Waterford General Election 2011: The Great Debate (WIT, Tuesday @ 7pm)

AdMMM

Thanks to everyone for attending. I was particularly heartened to see such a turn out given the horrible weather. I also extended my thanks to the candidates who were able to make it and a lot of credit has to go to them for making the event the success that I think it was.

I'm sure that with a bit more time, we could have organised a debate with all the candidates but we have to respect that given only 3 days notice, that some candidates would have had something planned for the night. If we had 2 weeks to organise the event, the candidates would've had no excuse but as it turns out, I don't think it's fair to criticise any candidate for not showing up, with the exception of Labour who seem to have told us outright lies for not showing up.

I was a bit disappointed to see so many obvious plants in the room acting on behalf of other parties, including those who I think weren't present, but these things can't be helped, especially at a public debate, and I must say that all the candidates handled the heckling from the seats very well.

It would have been interesting to see if John Halligan would have been able to match or even surpass David Cullinane and Paudie Coffey in the overall proceedings. Given that the two were susceptible to occasional petty squabbling, my instinct tells me that he would have been able to rise above it, given he has no party line to pull but that's really just speculation on my part. As for Brendan Kenneally, I think he dodged a real bullet on a night that seems to have seen FF suddenly re-establish themselves as a force in this election (for those that don't know, Micheal Martin bulldozed Eamon Gilmore in the debate tonight). For his sake, he's better off letting those in the party above him, who are well able to conduct themselves, speak on his behalf. Which really doesn't say a lot for his ability.

The one question I wanted to ask all night was something as follows: "Both Paudie Coffey and David Cullinane seem to be nodding in agreement with what each other is saying. Given that there appears to be common ground, is there any room for working together in what you believe in?". I think it was Trotter who posed a similar question that was worded around party politics to the panel that was similar to what I wanted to ask but both candidates retreated and stuck to their party lines, perhaps proving the point that Trotter wanted to prove.

Again, I'd like to thank everyone who attended tonight for making the inaugural WIT Political Society meeting a success. As it was our first public meeting, we really would appreciate any feedback either in this thread or via PM/Email ( adam@witpolsoc.ie / kevin@witpolsoc.ie ) to help make any future events a success.

At this point may I suggest that you all become a fan of our Facebook Page which we will be regularly updating with information of our upcoming events. You can also subscribe to our texting list by passing on your mobile number to either myself or Kevin (Sully) if you would prefer to be notified of events via text.

Unfortunately, as I said, we can't really criticise anyone who sent their apologies given the short lead-in time for the event. Had we longer to promote it, we would have really seen who was genuinely interested in attending or not.

Sully

deise blue wrote: »

1. To Mr. Coffey - can he confirm that it is still FG policy that collective bargaining rights for Irish workers will be enshrined in Irish law as well as being guaranteed by the European Charter as this will make it easier for Unions to recruit and make it more difficult for employers to avoid negotiating with unions.
I am aware that Leo Varadkar promised that the above would indeed happen if FG entered into Government but that statement was made in Sept. of 2007 & I just wish to see this position reiterated.

Confirmed. No changes in policy in this regard. He was questioned on it by a SF supporter, and ill try get the details from the recording. Just a further confirmation is all.

2. To Mr. Coffey and Mr. Ryan ( if in attendance ) - what is the time frame for reversing the cut to the minimum wage ?

FG: Next budget, probably a few months after election but cant say for sure. (Wouldn't be his position to say, it was a guess the date)

SF: Immediately. Wasn't asked how, as I wanted to stay out of debate as much as possible.

3. Again to Mr. Coffey and Mr. Ryan - although both FG & Labour say that they will honour the Croke Park agreement there is a large difference in the amount of voluntary redundancies being sought ( 30,000 by FG & 18,000 by Labour ) - how will the parties be able to reconcile such a huge disparity if they form a coalition ?

Fantastic question, and ill email this to the candidates, but I couldn't put it in because we had such a large crowd I wanted to allow them ask and get invovled in the Q&A.

Ill do a proper response on how tonight went when I recover tmrow, its been a very busy few days and many late nights - so I am absolutely shattered now!

Trotter

AdMMM wrote: »

I think it was Trotter who posed a similar question that was worded around party politics to the panel that was similar to what I wanted to ask but both candidates retreated and stuck to their party lines, perhaps proving the point that Trotter wanted to prove.

Nope! Wasn't me, but it came from a chap not too far away from where I was sitting.

nkay1985

AdMMM wrote: »

I'm sure that with a bit more time, we could have organised a debate with all the candidates but we have to respect that given only 3 days notice, that some candidates would have had something planned for the night. If we had 2 weeks to organise the event, the candidates would've had no excuse but as it turns out, I don't think it's fair to criticise any candidate for not showing up, with the exception of Labour who seem to have told us outright lies for not showing up.

I have to say I disagree with that. If someone had another engagement, it's highly unlikely (almost so unlikely as to be impossible) that it lasted as long as the debate. The debate went from 19:00 to 21:30. So either their event could have started after the debate, enabling them to attend the start or it would have ended before the debate, enabling them to attend the end. For example, my Dad had to chair a residents' association meeting at 20:00 but he was able to stay on until around 19:50. I think that if someone genuinely wanted to attend, they could have worked it out but that's just my own personal opinion.

And on that note, I'd like to thank the candidates that did attend again. It takes courage and self-confidence to face the public and other candidates: traits which are desirable in out public representatives. Even if I disagreed with all of the candidates on everything, the fact that they supported a new, exciting society and faced their public is enough for me to put a preference alongside their names. It may turn out that that preference is irrelevant for some, depending on how things go, but still.

deise4life

AdMMM wrote: »

I'm sure that with a bit more time, we could have organised a debate with all the candidates but we have to respect that given only 3 days notice, that some candidates would have had something planned for the night. If we had 2 weeks to organise the event, the candidates would've had no excuse but as it turns out, I don't think it's fair to criticise any candidate for not showing up, with the exception of Labour who seem to have told us outright lies for not showing up.

I agree, the candidates have a full canvassing schedule laid out, so it's unfair to expect them to attend with 3 days or so notice. Even if it was a miserable night, they still have their schedule to follow. However it would have been great to have everyone in attendance, including Deasy. I feel Coffey is surpassing Deasy who is staying very quiet in all this.

old gregg

Trotter wrote: »

Just on the boards.ie poll, Brendan Kenneally has taken a right jump up the list. The FF lads and ladies on boards must have been holding their fire until now!

Maybe Kenneally and the FF crew all stayed at home from the debate feverishly clicking their mouse fingers just so they'd get ahead in the pole

dark crystal

Trotter wrote: »

Just on the boards.ie poll, Brendan Kenneally has taken a right jump up the list. The FF lads and ladies on boards must have been holding their fire until now!

Well, that's a very disheartening turn up for the books. How FF are still getting so many votes is beyond me :mad:

deise blue

Thanks a million for updating me on the responses to my questions & heartiest congratulations on what seems to have been a most worthwhile event.

ziedth

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, that's a very disheartening turn up for the books. How FF are still getting so many votes is beyond me :mad:

I agree,

Given the age group that would primarly use boards in that they wouldn't be the traditional die hard FF supporters age. I'm astonished To see him outside of the bottom 3 candidates.

dark crystal

ziedth wrote: »

I agree,

Given the age group that would primarly use boards in that they wouldn't be the traditional die hard FF supporters age. I'm astonished To see him outside of the bottom 3 candidates.

That's what puzzles me the most. I mean, i would expect the older generation to stick with what they know, but given that Boards is typically made up of the 18-35 working age group, hit hardest by the government's austerity measures, it's frustrating to see the FF candidate polling so steadily.

If Keneally gets in again, I may well lose all faith in the Waterford electorate.

Just another point I'm not entirely clear on....how significantly do you think transfer votes might affect the final outcome on election night? It's pretty unlikely that SF, FG or any of the independants will distribute their surplus votes towards Kenneally, isn't it?

merlante

These people are everywhere in our midst. Probably even join in at the breaktime FF bashing. Then quietly "do their duty" when the time comes.

It's despicable, there is such a large proportion of people who are voting our of sheer indoctrination. They were got at from the cradle and they will stick 1 and 2 (only 1 this time) FF on the ballot paper and put it in the box without a second thought.

This sort of behaviour should nearly be regarded as a mental illness and dealt with as the allies might have dealt with denazification in the population after WW2.

Partizan

dark crystal wrote: »

Well, that's a very disheartening turn up for the books. How FF are still getting so many votes is beyond me :mad:

In any sane, logical and pragmatic society, FF would be facing total wipeout for the damage that they have inflicted but the fact that they are not reflects on the IQ of your average voter.

Despite Kenneally being worse than useless, he will still retain his seat. Depressing as it is, but there you go. :mad:

merlante

Partizan wrote: »

In any sane, logical and pragmatic society, FF would be facing total wipeout for the damage that they have inflicted but the fact that they are not reflects on the IQ of your average voter.

Despite Kenneally being worse than useless, he will still retain his seat. Depressing as it is, but there you go. :mad:

I think there is a small possibility he could lose it. Maybe 10%. There is a big left vote and plenty of other places to put a republican or centre/right of centre vote. He will be transfer repellant and needs to get a very good first preference. Think he will get it, but I don't view his election as quite inevitable.

Some very strange things could happen between the counts for the Labour and everyone to the left of them. The fourth seat is likely to be the interesting one.

dark crystal

South East constituency being covered on the RTE 1 election coverage programme now.

AdMMM

Trotter wrote: »

Nope! Wasn't me, but it came from a chap not too far away from where I was sitting.

And the mystery remains unsolved

Sully

deise4life wrote: »

I agree, the candidates have a full canvassing schedule laid out, so it's unfair to expect them to attend with 3 days or so notice. Even if it was a miserable night, they still have their schedule to follow. However it would have been great to have everyone in attendance, including Deasy. I feel Coffey is surpassing Deasy who is staying very quiet in all this.

Deasy was unable to attend, but we were told later (not directly, sadly) that he was unhappy with the notice and the fact he was 'CCd' in the email. I'm sure Deasy is canvassing and working hard, Paudie would probably have a different approach when preparing for an election.

(If a party had multiple candidates, we just sent them all one email together and asked them to pick a candidate to go forward for the debate).

We acknowledged it was poor timing, but as you can see - four candidates managed to make room in their schedule to come and attend. So it was either - "Sorry, its to late to ask people now" when we got the go ahead or "Sure, we will try and see what we get". Clearly, it worked. If you wanted to come, you could have. But sometimes, regardless of what you ask, you will see a trend in who says yes and who says no to various events. If they come, its just for pictures and a quick snipe and then gone.

Plus, looking back, I wonder would more candidates have dragged it out far to long? People also gave out on our Facebook Event that we were ignoring the smaller parties, unfair etc and we should have all 15 candidates standing in WIT talking for the whole night.

All in all, a very successful night considering the time frame we were given to operate with and the weather conditions outside. I doubt any candidate was canvassing in this weather, which was the reason Labour said they might be late. John Halligan had a meeting with a residents association and Joe Conway had a town twinning meeting (in Tramore I would imagine). Neither of which could, and in one case would, re-arrange it.

The candidates who did come, did re-arrange it as they felt it was important to attend. For that, you have to applaud them. I will email them all and ask them to put in an application to Boards to become a posting candidate, which means they can interact online here also.

nkay1985

dark crystal wrote: »

Just another point I'm not entirely clear on....how significantly do you think transfer votes might affect the final outcome on election night? It's pretty unlikely that SF, FG or any of the independants will distribute their surplus votes towards Kenneally, isn't it?

Transfers are going to be massive, I think.

The two FG candidates will probably be in and around the quota but I can't see any massive surplus there; two quotas or near-quotas is a very large vote.

There will be a fair amount of votes scattered among the smaller independents, Tobin and Power that could play a big part in deciding the outcome. There are realistically 6 candidates fighting for 4 seats. I think the last two or three eliminations could be tight enough.

I reckon Waterford is going to be a very exciting count centre this time around and hope I can get in again as there is some buzz on count day.

AdMMM

We're in the process of splicing and dicing our video and audio streams from the event and will strive to have them available for all to see as soon as possible. Thanks also to everyone who texted WLR today to say that it was a well run event

ziedth

AdMMM wrote: »

We're in the process of splicing and dicing our video and audio streams from the event and will strive to have them available for all to see as soon as possible. Thanks also to everyone who texted WLR today to say that it was a well run event

I'm looking forward to playing spot the boardsie

Sully

So, who do people think won the debate? What candidate spoke the best, made the best argument?

ziedth

I wasn't there till the end but I'd say between Cullinane and Coffey.

Cullinane for me was the best by a nose as he made some great points but for me personally I'd give the night to Coffey as I didn't think much of him going in and he impressed me.

nkay1985

I'd call it a dead heat between Cullinane and Coffey. Objectively, they were both very comfortable on whatever topic was out to them. Coffey lost the run of himself a couple of times but the little admission of that at the end brought it back. The other two candidates were blown away by the two of them. It's a shame the other candidates who are challenging for the seats weren't there because you can't measure them by that yardstick but I'd personally reckon that Cullinane and Coffey would be the best out of them too.

old gregg

Sully wrote: »

The candidates who did come, did re-arrange it as they felt it was important to attend. For that, you have to applaud them. I will email them all and ask them to put in an application to Boards to become a posting candidate, which means they can interact online here also.

For what a single vote is worth, I left the debate having decided that my preferences would go to those candidates who felt it was important enough to take part.

ziedth

old gregg wrote: »

For what a single vote is worth, I left the debate having decided that my preferences would go to those candidates who felt it was important enough to take part.

Same here

nkay1985

old gregg wrote: »

For what a single vote is worth, I left the debate having decided that my preferences would go to those candidates who felt it was important enough to take part.

ziedth wrote: »

Same here

Yep, those are my sentiments as I expressed after the debate and I still feel that way. Even if some are irrelevant due to the order of preference.

dlofnep

Sully, do you have an audio or video recording of the debate?

Sully

dlofnep wrote: »

Sully, do you have an audio or video recording of the debate?

Not that I can release just yet, hopefully over the weekend. Running a bit behind due to the time it went on

dlofnep

Cheers dude.

BlaasForRafa

nkay1985 wrote: »

Transfers are going to be massive, I think.

The two FG candidates will probably be in and around the quota but I can't see any massive surplus there; two quotas or near-quotas is a very large vote.

There will be a fair amount of votes scattered among the smaller independents, Tobin and Power that could play a big part in deciding the outcome. There are realistically 6 candidates fighting for 4 seats. I think the last two or three eliminations could be tight enough.

I reckon Waterford is going to be a very exciting count centre this time around and hope I can get in again as there is some buzz on count day.

I'd agree with just about all of that. In the last election Kenneally was elected on the 11th count without meeting the quota http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterford_%28D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency%29#2007_general_election

This time around though, Martin Cullen isn't running so we won't have the "minister" factor, Cullen pulled in large amounts of votes because he as seen to have brought things to the constituency (the new motorway and bridge being a case in point) and Brian O'Shea isn't running so his large personal vote will most likely be spread amongst a number of left leaning candidates.

Add to that the hard left candidates like Halligan, Cullinane and Tobin will be stealing votes from each other in the city areas, it may be that might be enough to deny Cullinane the last seat.