail.

Which is the best reason they have come up with so far.

Obviously some ideology will come into play. I never said otherwise. I said strongly ideologically-driven politics can blind people to other, often more viable options.

We dont elect politicians to do whatever the civil servants tell them to do. We elect them to lead. We get a good idea of their viewpoints from the idealogy. I mean, Royston Brady would be an awesome leader of Ireland by your measure because the guy had no idealogy whatsoever. Clearly, he would always make the common sense, viable decisions that those crazy idealogical people would ignore.

I'd much rather a strongly idealogical politician standing for election that some Royston Brady type. At least I can make a judgment, as opposed to the decisions that have been presented to the Irish voter over the past few decades. I mock the typical Irish voter who says "Nah, I wont vote Fine Gael cos Enda Kenny looks like a bit of a twat" without even looking at the Fine Gael manifesto and policies. But then, maybe they know better than I do. Afterall, idealogy is the enemy in politics. We need guys like Royston Brady in politics, guys like Bertie Ahern. Who are nice, charming and dont hold any views that we disagree with.

Yeah.

irish_bob

Sand wrote: »

My point is that lacking idealogy you end up with a policy that sits firmly in the middle - a minimum wage that is set so low that it doesnt impact competiveness or employment is not worth passing on any measure.

All decisions are a trade off. Seeking to deny that is dangerous because youre denying theres any cost to be paid, when in reality there is. A policy based on such delusion isnt a strong point.



You said the best decision. Full stop.

I said the best decision they (the decision maker) can. McDowell and Higgins if both given decision making powers would make different decisions even if presented with the same evidence because they have different idealogies and different viewpoints. They would both believe they were making the best decision. Thats what makes elections worthwhile. The electorate can determine the idealogy they favour. If you only have two shades of gray to choose between, why bother holding an election at all?

Fine Gaels problem has been their public image is "Fianna Fails older, less successful and more socially inept brother". They need to define themselves from Fianna Fail, who are the masters of centrist, idealogy void populist "politics". Otherwise, why should anyone vote for Fine Gael? How are they different from Fianna Fail? What would Fine Gael have done differently from Fianna Fail over the past 10 years? How is their idealogy and political philosophy different from Fianna Fail?

Fine Gael ought not to be afraid of being different from Fianna Fail. Theyve been desperately unsuccessful trying to be the less popular version of Fianna Fail. Perhaps they could try dictating why people should vote for them, other than to punish Fianna Fail.

Which is the best reason they have come up with so far.



We dont elect politicians to do whatever the civil servants tell them to do. We elect them to lead. We get a good idea of their viewpoints from the idealogy. I mean, Royston Brady would be an awesome leader of Ireland by your measure because the guy had no idealogy whatsoever. Clearly, he would always make the common sense, viable decisions that those crazy idealogical people would ignore.

I'd much rather a strongly idealogical politician standing for election that some Royston Brady type. At least I can make a judgment, as opposed to the decisions that have been presented to the Irish voter over the past few decades. I mock the typical Irish voter who says "Nah, I wont vote Fine Gael cos Enda Kenny looks like a bit of a twat" without even looking at the Fine Gael manifesto and policies. But then, maybe they know better than I do. Afterall, idealogy is the enemy in politics. We need guys like Royston Brady in politics, guys like Bertie Ahern. Who are nice, charming and dont hold any views that we disagree with.

Yeah.

right now , nothing particulary stands out about fine gael , thier recent surge in the polls is simply down to how unpopular fianna fail are and how bad a state the country is presently in , not being fianna fail is enough on this occasion to assure them of leading the next goverment but it is depressing that that is enough for fine gael , they have a golden opportunity (such is the hatred for fianna fail and the unprecedented economic situation we find ourselves in ) to make a great leap forward ( appologist to all maoists in here ) and redefine themselves and the body politic in this country , i dont however think they can do this with enda kenny as leader , kenny while not a populist in the fianna fail sense is still a populist who is happy enough just to win an election , i seriously doubt he posseses the ambition to steer fine gael in the direction of goverment without labour

i know this might sound a bit too far fetched but such is the state the country is in , a radical solution is required , personally i think the man to lead fine gael should be ivan yates if he could be tempted to come back , unlike mc dowell he is extremly personable and very well liked while at the same time a straight talker who is never shy to slay a few sacred cows like social wellfare or nurses and teachers wages , i realise it couldnt happen over night but this country is not going to be back on its feet anytime soon with the kind of consensus politics that still rules the roost , eventually i hope the people will realise that harsh descisions will have to be made and i hope fine gael realise that not being fianna fail isnt enough long term

Breezer

Sand wrote: »

You said the best decision. Full stop.

And I gave similar methods to you as to what that decision could be based on.

McDowell and Higgins if both given decision making powers would make different decisions even if presented with the same evidence because they have different idealogies and different viewpoints.

Because they're both locked into extreme viewpoints, at opposite ends of the scale. What exactly is wrong with being somewhere in the middle?

Fine Gaels problem has been their public image is "Fianna Fails older, less successful and more socially inept brother"...

We could have an entire thread on the differences between the parties. This thread is about McDowell.

Fine Gael ought not to be afraid of being different from Fianna Fail.

By becoming more like the PDs?

I'd much rather a strongly idealogical politician standing for election that some Royston Brady type.

Or you could have a more competent moderate.

We need guys like Royston Brady in politics, guys like Bertie Ahern. Who are nice, charming and dont hold any views that we disagree with.

Yeah.

Why exactly are you trying to make out that I'm promoting Bertie's type of politics here? I can't stand Bertie Ahern. Bertie was a people pleaser and someone who was in politics to line his own pockets. That's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm advocating an objective, cool-headed approach, that will sometimes result in decisions being left of centre, sometimes right of centre, in the interest of providing a workable system that will be in the interest (not necessarily the short term interest) of the majority of people.

irish_bob

Breezer wrote: »

And I gave similar methods to you as to what that decision could be based on.

Because they're both locked into extreme viewpoints, at opposite ends of the scale. What exactly is wrong with being somewhere in the middle?

We could have an entire thread on the differences between the parties. This thread is about McDowell.

By becoming more like the PDs?

Or you could have a more competent moderate.

Why exactly are you trying to make out that I'm promoting Bertie's type of politics here? I can't stand Bertie Ahern. Bertie was a people pleaser and someone who was in politics to line his own pockets. That's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm advocating an objective, cool-headed approach, that will sometimes result in decisions being left of centre, sometimes right of centre, in the interest of providing a workable system that will be in the interest (not necessarily the short term interest) of the majority of people.

TOMATO , TOMATOE

Breezer

irish_bob wrote: »

TOMATO , TOMATOE

You equate taking backhanders, appointing ministers based on geography, changing your policies based on which small party can keep you in power, and telling those who criticise your handling of things to commit suicide with an objective, disinterested, moderate approach to politics?

a straight talker who is never shy to slay a few sacred cows like social wellfare or nurses and teachers wages

I've no problem with sacred cows being taken out if it can be shown that it will be of long-term benefit to the country as a whole. I have a huge problem with them being taken out because it makes the minister responsible appear like a right wing tough guy, and this my fear with McDowell.

Breezer

Anyway, leaving disagreements aside, Enda Kenny has stated that there's no truth in this story:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0512/finegael.html

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has stated that the party has not been in contact with former Tánaiste Michael McDowell about standing for the party in any constituency.

Mr Kenny said he 'did not see the need for Michael McDowell' as the party had enough candidates.

I also liked this bit :P:

Responding to criticism of his leadership by Senator Alex White, the Labour candidate in Dublin South, Mr Kenny said he was 'not interested in Senator White's view'.