Gay Mitchell Disastrous Presidential Election

Captain Graphite

Gergiev wrote: »

Bob,

Gay Mitchell doesn't get the €200,000 rebate.

He failed to make the 12.5% of the vote threshold required to get this.

Out of curiosity, did all of Mitchell's election expenses come from FG? Or did some of it come from his own pocket?

It would be quite harsh if independent candidates without a party backing (like Norris, who took out a loan to help his campaign) lose their own money while Mitchell's losses were simply put on a FG tab without him having to worry about footing the bill himself.

Irish Steve

Poor Fine Gael vote, rejection of the investigation referendum, all the same thing in many respects.

The electorate (to quote RTE) delivered a hand grenade in the ballot box to Fianna Fail at the beginning of the year. FF rightly deserved it, and still do, but, and this is a BIG but, that doesn't mean that the electorate trust Fine Gael that much more, the bottom line is that politics in general has got itself a very dirty and besmirched image and reputation, and will continue to have that reputation until we see clearly and definitively that they have sorted out some of the issues that we've seen nothing done about since the election, but FF were not going to sort out the mess, and someone had to, hence the result that was delivered.

The IMF & EU & ECB may well be happy with the progress being made on reducing Ireland's debt, but that does not mean that Ireland is happy about the way that it's being done, or that Ireland is happy with the lack of action in areas where action was promised by the coalition. Given the choice of FF or FG/Labour, brutal truth is that I'd prefer neither, but there wasn't and still isn't a viable alternative to them, so FG/Labour are the best of a still bad bunch.

Gay Mitchell came across completely wrong to me, and his attitude at the end of the count was very much that of a spoilt kid throwing his toys out of the pram because he hadn't got his way.

The whole referendum issue was as bad as the Lisbon1 fiasco, and what makes it worse is that there were a number of people that seemed to think that politicians have an almost divine right to ask anything, and do anything, with no recourse if they make a mistake. WRONG, so wrong it's scary that even now, they've not got it.

WE DO NOT TRUST YOU ANY FURTHER THAN WE CAN THROW YOU WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND OUR BACKS, because we've seen that if we give you even a little bit of wriggle room, all that happens is that you look after your own vested interests, or give in to the group that shouts loudest or has the potential to cause you the most embarrassment. Why else would the unions in certain areas have been able to achieve such massive improvements in recent years, it certainly wasn't on the basis of productivity or profitability!

The health system is on the verge of collapse, my wife has just received an appointment for a consultant at Blanchardstown, Next SEPTEMBER. 11 MONTHS from now.

There are 2 economies right now, the export economy, which is supposedly working reasonably well, and the domestic economy, which is basically almost dead, and getting worse by the week. Unless something very dramatic and different is done at a local level, there won't be an economy soon, and the reality is that we're not seeing any positive ideas on how to change that situation, because there are so few ideas unless there are dramatic changes to the entire structure of the EU, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

What we needed, and didn't get, is a leader that will stand up and make his (or her) position very clear, and who has clear and definite policies on how to move forward, and then tells the rest of the party "This is how it will be, MAKE IT HAPPEN", and if, for whatever reason, they don't, then they get shown the door.

I sent an E-mail to our local FG TD a few weeks back, and I'm still waiting for an acknowledgement, let alone a reply. I shouldn't be surprised, we're post election now, so they can ignore some of us now until they need us to vote for them next time. NOT A GOOD IDEA, not if you want us to consider you next time.

Priory Hall is a classic example of how bad things have got. What should have happened is that Dublin Corporation should have been adquately funded so that they had the staff and resources to carry out Building Regulations inspections to ensure that they were complied with. The Architects and Solicitors that have signed off on the properties when the work had not been done to standard, or not correctly certified in the first place, should now be deemed liable for their dereliction of duty and failure to correctly perform their contracted tasks, which should be costing them big time, but it's not going to happen, partly because the politicians are afraid to take on the vested interests that have been the gravy train for them for so long.

There are so many other organisations where the standard response is "not our responsibility", and if nothing else changes, that culture of no responsibility or accountability, especially in the public sector, has to be changed, permanently.

Maybe then the politicians might earn back the respect that they have forfeited, but until they start making the changes that are needed, they are going to remain as despised and mistrusted as they are at present.

So, to me, that's one of the reasons for the result this weekend, but I doubt that FG will do much to change it, the real push for change has lost it's impetus.

Gergiev

Captain Graphite wrote: »

Out of curiosity, did all of Mitchell's election expenses come from FG? Or did some of it come from his own pocket?

It would be quite harsh if independent candidates without a party backing (like Norris, who took out a loan to help his campaign) lose their own money while Mitchell's losses were simply put on a FG tab without him having to worry about footing the bill himself.

Captain,

FG will almost certainly stump up the cash for the entire estimated bill of €850K.

They took out a mortgage on their HQ earlier on during the year for the purpose of launching a serious thrust for the presidency which they've never previously won.

As the largest party in the Dail, Senate, MEPs and County Councils, the stars were never better aligned to secure the top job in the state.

So losing their deposit was the last thing on their minds.

We know now of course they made a complete mess of it.

But I agree with you about Norris as this will probably demolish his life savings while Mitchell gets back on the Brussels gravy train.

Nodin

A rough summary -> ...wants rules on what questions can be asked of candidates, didn't 'go' for Martin McG (ye wha?), 'people wanted a candidate who wasn't party political' (ignoring the fact that Michael Dee is synonymous with Labour).

Whinges about being asked about his non-appearance and says we need a 'gentler' society, regrets the lack of standards in certain parts of the media which 'needs to be examined' by the NUJ....

http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/1031/media-3096289.html#

goat2

i am reading on here, that enda kenny did not want gay mitchell as the fine gael candidate, what did he say, that make people think that,
as i dont remember ek saying he did not want him as the candidate, or was he elected by the party, how did mairead mcginness who would have my vote not get the tally,

Zubeneschamali

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Whatever your views on McGuinness, he made a tactical blunder in attacking him. McGuinness voters would be highly unlikely to switch to FG, and even the floating ones would have gone elsewhere

He didn't attack McGuinness to try and win over SF voters, he did it to try and get the core FG lorenorder voters on board.

Enda and his backroom people had the polling research to show that Mitchell had no chance before he was even nominated. The party nominated him anyway, as in inside-FG thing, and serves them right.

Ozymandius2011

The leadership didn't lift a finger to help him. Now Enda will be able to tell his footsoldiers to get back in line in future for the good of the party. Whether that was the plan all along is one for the political-historians.

Gergiev

Dampsquid wrote: »

Anyone know why Mitchell wasn't eliminated at the same time as norris?

Very good question.

I presume you're asking because the combined total of Mitchell and Norris's votes are less than McGuinness's?

(In the same way that Dana and Mary Davis were eliminated together because their combined total was less than Norris's total).

I don't know the answer but surmise that their combined total was enough to push the leading candidate over the quota so they had to be distributed separately?

Anyone know the correct answer?

(Don't fancy trawling all the way through The Electoral Act)!

Zubeneschamali

Gergiev wrote: »

Anyone know the correct answer?

It's in Dampsquid's edit notes above: If Mitchell had picked up 80% of Norris's vote, Mitchell would have crossed 12.5% and been reimbursed his election expenses.

In the event, only 7.5% transferred from Norris #1 to Mitchell.

Gergiev

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's in Dampsquid's edit notes above: If Mitchell had picked up 80% of Norris's vote, Mitchell would have crossed 12.5% and been reimbursed his election expenses.

In the event, only 7.5% transferred from Norris #1 to Mitchell.

Zubeneschamali, thanks for the reply and clarification.

I see that now and it makes sense so point taken.

Sometimes there is some light here amid all the heat!