McGuinness - Will accept only average industrial wage and give rest back to public.

Chinasea

Wish they would give an option when voting: X if you want to abolish the presidency altogether. That is where my Big Fat Bold X would go.

Denerick

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

In fairness, this has been standard SF policy re, it's public representatives for some time, it's not some new gimmick for this election

Giving anything about 30k per annum to your party is not necessarily virtuous. I'd call it party financing. Members of cults also donate a certain amount of their salary to their faith.

Exile 1798

Denerick wrote: »

Giving anything about 30k per annum to your party is not necessarily virtuous. I'd call it party financing. Members of cults also donate a certain amount of their salary to their faith.

As I said, I think it's a very wise model for a centre-left party. I'm surprised it hasn't been emulated by others.

COYW

30Min wrote: »

He's preying on the most vulnerable aspect of peoples lives (financial worries), so he can scrape a few extra votes.

The fact that he has chosen this 'easy route', shows he is not fit for the job

Of course he is, it's exactly what SF do. They would stoop to any level to get a few votes. Interesting to see what other ditties they come out with. McGuinness is actually a safe candidate for SF because we all know about his past and I doubt that there is anything in his closest that will shock us. We all know what kind of person he is.

One a side note, I presume he will be open to welcoming British royals to the country if he does get the job; a change from his anti-royal rant on the Late Late before the visit of Queen Elizabeth II.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fair play to him.

Why are you praising him? Is it in hope of getting rid of him out of NI and moving him down here?

KeithAFC

COYW wrote: »

30Min wrote: »

He's preying on the most vulnerable aspect of peoples lives (financial worries), so he can scrape a few extra votes.

The fact that he has chosen this 'easy route', shows he is not fit for the job

Of course he is, it's exactly what SF do. They would stoop to any level to get a few votes. Interesting to see what other ditties they come out with. McGuinness is actually a safe candidate for SF because we all know about his past and I doubt that there is anything in his closest that will shock us. We all know what kind of person he is.

One a side note, I presume he will be open to welcoming British royals to the country if he does get the job; a change from his anti-royal rant on the Late Late before the visit of Queen Elizabeth II.

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fair play to him.

Why are you praising him? Is it in hope of getting rid of him out of NI and moving him down here?

Not really. I take it the story is true and if he does, then good because the rest of society has had to take cuts.

I ain't no Sinn Fein supporter but I respect that they have a political mandate. Even if I do hate them and the message they spread.

Too much is being made of him running anyway. He won't win IMO but all this free advertising will help his party. Unless he polls really badly.

COYW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Too much is being made of him running anyway. He won't win IMO but all this free advertising will help his party. Unless he polls really badly.

The presidential campaign down here is as dirty as it gets. Lot's of unpleasant facts will get dragged up in relation to his past. This campaign could be a very bad move by SF, as it could end up re-opening old wounds here and thus refreshing people's memory in relation to SFs past. It easily could damage the progress that they have made down here as a party.

KeithAFC

COYW wrote: »

KeithAFC wrote: »

Too much is being made of him running anyway. He won't win IMO but all this free advertising will help his party. Unless he polls really badly.

The presidential campaign down here is as dirty as it gets. Lot's of unpleasant facts will get dragged up in relation to his past. This campaign could be a very bad move by SF, as it could end up re-opening old wounds here and thus refreshing people's memory in relation to SFs past. It easily could damage the progress that they have made down here as a party.

Hopefully but surely most people know all about him and SF.

Exile 1798

COYW wrote: »

The presidential campaign down here is as dirty as it gets. Lot's of unpleasant facts will get dragged up in relation to his past. This campaign could be a very bad move by SF, as it could end up re-opening old wounds here and thus refreshing people's memory in relation to SFs past. It easily could damage the progress that they have made down here as a party.

One post ago...

COYW wrote: »

Of course he is, it's exactly what SF do. They would stoop to any level to get a few votes. Interesting to see what other ditties they come out with. McGuinness is actually a safe candidate for SF because we all know about his past and I doubt that there is anything in his closest that will shock us. We all know what kind of person he is.

This is what can happen to anti-Shinners they're in attack mode. Thought goes out the window, and they end up making fools of themselves.

Coillte_Bhoy

Denerick wrote: »

Giving anything about 30k per annum to your party is not necessarily virtuous. I'd call it party financing. Members of cults also donate a certain amount of their salary to their faith.

My point is that it's not juts a gmmick for this election as you are suggesting. Im not claiming its virtuous or anything like that so deal with the issue.

Coillte_Bhoy

KeithAFC wrote: »

Hopefully but surely most people know all about him and SF.

I think a lot of people under the age of 21 dont have a clue about his or SF's past tbh

niallers1

What he achieved over the past 20 years and all the good he has done is good enough for me.

He is the leader of the Northern Ireland Assembly for Christs sake.

He is more experienced/qualified than all the other candidates put together.

The other candidates in my opinion are a bit of a Joke.
I wasn't going to vote for any of them but at least now we have sombody who has a record of delivering at the highest level.

Again, Look at the example of Nobel Peace prize winner Nelson Mandela.. He was only removed from the International terrorist watchlist a couple of years ago..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm

sparkling sea

KeithAFC wrote: »

Fair play to him.

For what propogating a lie

sparkling sea

sparkling sea wrote: »

Pity he didn't read his remit and the duties of the President governed by Bunreacht Na HEireann - the President under Art 12.11.3 cannot nor doesn't have a say in where he will live, what he earns and how much he keeps.
The office of President is apolitical - and even if legislation was to be brought after he came in to office, it could not be applied retrospectively.

You would think he would be versed in the laws or at least the Constitution of the Republic before he applies for the for the President job - its not a dictatorship and he cant just do as he feels (as he should) ad probably does know. Out and out publicity stunt

11. 1° The President shall have an official residence in or near the City of Dublin.
2° The President shall receive such emoluments and allowances as may be determined by law.
3° The emoluments and allowances of the President shall not be diminished during his term of office.

Why do people on here keep ignoring the facts and pretending ?????????

Two questions,

A) Why has every McGuiness supporter managed to ignore the above facts

Why do people keep saying we need to get away from politicians who are corrupt when M M G is diliberately misleading people by claiming he will on accept the average indutrial wage -

He knows this would be in direct conflict with the Constitution and would mean that (1) he would be acting illegally (yes I know he has plenty of practice at this) and (2) he would have to resign at President because he cannot interfer with this type of legislative or political issue if he was President.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

No he isn't, because it's not being done to correct financial worries. It is done as an act of solidarity with the people of Ireland who have had to accept cuts across the board.

I love how a voluntary reduction in pay to the tune of a quarter of a million euro can be spun as 'preying on the most vulnerable'. You'd be a shoe-in for a job in the Sindo with spin like that

You would be a shoe for a job as a spin doctor - he can't do this and you should know better as you post enough to know you need to be factually correct and this spin pure and simple and unconsitiutional to boot:mad:

Peanut

NIMAN wrote: »

Interesting to see if any of the other candidates would be brave enough to do this.

It was well publicised when Norris started his campaign that he would take a pay-cut, although he didn't specify how much apart from a "major portion".

"I think the head of State has to give a lead so I would be very happy to take a major portion of [the President's salary] and put it aside to encourage the kind of creative energy I see in this country."

link

I doubt if "bravery" is the right word. Are either candidate at risk of falling behind on their mortgage repayments?

Callan57

Manach wrote: »

This is a positive move given state finances, and will generate good publicity allowing Mr. McGuinness to gain a boost in the polls. In the longer run, the other candidates may argue that as the position of President is such a prestigous post, the first citizen of the nation, that by failing to provide proper wages for the post would fail to attract the higher caliber of candidate.

Of course .... as with Bankers. Give us a break :eek:

Wolfe Tone

I think it should be made clear that MMG has never taken more than the average wage. In this case however due to the apolitical role of the president he is giving the cash back to the government rather than to the party.

I fully expected Martin to do this and in fact I would have been greatly surprised if he didnt. It certainly makes Higgins look pathetic doesn't it?

Coillte_Bhoy

niallers1 wrote: »

What he achieved over the past 20 years and all the good he has done is good enough for me.

He is the leader of the Northern Ireland Assembly for Christs sake.

He is more experienced/qualified than all the other candidates put together.

The other candidates in my opinion are a bit of a Joke.
I wasn't going to vote for any of them but at least now we have sombody who has a record of delivering at the highest level.

Again, Look at the example of Nobel Peace prize winner Nelson Mandela.. He was only removed from the International terrorist watchlist a couple of years ago..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-04-30-watchlist_N.htm

As a matter of interest why do you think the other candidates are a bit of a joke? They are all completely different, so individually why do you think this? it seems a bit of a generalisation.

Coillte_Bhoy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think it should be made clear that MMG has never taken more than the average wage. In this case however due to the apolitical role of the president he is giving the cash back to the government rather than to the party.

I fully expected Martin to do this and in fact I would have been greatly surprised if he didnt. It certainly makes Higgins look pathetic doesn't it?

No it doesnt. You obviously dont like Higgins anyway

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

You would be a shoe for a job as a spin doctor - he can't do this and you should know better as you post enough to know you need to be factually correct and this spin pure and simple and unconsitiutional to boot:mad:

Sure he can do it. It's not unconstitutional to take a pay cut. Was it unconstitutional when McAleese took at 10% paycut? If McGuinness wants to accept only the average industrial wage, I'm sure the state will be more than happy to facilitate him.

So stop pretending that you're a constitutional scholar. To pretend that McGuinness cannot acccomplish this is just utter absurd.

alex73

Would not vote SF. But standing on his own merits... And given he is already D. first minisiter, i Would give serious consideration. But will have to see how me menas to put into practice his wage proposal.

Wolfe Tone

dlofnep wrote: »

Sure he can do it. It's not unconstitutional to take a pay cut. Was it unconstitutional when McAleese took at 10% paycut? If McGuinness wants to accept only the average industrial wage, I'm sure the state will be more than happy to facilitate him.

So stop pretending that you're a constitutional scholar. To pretend that McGuinness cannot acccomplish this is just utter absurd.

I think you should let him keep digging, its rather funny watching him try to portray taking a massive paycut as a criminal act and something that should be condemned. He is of course, utterly wrong. It really is desperate stuff.

The bits of the constitution he cites are there to prevent the government slashing the pay of the president if say, they don't like him or her. The president is perfectly entitled to take a voluntary reduction in pay.

Soldie

Sinn Féin politician in populism shocker!

Wolfe Tone

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

No it doesnt. You obviously dont like Higgins anyway

It makes a mockery of him being a socialist doesn't it? What he said he would not take his pension or something? How noble of him.

I have a lot of time for him actually, he will be getting my no2.

dlofnep

Soldie wrote: »

Sinn Féin politician in populism shocker!

Yes - It will be very popular for the president of Ireland to demonstrate leadership and take a massive paycut. You can be sure that if your preferred candidate did the same - you'd be here to shout praise for him/her.

I'm actually amused at the level downright absurdity in this thread. This is a positive move, made in solidarity.

Coillte_Bhoy

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It makes a mockery of him being a socialist doesn't it? What he said he would not take his pension or something? How noble of him.

I have a lot of time for him actually, he will be getting my no2.

Sorry my mistake. I dont know has he sdai anything at ll on this issue. Maybe he has

ShooterSF

Pointless role that's another waste of taxpayers money so even if he's not my favourite person, the fact he is willing to do it for less gives him my vote. Other than get paid what else does a president do that he would be poor at?

sparkling sea

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think you should let him keep digging, its rather funny watching him try to portray taking a massive paycut as a criminal act and something that should be condemned. He is of course, utterly wrong. It really is desperate stuff.

The bits of the constitution he cites are there to prevent the government slashing the pay of the president if say, they don't like him or her. The president is perfectly entitled to take a voluntary reduction in pay.

Not as funny as you pretending to be a republican though.

Prove I am wrong - show me the non existant legislation that show MMG is not using this as a publicity stunt - under boards rules if you state a fact, you have to be able to back it up.

President McAlees couldn't and didn't just decide she was taking a pay cut. Educate yourself please stop spinning - it was up to the Taoiseach to decide what salary should be paid to the President and she have would have had to accept whatever is decided by Government. The President, after consultation with the Council of State, can address the Houses of the Oireachtas on matters of national or public importance. But what is said by the President must firstly be approved by the Government.

Wolfe Tone show me the legislation that allow MMG the authority to set his own salary - the President can only veto unconstitutional legislation, this including salaries contained in the Finance bill.

Nodin

sparkling sea wrote: »

Not as funny as you pretending to be a republican though.

Prove I am wrong - show me the non existant legislation that show MMG is not using this as a publicity stunt - under boards rules if you state a fact, you have to be able to back it up.

President McAlees couldn't and didn't just decide she was taking a pay cut. Educate yourself please stop spinning - it was up to the Taoiseach to decide what salary should be paid to the President and she have would have had to accept whatever is decided by Government. The President, after consultation with the Council of State, can address the Houses of the Oireachtas on matters of national or public importance. But what is said by the President must firstly be approved by the Government.

Wolfe Tone show me the legislation that allow MMG the authority to set his own salary - the President can only veto unconstitutional legislation, this including salaries contained in the Finance bill.

...refusing to accept a certain wage is rather different from settine ones own wage. I'd suggest you think on it.

sparkling sea

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think it should be made clear that MMG has never taken more than the average wage. In this case however due to the apolitical role of the president he is giving the cash back to the government rather than to the party.

I fully expected Martin to do this and in fact I would have been greatly surprised if he didnt. It certainly makes Higgins look pathetic doesn't it?

No it doesn't make Higgins look pathetic.

Another of your myths: there is no machanism that exists that would allow MMG to give money to a democratic elected government, least it be seen as bribery.

sparkling sea

Nodin wrote: »

...refusing to accept a certain wage is rather different from settine ones own wage. I'd suggest you think on it.

I'd suggest you think on or you can remain in your dream world .. saying you will only accept a specfic wage is setting your own wag - He can't refuse the terms of a job, terms dictated by the legislature under the Constitution and not the President.

Soldie

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes - It will be very popular for the president of Ireland to demonstrate leadership and take a massive paycut. You can be sure that if your preferred candidate did the same - you'd be here to shout praise for him/her.

The president's salary could be either doubled or halved and the end result would be the same; it is utterly insignificant in terms of our public finances. You're a Sinn Féin supporter, so of course you're going to be clapping your hands from the sidelines and remarking on his exceptional "leadership". This is simply populism; he is projecting an image of being an ordinary guy outside of the political clique in an attempt to solidify and broaden his support. Again, you're a Sinn Féin supporter so I don't expect you to agree. For what it's worth, I don't have a preferred candidate and regardless of who did this I'd call it populism.

sparkling sea

Soldie wrote: »

The president's salary could be either doubled or halved and the end result would be the same; it is utterly insignificant in terms of our public finances.

For what it's worth, I don't have a preferred candidate and regardless of who did this I'd call it populism.

Couldn't agree more

ninty9er

NIMAN wrote: »

Shinner bashing, mixed with a little bit of 'anti-Northerner' thrown in for good measure.

Let's remember the incumbent is a northerner taking the full salary, albeit it at a voluntary reduction with a popularity rating that would see her re-elected were she willing and constitutionally able to run.

The money isn't an issue, it's an optical illusion that most likely wouldn't cover a week's interest on the boom-time national debt over the course of 7 years.

We pay our politicians well, and I for one have no issue with it.

Likewise I see no benefit in scrapping the ministerial fleet.

I'm distracting from the shinner bashing so I'll get my coat:D

dlofnep

Soldie wrote: »

The president's salary could be either doubled or halved and the end result would be the same; it is utterly insignificant in terms of our public finances.

I've already highlighted that it's not solely in the interests of finance, but rather in the interests of solidarity with those who who are struggling to make ends meet. So it's very significant that he would be willing to take a huge pay-cut, to demonstrate that actions speak louder than words.

Soldie wrote: »

You're a Sinn Féin supporter, so of course you're going to be clapping your hands from the sidelines and remarking on his exceptional "leadership".

It's irrelevant who I support. It doesn't make my opinion any less valid on the issue. If any candidate expressed a similar commitment, I would wholly support it.

Soldie wrote: »

This is simply populism; he is projecting an image of being an ordinary guy outside of the political clique in an attempt to solidify and broaden his support. Again, you're a Sinn Féin supporter so I don't expect you to agree. For what it's worth, I don't have a preferred candidate and regardless of who did this I'd call it populism.

No, I don't agree - and it's moot if I support Sinn Féin as a party. I still view the act as one of solidarity. Vocal opponents of Sinn Féin will never offer kudos where it's deserved, so for every accusation you have of me being a Sinn Féin supporter - Every single vocal opponent of Sinn Féin in this thread has spun a positive gesture into a negative one. If it was any other candidate - you'd all be singing praises. Double standards.

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

I'd suggest you think on or you can remain in your dream world .. saying you will only accept a specfic wage is setting your own wag - He can't refuse the terms of a job, terms dictated by the legislature under the Constitution and not the President.

You accuse someone of living in a dreamland, and completely the possibility that the president of Ireland might be able to work out an agreement with the Government to where he was only take home an average industrial wage. You somehow view this task as impossible.

If it was any other candidate - You wouldn't be on here trying to dictate to us what is or what is not feasible.

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

Couldn't agree more

Shock, horror.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

it's moot if I support Sinn Féin as a party
.

The humour is mighty in the Sinn Fein supporters camp today - must be all the jokes ye're cracking

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

The humour is mighty in the Sinn Fein supporters camp today - must be all the jokes ye're cracking

Are you suggesting that anyone who supports a political party does not have the right to voice their views on the actions of a political representative from the said party? Might it be that I genuinely see this act of one of solidarity?

I wonder if I were to search your posts, I'd find the same level of condescending smarmy attacks on anyone that supported the positions of their respective parties on boards.ie. Quite doubtful.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

You accuse someone of living in a dreamland, and completely the possibility that the president of Ireland might be able to work out an agreement with the Government to where he was only take home an average industrial wage. You somehow view this task as impossible.

If it was any other candidate - You wouldn't be on here trying to dictate to us what is or what is not feasible.

It wouldn't make the slightest difference who the candidate was (I am not saying that most the rest of the candidates are above pulling similiar stunts) -its unconstitutional - its a decision that lies purely with the legislature.

Wolfe Tone

Dig up!

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

It wouldn't make the slightest difference who the candidate was

Yeah buddy - Sure it wouldn't..

sparkling sea wrote: »

(I am not saying that most the rest of the candidates are above pulling similiar stunts)

Actually, that's exactly what you have not being saying.

sparkling sea wrote: »

-its unconstitutional - its a decision that lies purely with the legislature.

Oh come off it. It does not imply that prior to taking office, that an agreement cannot be made to receive a lesser wage. The wage itself is defined by law - Which we have already seen, that the wage can be altered based on a recommendation by the Government. You are away in the clouds if you believe that a president willing to have a voluntary paycut - would have such a request rejected by the Government.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

Are you suggesting that anyone who supports a political party does not have the right to voice their views on the actions of a political representative from the said party? Might it be that I genuinely see this act of one of solidarity?

I wonder if I were to search your posts, I'd find the same level of condescending smarmy attacks on anyone that supported the positions of their respective parties on boards.ie. Quite doubtful.

This is a discussion - if you don't like what I have to say try ignoring me, sticks and stones blaa blaa

You may choose to genuinely see it as an act of solidarity especially when it is presented to you as one. However if evidence then suggests that there is more to the decision then you would like to believe, I would hope, given the history of political parties in this country, you'd investigate the possible reasons behind the gesture a bit more.

I have little or no faith in any party in the Republic, further (in my view which I am also entitled to hold) I would also apply this position to Sinn Fein.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

Yeah buddy - Sure it wouldn't...

Condescending smarmy attacks?

I let the clique keep agreeing, I mean "discussing" this.

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

This is a discussion - if you don't like what I have to say try ignoring me, sticks and stones blaa blaa

It is a discussion, but you could try to remain cordial and balanced. I've no interest in furthering a discussion with you. We'll agree to disagree.

COYW

Exile 1798 wrote: »

One post ago...



This is what can happen to anti-Shinners they're in attack mode. Thought goes out the window, and they end up making fools of themselves.

Not really. I'll fill in the gaps for the ..... McGuinness' politics and his position in a terrorist organisation that murdered and destroyed families in the UK and Ireland for over 30 years is common knowledge to most people in this country. Stories in relation to same on the front pages during the campaign would not be a shock to people and therefore won't damage him as a candidate. Once the election is over, he will trot off back to Belfast and his cozy number there, where he and his party can blame all that's wrong in that country on the British government.

It will however bring the other side of SF (incl. its military wing) to the fore and to the attention of those with poorer memories thus damaging the gains they have made of late in this country. As time as passed here, people seem to have forgotten about SFs military past and McGuinness' campaign could and probably will bring all that back into their minds, hopefully.

junder

A populist move, nothing more. With all the Money coming in from book deals etc the wage received from being president would be little more then pocket money to mcguinnes. As already mentioned he will live in a mansion, be chauffeured around in limos never having to open his wallet, so why not throw a few crumbs to the peasants.

Agent Smith

dlofnep wrote: »

That's democracy. Deal with it.

Democracy baby.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch5u8YbOyIE

lugha

The difficulty here is that there is quite clearly a political dividend in the form of votes for any candidate who made a gesture like this, even if their motives were pure.

But if a candidate did want to make a grand empathy gesture like this, and they wanted to avoid any suspicions about their true motives, then there is an obvious course of action open to them. Wait until after they are elected before making the offer when they cannot possibly benefit politically.

Shame Marty didn’t think of that.

anymore

latenia wrote: »

How very generous of him seeing as he's never contributed a penny to the Irish state in tax. How much money did his terrorist campaign cost the country?

Again I am not voting for him, but we have more than enought wealthy tax free exiles who spend up to six months here, can have palatial homes here and dominate and distort our media, so I am not bothered he hasnt paid tax here in the past.