Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
So Enda Kenny is lacking charisma...
Options
Comments
-
Is that some sort of joke? It is well known that Bertie did not have control of the finance position during his time as Taoiseach, there are notable examples of decisions he didn't even know about (or seem to care about) up until close to, or maybe on the eve of, budget day.johnnyskeleton wrote: »The leader has as much a role in dictating the economic decisions of a country as the finance minister. Just because cowen isn't doing anything and Lenihan is doesn't mean that this is how it normally is. Under bertie, cowen did what he was told to do and it was bertie who really controlled the purse strings.
Are you kidding? He is the main opposition focus in leinster House in relation to economic issues. He has produced a wealth of documents over the past eighteen months since this recession really started to bite/ What has he produced? Take Fine Gael's National Recovery Bank idea for example. You may agree or disagree with it, but for goodness sake how the hell can anyone who has been following politics recently reasonably ask 'what has he produced'?I'm not surprized FG came out with these lines - it was either gut Lee straight away, or Lee would destroy them. It's easy to say that Lee has produced nothing, but what has Bruton produced?
http://www.finegael.org/upload/National%20Recovery%20Bank%2014-05-09.pdf
or this bill instigated by FG
http://www.finegael.org/upload/file/Central%20Bank%20and%20Financial%20Services%20Authority%20of%20Ireland%20Bill%202009.pdf
George Lee never said he wasnt allowed say what he wanted. He never said he disagreed with party policy once.I see it as the opposite - he wasn't allowed to say what he wanted and had to spout the usual party lines.
He seems to have never said anything to begin with.
Where did he say he was silenced? Link?I see no reason not to take Lee at his word when he says that he was silenced by the FG machine.
Richard Bruton is both in my opinion.It would be nice to have a world class econominst in government, but it would be much more realistic to ask for just a safe pair of hands.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13665
Red_Marauder wrote: »Is that some sort of joke? It is well known that Bertie did not have control of the finance position during his time as Taoiseach, there are notable examples of decisions he didn't even know about (or seem to care about) up until close to, or maybe on the eve of, budget day.
The trouble with things that are well known is that they seem to be notably lacking in proof. I don't doubt for a minute that Bertie was the architect of FF's new economic policy. Perhaps there were details in the budget that he didn't know (or more likely pretended for politicial reasons not to know about), but he took social partnership to the next level, he ran the FF tent at galway races, he presided over soft touch regulation, he championed the ever expanding public sector. Granted, none of these things were his original idea as such, but he took those balls and ran with them.
Crucially, if a finance minister was not doing what bertie wanted him to do, well it was off to the back benches (or brussels) with them. And living up to his soubriquet, the teflon don, people seem to think that it was the finance mininsters who made all the rubbish decisions, and that bertie was just a grand ole fellow.Red_Marauder wrote: »Are you kidding? He is the main opposition focus in leinster House in relation to economic issues.
Interesting argument - that Bruton is better than Lee because he was put in the position of main opposition focus on economic issues. That doesn't mean Bruton did anything better than Lee, just that he was given the opportunity to do so. Not a particularly good job of it either as he voted for the guarantee, was like a headless chicken when Anglo was nationalised and only started to put the boot in re: NAMA when public opinion was already way over to his side.Red_Marauder wrote: »He has produced a wealth of documents over the past eighteen months since this recession really started to bite/ What has he produced?
Yes what has he personally produced? If Lee is to be criticised for not going on a solo run, what has Bruton done in his own name as opposed to the policies set by FG committee?Red_Marauder wrote: »Take Fine Gael's National Recovery Bank idea for example. You may agree or disagree with it, but for goodness sake how the hell can anyone who has been following politics recently reasonably ask 'what has he produced'?
http://www.finegael.org/upload/National%20Recovery%20Bank%2014-05-09.pdf
Strange, I though Kenny was taking credit for that one - in any event it was put forward as FG's alternative, not Bruton's alternative. But since we're talking about Bruton being the focus of FG's economic policy, was it not his job to convince people that this National Recovery Bank was a viable alternative to NAMA? Christ, he couldn't even convince other members of FG like Fitzgerald and Dukes (not that I'm saying they are the brightest sparks by any standard).Red_Marauder wrote: »
By FG or by Bruton? I think you've missed the point - if Lee is to be criticised for not putting forward his own policies independent of FG (i.e. stepping out of line), why is Bruton being praised for the ideas that FG have?
But what is the story with that bill? Sounds like a soft political ploy to me - "let's stop them nasty debt collectors" etc etc.Red_Marauder wrote: »George Lee never said he wasnt allowed say what he wanted. He never said he disagreed with party policy once.
He seems to have never said anything to begin with.
Where did he say he was silenced? Link?
He resigned because he was not being allowed to provide input into economic policy. He said as such in his resignation letter. Once he entered politics he "dissappeared into the thickets of the Fine Gael backbenches" as Vincent Browne put it. Irish politics does not allow for individual party members to have their own economic policies, so to suggest that George Lee would have been perfectly able to sit in the back benches disagreeing with party policy and/or putting his own views out there is a non-runner.Red_Marauder wrote: »Richard Bruton is both in my opinion.
You think Richard Bruton is a world class economist?
I look at FG and despair - they could be pushing an open door and instead they are getting stuck in the doorframe.0 -
You need to read the post you quoted. That was a response to the question "what has Burton produced". Not an argument that Lee is better than Bruton - that theory was never tested because Lee remained quite silent while with Fine Gael post bye election.johnnyskeleton wrote: »Interesting argument - that Bruton is better than Lee because he was put in the position of main opposition focus on economic issues.
What opportunity? You think Richard Bruton sulked quietly in the canteens of Mount Street before one day John Bruton walked up to him and asked him to be a Minister? You think he shrank into the background while Enda Kenny was picking his team? Get real. Shrinking is exactly what George Lee did upon his election. He sulked around and shrank into the background, waiting to be asked, and waiting to be approached. Where was the initiative?That doesn't mean Bruton did anything better than Lee, just that he was given the opportunity to do so.
Dr James O'Reilly has made the point that he himself was headhunted by the Fine Gael party to run for the Oireachtas. But he was keen to point out that he didn't expect any automatic input, he went giving it, and in his case decided to "canvass damn hard" for the health portfolio.
So did the majority of the Dáil - it's another thread. Lots of us agree with it.Not a particularly good job of it either as he voted for the guarantee
Bruton is the finance spokesman. It would be pretty stupid to put out one statement as a finance spokesman and another statement as a TD.Yes what has he personally produced? If Lee is to be criticised for not going on a solo run, what has Bruton done in his own name as opposed to the policies set by FG committee?
Putting out statements privately is an option available to everyone, but it only makes sense for those who are in the backbenches of the party to do so.
Furthermore, Lee didn't even have to put out some statements - because he was given a job most other backbenchers would relish - he was given responsibility for the party's economic policy forming committee. Why didn't he chair any meetings?
He was due to travel to the OECD to discuss economic strategy last week. He quit first.
Do you even understand how parties operate? The finance spokesman is the spokesman for the party - of course it goes out in the party's name, it isn't the damn constituency newsletter.Strange, I though Kenny was taking credit for that one - in any event it was put forward as FG's alternative, not Bruton's alternative.
No the difference is he did not have input - not that he wasn't allowed input. Nobody ever stopped him from coming forward according to himself.He resigned because he was not being allowed to provide input into economic policy.
Lots of TDs break away on points of interest, it happens all the time. Sometimes they lose the whip, sometimes they don't. He could have sent up a private members motion like lots of TDs do, why didn't he?Irish politics does not allow for individual party members to have their own economic policies, so to suggest that George Lee would have been perfectly able to sit in the back benches disagreeing with party policy and/or putting his own views out there is a non-runner.
Furthermore, Lee hasn't actually named any policy issue at all that he opposed. He seems to be perfectly happy with or perfectly careless about whatever Fine Gael policies that have come about since last summer.
No private motions, no economic meetings chaired, no responses to letters by fellow TDs, no integration with the parliamentary party, no policy documents printed, very little Dáil contribution, his NAMA speech overshadowed by a far more impresive speech by Ciarán O'Donnell - no substance at all in George Lee's 4 months of Dáil time.
His fanboys would want to judge his contribution and abilities without the rose tinited glasses perhaps.0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »The leader has as much a role in dictating the economic decisions of a country as the finance minister. Just because cowen isn't doing anything and Lenihan is doesn't mean that this is how it normally is. Under bertie, cowen did what he was told to do and it was bertie who really controlled the purse strings.
Bruton as the leader could do what a proper governmental leader could do and say "sorry constituents, I'm too busy looking after the country to go schmoozing". Do you think Churchill spent half his time schmoozing and going to non-war related meetings?
1. Churchill wasn't in Ireland
2. There was a f***ing war on for his first term as PM.
As leader you can't spend your time holed up in Dept of Finance looking through polices, managing them and making decisions.
And you mention bertie, the only decisions he had to make were where to spread the cash.johnnyskeleton wrote: »And Kenny can still go around schmoozing, but you don't need to be the head of government to be a good schmoozer.
I'm not surprized FG came out with these lines - it was either gut Lee straight away, or Lee would destroy them. It's easy to say that Lee has produced nothing, but what has Bruton produced? In fact, as I recall he voted FOR the bank guarantee, which IMO is the single most disasterous decision made in the last 4 years.
Did Bruton and FG have a choice in the bank guarantee at that very time ?
They are told there were emergency late night meetings, they are told there is going to be meltdown with banks going bust and probable run on others.
They didn't know the full story, how could they as they were in opposition.
They were probably fed the facts that government, Dept of Finance, CB and IFSRA wanted them to know.
It was an easier decision for labour since they are smaller party and not primary opposition party.
FG would have been forced into agreeing to basic proposal for good of country.
Look at their ideas, policies and concerns post guarantee where they have questioned the way the banks are handled and the way NAMA has been brought about.johnnyskeleton wrote: »It seems to me that Lee is hated by people because he is seen as an upstart. That makes it easy to characterise him as a petulant child and easily dismiss him.
I see it as the opposite - he wasn't allowed to say what he wanted and had to spout the usual party lines. Clearly he felt uncomfortable saying things that would garner votes for the party and abstaining from saying what FG would actually do when in power i.e. cut the **** out of it, but that's the political game FG/FF play, and he didn't want to be part of that dishonesty.
FFS will you ever grow up and stop believing
celebrity = ability.
Lee did f all in his time in the Dáil and in FG.
What is it he wasn't allowed say ?
Why didn't he say it since he came out and resigned ?
He had NOTHING TO SAY and that is the crux of it.
He was a commentator who could pick holes in other poeple's policies but couldn't it appears come up with his own.
He comes out claiming they didn't like him.
If you join any organisation or enter any institution you have to make an effort to integrate (and no not saying you sell out or beome mindless moron as he would have you believe) but he didn't appear to make any effort.johnnyskeleton wrote: »What has bruton done? FG have been floundering about trying to grasp on to any vague ideology. I see no reason not to take Lee at his word when he says that he was silenced by the FG machine.
That comment says a lot more about you and a lot less about Bruton.
Yeah George Lee is a genius I suppose because wait for it, he called the economy right and isn't he on the TV a lot :rolleyes:
What else is Lee going to say ?
I couldn't hack it perhaps ?I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13665
Red_Marauder wrote: »You need to read the post you quoted. That was a response to the question "what has Burton produced". Not an argument that Lee is better than Bruton - that theory was never tested because Lee remained quite silent while with Fine Gael post bye election.
Which was in turn a rhetorical reply to jmayo's argument that Bruton is better in finance because Lee has produced nothing.Red_Marauder wrote: »What opportunity? You think Richard Bruton sulked quietly in the canteens of Mount Street before one day John Bruton walked up to him and asked him to be a Minister? You think he shrank into the background while Enda Kenny was picking his team? Get real. Shrinking is exactly what George Lee did upon his election. He sulked around and shrank into the background, waiting to be asked, and waiting to be approached. Where was the initiative?
What exactly would you like him to have done? Insisted upon becoming a FG spokesperson, or making public statements that undermine the party's position? I resent your comment that I should "Get real" when you think that a backbencher can say whatever they want whenever they want and still remain part of the parliamentary party (in Ireland anyway; in the U.K. it is possible, but they have a different system to us).Red_Marauder wrote: »So did the majority of the Dáil - it's another thread. Lots of us agree with it.
That's fair enough. My views on Bruton will always be linked to his pathetic opposition to the guarantee, but if you agree with it I can see that you would not hold it against him.Red_Marauder wrote: »Bruton is the finance spokesman. It would be pretty stupid to put out one statement as a finance spokesman and another statement as a TD.
Or is it possible that I'm right and the party has one policy which they stick to and they don't want individual TD's putting out their own policies? Don't get me wrong, I can see the necessity of same, but the suggestion that Lee failed to state what he would have done differently is a non starter as that is just not how party politics functions in Ireland.Red_Marauder wrote: »Putting out statements privately is an option available to everyone, but it only makes sense for those who are in the backbenches of the party to do so.
Furthermore, Lee didn't even have to put out some statements - because he was given a job most other backbenchers would relish - he was given responsibility for the party's economic policy forming committee. Why didn't he chair any meetings?
Really? Do you think that if FG said there should be tax cuts and Lee came out saying that tax should be increased he would be free to do this without consequence? Or if he said that the HSE budget had to be dramatically cut thatn your man James wouldn't have something serious to say about it?
As regards the committee, his problem there was that he was put in as the chairman/spokesperson of the committee and had little power to affect policy.Red_Marauder wrote: »Do you even understand how parties operate? The finance spokesman is the spokesman for the party - of course it goes out in the party's name, it isn't the damn constituency newsletter.
No the difference is he did not have input - not that he wasn't allowed input. Nobody ever stopped him from coming forward according to himself.
Do you? Because you seem to be suggesting that Irish political parties are perfectly fine with backbenchers expressing their own views whenever they want. I don't blame FG for wanting to keep such a tight reign on things, because if some backbenchers did come out and say something different to the party policy FF would be all over them. Worse, FG was a serverely fractured party before Kenny came in. Kenny is loved by the FG faithful for uniting all the strands. But with that unity came loss of the freedom to have their own manifestos. Look how Vardakar has been reigned in. They have a united party now where input from most of the various views is taken into account. This is a necessary political step, and it means that each TD can't have their own say publically, but instead contribute to the policy of the party. It was this latter aspect of party politics that Lee didn't like. As to how he was actually treated in FG, I don't know. However, I don't doubt that Lee is telling it as it is when he says that his views fell on deaf ears.
Equally I wasn't surprised that FG are trying to gut him because it is either gut him or get gutted. AFAIK, the idea that Lee never contributed anything came from a throwaway comment made by olivia mitchell on monday lunchtime's newstalk.Red_Marauder wrote: »Lots of TDs break away on points of interest, it happens all the time. Sometimes they lose the whip, sometimes they don't. He could have sent up a private members motion like lots of TDs do, why didn't he?
True, he could have merely resigned the whip as protest. Or he could have taken the offer of a front bench position by Kenny. And sure, occasionally someone in FG will break from the party line on some issue or another. But to suggest that he could have gone on a solo run on economic issues when that is the most important issue at the moment is something I can't believe. Having a private memebers motion to table his differing economic views doesn't make sense to me.Red_Marauder wrote: »Furthermore, Lee hasn't actually named any policy issue at all that he opposed. He seems to be perfectly happy with or perfectly careless about whatever Fine Gael policies that have come about since last summer.
Would you be happier if he left by saying "FG's economic policy is a shambles and if they get into power they will drive the economy further into recession"?Red_Marauder wrote: »No private motions, no economic meetings chaired, no responses to letters by fellow TDs, no integration with the parliamentary party, no policy documents printed, very little Dáil contribution, his NAMA speech overshadowed by a far more impresive speech by Ciarán O'Donnell - no substance at all in George Lee's 4 months of Dáil time.
His fanboys would want to judge his contribution and abilities without the rose tinited glasses perhaps.
That's quite the character slur there. If you think that because FG have some policies that makes Richard Bruton a great finance spokesman and because George Lee hasn't gone on a solo run he has no economic policies then bully for you. However, that does not make your views any more realistic than mine, nor does the fact that I don't believe that make me a "fanboy" or that I wear rose tinted glasses.
For what its worth, I am not a fan of FG in any way, and was dissappointed when George Lee left RTE to become a FG politician. However, it did make me consider the possibility of voting for FG next time. But, and like it or lump it, I think the manner in which he left FG will only highlight the problems in FG.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 13665
1. Churchill wasn't in Ireland
2. There was a f***ing war on for his first term as PM.
1. Churchill was an example of a good leader. I know "Ireland is different" etc etc, but surely you can see how we are lacking in parliamentary leadership.
2. War & economic crises are different in many ways but are similar in one important respect - they are an urgent and serious issue that needs to be dealt with competently and decisively.As leader you can't spend your time holed up in Dept of Finance looking through polices, managing them and making decisions.
If the economy is the most important issue then yes, yes you can. After all, isn't Obama constantly working on the economy with only the occasional nod to Iraq etc?And you mention bertie, the only decisions he had to make were where to spread the cash.
LOL. Economics is the study of the distribution of wealth, and you're saying Bertie didn't have any economic input because the only decisions he had to make were where to spread the cash. When you reduce it like that, all economic decisions are decisions on where to spead the cash. Arguably you could say that fiscal policy is concerned with collecting rather than spreading the cash, but in politicial terms tax cuts/breaks could fall into your definition of speading the cash.Did Bruton and FG have a choice in the bank guarantee at that very time ?
Yes. He spent half an hour criticising the government, then voted yes to the guarantee. Grow a spine FFS.They are told there were emergency late night meetings, they are told there is going to be meltdown with banks going bust and probable run on others.
They didn't know the full story, how could they as they were in opposition.
They were probably fed the facts that government, Dept of Finance, CB and IFSRA wanted them to know.
Since when is not knowing what is going on an excuse in politics? It is this "Act dumb until it is our time to shine" policy which keeps FG in eternal opposition IMO.Look at their ideas, policies and concerns post guarantee where they have questioned the way the banks are handled and the way NAMA has been brought about.
Criticisms by FG of NAMA are a good thing, but George Lee said nothing of substance? Make up your mind.FFS will you ever grow up and stop believing
celebrity = ability.
One sign of being grown up is not suggesting that other people "grow up". Another is not reporting a post for borderline personal abuse. I do not believe celebrity = abillity and don't know why you want to tar me as such.
Lee did f all in his time in the Dáil and in FG.What is it he wasn't allowed say ?
Why didn't he say it since he came out and resigned ?
He had NOTHING TO SAY and that is the crux of it.
See answers to Red_Marauder above.He was a commentator who could pick holes in other poeple's policies but couldn't it appears come up with his own.
Would you accept that not wasting taxpayers money on NAMA is an idea? This view that politicians must do something - anything - to stop the crisis is why we have NAMAs. The reality is that we need to accept our position, let the market correct while at the same time ameliorating the harshest parts of the slow unwinding process.He comes out claiming they didn't like him.
If you join any organisation or enter any institution you have to make an effort to integrate (and no not saying you sell out or beome mindless moron as he would have you believe) but he didn't appear to make any effort.
I agree that you have to compromise, especially in politics. George Lee was not prepared to compromise. That's unfortunate but we are where we are. But to suggest that he is a petulant child for deciding to quit rather than stay in the party shows no regard for what he did - quit on principle. He decided that he was not prepared to be a simple mouthpiece for whatever FG policy was without them listening to his views. They are the actions of an honest man. He did not want to stay in the Irish political system, so if you say that he couldn't hack it then I can't deny that. If you say that he was naieve to expect that he could change things I also agree with that. This is the reality of Irish politics which I don't dispute. But to suggest that he was a petulant child because he wanted to change things and found that he was worn down by the pigs at the trough is to do him a great disservice.That comment says a lot more about you and a lot less about Bruton.
That's quite an oblique comment, what exactly do you mean? I can only assume you mean that it shows that I trust Lee more than I trust the FG party. Yeah, that's true.Yeah George Lee is a genius I suppose because wait for it, he called the economy right and isn't he on the TV a lot :rolleyes:
Again with the straw man arguments. You were the one who suggested that he wasn't a genius. My point was that if you expect a genius in politics you will be dissappointed. You are setting the bar at a ridiculous level, misinterpreting what I say, employing sarcasm and then using roll eyes smilies to contradict a point that no one is making. No one is saying Lee is a genius. But I am saying that he was a safe pair of hands. We need a safe pair of hands in politics, and less of the gombeenery. Your comments suggest that we can only have gombeens or genii in government, thus insuring that there will always be room at the trough.What else is Lee going to say ?
I couldn't hack it perhaps ?
What else are FG going to say? "Yeah, we resented him and his fresh ideas so we marginalised him, but it's ok because there's no room for an honest man in politics."0 -
Yes!johnnyskeleton wrote: »What exactly would you like him to have done? Insisted upon becoming a FG spokesperson
If he's not being listened to, Yes!, or making public statements that undermine the party's position?
Fine Gael wouldn't dare oppose George Lee in public. You might as well have given Mother Teresa a wedgie.
From the top of my head... Lucinda Creighton has publicly criticised Enda Kenny just recently. Bernard Durkan didn't agree with Fine Gael scrapping the Seanad, and still doesn't. It happens a lot.I resent your comment that I should "Get real" when you think that a backbencher can say whatever they want whenever they want and still remain part of the parliamentary party (in Ireland anyway; in the U.K. it is possible, but they have a different system to us).
Of course they don't want individual TDs putting out their own policies. Do you understand the meaning of the term 'political party'?Or is it possible that I'm right and the party has one policy which they stick to and they don't want individual TD's putting out their own policies?
But that is not to say that individual TDs must comply with party desire or otherwise.
And what did George Lee ever disagree with anyway?
Since it's all hypothetical, I would give an educated guess that Fine Gael would pander to George Lee's pontifications because that is what the public wanted. That's why he was elected.Really? Do you think that if FG said there should be tax cuts and Lee came out saying that tax should be increased he would be free to do this without consequence?
The committee was all about policy - that was what they were to discuss.As regards the committee, his problem there was that he was put in as the chairman/spokesperson of the committee and had little power to affect policy.
The fact that he didn't convene one single meeting of a committee he chaired completely flies in the face of the notion that he was given no opportunity for input.
Explain what views you are referring to here. What views fell on deaf ears?However, I don't doubt that Lee is telling it as it is when he says that his views fell on deaf ears.
What differing economic views are you referring to here? He said there was no policy issue that he disagreed with to bring him to this decision.Having a private memebers motion to table his differing economic views doesn't make sense to me.
In fairness, you are referring to mystical policy disagreements and imagined complaints falling on imaginary deaf ears. Your perception of the situation is very much unrealistic.However, that does not make your views any more realistic than mine, nor does the fact that I don't believe that make me a "fanboy" or that I wear rose tinted glasses.0 -
This line from the Tribune gave me a chuckle yesterday.
http://www.tribune.ie/magazine/features/article/2010/feb/14/put-your-hands-up-enda-through-a-nice-blond-rinse/if he's spoofing, Enda breaks out the most amazing rictus grin – a pained expression that registers somewhere between mild terror and severe Bell's palsy. As poker faces go, it's a loser.0 -
-
This line from the Tribune gave me a chuckle yesterday.
http://www.tribune.ie/magazine/features/article/2010/feb/14/put-your-hands-up-enda-through-a-nice-blond-rinse/if he's spoofing, Enda breaks out the most amazing rictus grin – a pained expression that registers somewhere between mild terror and severe Bell's palsy. As poker faces go, it's a loser.
At least there's an "if" in there - that puts him ahead of most politicians.
I'd prefer that grin to the smug chuckle of another two-faced individual when he dismissively laughs his head off and uses it to deflect the relevant issue while "chatting" to an FF hack on Prime Time TV about his actions under a former corrupt boss of his.0 -
Advertisement
-
just listened to Newstalk - they had a recording of Enda shouting in Donegal
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
just listened to Newstalk - they had a recording of Enda shouting in Donegal
I think he's going to lose what credibility he had by trying this - it's too much of a change too suddenly.
He'd be better off speaking to the media to get them to cover the fact that FF have appointed O'Donoghue to the committee to the bank enquiry committee and other dodgy stuff, rather than pandering to those who think shouting is effective.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I think he's going to lose what credibility he had by trying this - it's too much of a change too suddenly.
Well I heard it too, and he's lost any credibility he's had with me after hearing that crap, and I'm someone who was likely to vote for FG in the next election. He sounds desperate, and desperation isn't a good look.
Seriously he's a major liability for FG going into any election. They really should be home and hosed by now, but are struggling with him in charge. FG loyalists may disagree but that's how I see it.Liam Byrne wrote: »He'd be better off speaking to the media to get them to cover the fact that FF have appointed O'Donoghue to the committee to the bank enquiry committee and other dodgy stuff, rather than pandering to those who think shouting is effective.
You're right, continually show up FF cronyism and corruption, and Greens becoming more than willing accomplices in this that has us where we are now.0 -
shouting in the Dáil today, embarrassing really
should have stuck with 'unreal' Enda0 -
Enda is now roaring and shouting in the Dail, such as sudden change in behaviour makes him sound like a fool. He is a bit like unfunny rural cousin of Colin Hunt on the Fast Show.0
-
Pappy o' daniel wrote: »I keep hearing this over and over, but I ask myself he is lacking charisma compared to who exactly? Brian Cowen, Willie o'Dea, Gormley, Mary Harney? None of these people could be called charismatic.
Its just lazily repeated by the media and I dont think it stands up to scrutiny.
The only reason Kenny looks so bad is not because of the FF'ers listed above but it's because Eamon Gilmore outperforms him every single major debate. Enda > Cowen but Gilmore destroys both of them in terms of credible public speaking.0 -
Pappy o' daniel wrote: »I keep hearing this over and over, but I ask myself he is lacking charisma compared to who exactly? Brian Cowen, Willie o'Dea, Gormley, Mary Harney? None of these people could be called charismatic.
Its just lazily repeated by the media and I dont think it stands up to scrutiny.
IMHO Gilmore comes across better than Kenny.
With regards to being the FG party leader - he's terrible. A monkey could've been the FG party leader over the last few years and their votes would've gone up. Enda didn't come up with any winning strategic plans that caused voters to change - it was FFs' blatant incompetence.0 -
-
I heard that. I mean really who is he trying to cod?
Exactly, like I said before it smacks of desperation, and that's not good when he's trying to project an image suitable of getting him elected as Taoiseach.
I'd be very interested to see the results of the next poll and seeing how him "being himself" runs with the public. I suspect his numbers will be down . . . again.
His handlers must be groaning in the background with their heads in their hands.0 -
Sure didn't Cowan defend the bould Willie with plenty of charisma, and his 2i/c fended off the Ryanair threat with buckets of bumbling charisma too.
We don't need charisma. We might like charisma, but we don't need charisma.
We have a Green party thats nodding their head like a dog in a back window.
We have a Minister for Defence that has an arrogance about him thats shocking me when I thought couldn't be shocked anymore.
We have a minister for enterprise that looks more in charge of the starship enterprise than the department of enterprise.
We need accountability, talent, and honesty. Does Kenny provide these things? I'm not sure. Do we need to worry about his charisma? No.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement