Nessa Childers

Bits_n_Bobs

Seemingly she's left the labour party. This represents exactly half my knowledge of this upstanding representative of our Democracy. The other half is that she left the green party a few years ago.

I need a new democracy.

mike65

I'm listening to her from atop a high horse on Newstalk right now. She is clearly one of those "luxury politicians" who won't stay the course.

Manach

Descended from the author, Erskine Childers (which thanks to Wikipedia is the only relevant thing I know about her up to this point)

Bits_n_Bobs

I increased my knowledge of her by 1/3. She had a gross salary of 95k in 2011 according to her site.

I don't know what she actually did in 2011, there seems to be a lack of resignations from political parties for a few years. As a taxpayer I think this lack of resigning from parties should lead to her repaying the salary.

No resigning=no money. Austerity politics.

Having said that maybe she should get a bonus this year for resigning. Or a little gold clock or something.

Nodin

She joined labour, but left them, then joined the Greens. She then left the Greens and re-joined labour. Nows shes left labour again. I forsee an attempt at a career as an independent ahead, primarily because she looks like more trouble than anything else.

slimjimmc

Manach wrote: »

Descended from the author, Erskine Childers (which thanks to Wikipedia is the only relevant thing I know about her up to this point)

Indeed. Her father was Erskine Hamilton Childers (4th President of Ireland) and his father was the author Robert Erskine Childers.

http://www.nessachilders.ie/about/

Family

The daughter of the fourth President of Ireland, Erskine Childers and his second wife, Rita Childers, Nessa has two children, aged 19 and 24, and lives in Clonskeagh in South Dublin.

(and that's all I know about her too )

Kinski

Hmm, she worked as a psychoanalyst; can't have been too many of those ever in Irish politics.

johnnyskeleton

The optics aren't great. Roisin Shorthall left because she took a stand on an issue which sat uncomfortably with her cohorts and resigned on an actual principle as the thing happened.

Childers appears for all the world to be reacting to the dramatic drop in support for labour as shown in opinion polls ie she is afraid for her seat and wants somebody to do something.

The time to make a moral stand is when it is unpopular to do so. This is nothing but a populist move.

Mind you, labour alakadoos are dropping like flies, first there was willie penrose, shorthall, then yer man Keavney and now another one. All of whom, with the exception of Shorthall refused to go against popular opinion (closing local barracks, welfare cuts, general drop in the polls) even when they all talk about tough decisions.

GRMA

She has been annoyed for a very long time - she is the "rebel MEP" snide remarks have been made about in the media for ages and to be fair to her she has spoken out about lots of things

What she has done is left at the most damaging time possible, its a carefully planned exit.

She's given Gilmore a good kick when he was down

Annasopra

She hasnt left the party - just the parliamentary party

She is one of the more transparent politicians in Ireland listing all her finances and diary appointments online

http://www.nessachilders.ie/transparency/

Sierra Oscar

mango salsa wrote: »

She is one of the more transparent politicians in Ireland listing all her finances and diary appointments online

http://www.nessachilders.ie/transparency/

I hadn't noticed that before, fair play to her for providing transparency. Many more of our public representatives would be doing well to follow the example she has set.

bmaxi

Always struck me as a principled lady, something she must have inherited from her father and grandfather, she certainly had no role models in the Labour leadership. I'd reckon Gilmore is delighted to see the back of her, lets just hope her leaving also hastens his own and Rabbitte's departure.

Annasopra

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I hadn't noticed that before, fair play to her for providing transparency. Many more of our public representatives would be doing well to follow the example she has set.

Agreed. I think that should be compulsory for all politicians though.

Sierra Oscar

mango salsa wrote: »

Agreed. I think that should be compulsory for all politicians though.

That and ensuring that all expenses should be vouched for.

jim_beam

listening to her interview with marian finucane yesterday , she sounds like your stereotypical guilty liberal , heaps of hand ringing about how unfair cuts and austerity is

fickle creatures like childers are no loss

GRMA

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

That and ensuring that all expenses should be vouched for.

Will take more than that to get rid of the culture of corruption in your party - lets not forget it defended Bertie up until the last. (and cheered him at your annual knees up)

Cody Pomeray

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Childers appears for all the world to be reacting to the dramatic drop in support for labour as shown in opinion polls ie she is afraid for her seat and wants somebody to do something.

The time to make a moral stand is when it is unpopular to do so. This is nothing but a populist move.

Wait, don't we *want* politicians to get our messages?

Isn't fear of losing a seat the basis of democratic accountability that ensures the public's wishes are broadly honoured?

hatrickpatrick

Brave politician refuses to represent party leadership instead of the constituents she is actually working for.
Boards posters attack her for this.

hatrickpatrick

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Wait, don't we *want* politicians to get our messages?

Isn't fear of losing a seat the basis of democratic accountability that ensures the public's wishes are broadly honoured?

No you see, you need to realize that many people on this forum don't actually approve of democracy and would probably prefer if whatever semblance of it we still have was abolished altogether.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No you see, you need to realize that many people on this forum don't actually approve of democracy and would probably prefer if whatever semblance of it we still have was abolished altogether.

Well, no. As someone who has made no secret of the fact that I'm deeply suspicious of democracy, it's unfair to misrepresent my position as wanting it abolished; I just want it carefully curtailed.

A country that's run precisely according to the day-to-day desires and whims of a majority of the electorate is as close as I can imagine to a perfect hell. What the majority of people want done is not necessarily the right - or even a sane - thing to do.

The idea that a politician whose sole and only conviction is to slavishly follow the whims of the electorate is the best politician imaginable is, frankly, baffling to me.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that a politician whose sole and only conviction is to slavishly follow the whims of the electorate is the best politician imaginable is, frankly, baffling to me.

I broadly agree, in that it is not the function of democracy to cater to the electorate's fleeting, short term objectives but what it wants for itself in the long run.

But in that case, I wouldn't call the opposition to Labour's policies amongst its voters as 'whims".

I think the Labour voter base has a legitimate criticism, which is not undeserving of a response.

In that sense, a reaction like resignation from the PP, especially in order to preserve her political career, is a valid democratic exercise.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. As someone who has made no secret of the fact that I'm deeply suspicious of democracy, it's unfair to misrepresent my position as wanting it abolished; I just want it carefully curtailed.

A country that's run precisely according to the day-to-day desires and whims of a majority of the electorate is as close as I can imagine to a perfect hell. What the majority of people want done is not necessarily the right - or even a sane - thing to do.

The idea that a politician whose sole and only conviction is to slavishly follow the whims of the electorate is the best politician imaginable is, frankly, baffling to me.

We'll agree to differ then My idea of representative democracy is to ask the people what laws they want to live by and then try to come to a decision that as many people as possible will agree with. Not to simply make their own decisions based on their own views.

Bits_n_Bobs

oscarBravo wrote: »

The idea that a politician whose sole and only conviction is to slavishly follow the whims of the electorate is the best politician imaginable is, frankly, baffling to me.

We had one of those, his name was Bertie Ahern.

GRMA

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no. As someone who has made no secret of the fact that I'm deeply suspicious of democracy, it's unfair to misrepresent my position as wanting it abolished; I just want it carefully curtailed.

A country that's run precisely according to the day-to-day desires and whims of a majority of the electorate is as close as I can imagine to a perfect hell. What the majority of people want done is not necessarily the right - or even a sane - thing to do.

The idea that a politician whose sole and only conviction is to slavishly follow the whims of the electorate is the best politician imaginable is, frankly, baffling to me.

So what, a benevolent dictator?

Ash.J.Williams

I thought about this when shorthall resigned.. they talk about needing more women in politics yet she legged it at the first obstacle? She should have stayed on and kept at o'reilly until she had success..

oscarBravo

GRMA wrote: »

So what, a benevolent dictator?

Ideally. Keeping the feckers benevolent is the challenge.

schnitzelEater

I always find it distasteful when TDs or MEPs leave the party on matters of 'principle' but choose to retain their seats.

The moral thing to do would be to resign the seat and stand as an independent candidate in the ensuing byelection.

Otherwise they just see more attached to the gravy train that their principles.

More likely it is rats leaving a sinking ship with as much as they can salvage for themselves.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ideally. Keeping the feckers benevolent is the challenge.

And so long as his broad policy objectives correspond with yours, I suppose, as distinct from... you know, the other people who live here.

schnitzelEater wrote: »

I always find it distasteful when TDs or MEPs leave the party on matters of 'principle' but choose to retain their seats.

The moral thing to do would be to resign the seat and stand as an independent candidate in the ensuing byelection.

Otherwise they just see more attached to the gravy train that their principles.

More likely it is rats leaving a sinking ship with as much as they can salvage for themselves.

Fair point. Not sure if most people would attach adequate value to the cost of additional by-elections, though. I know I'd be pretty annoyed if a politician got to cause a by-election every time he wanted to prove a point.

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

And so long as his broad policy objectives correspond with yours, I suppose, as distinct from... you know, the other people who live here.

Of course not. A dictator can only be considered benevolent if his broad policy objectives conform to whatever half the electorate happen to want on a day-to-day basis. Because if enough people believe something, it is automatically and incontrovertibly true.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course not. A dictator can only be considered benevolent if his broad policy objectives conform to whatever half the electorate happen to want on a day-to-day basis.

Not so. A dictator can only have a legitimate incentive for benevolence where there are free and fair elections to have him deposed every once in a while. It doesn't realistically matter a damn whether half the electorate agree with him on a short term basis.

What are you dong with all that straw?

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Not so. A dictator can only have a legitimate incentive for benevolence where there are free and fair elections to have him deposed every once in a while. It doesn't realistically matter a damn whether half the electorate agree with him on a short term basis.

I guess it depends how much of his term of office he spends with an eye on the next election as opposed to doing what is best for the country. My ideal benevolent dictator does what's good for people, as opposed to what they want. The two are not guaranteed to coincide.

What are you dong with all that straw?

It's left over from a man someone else built.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

I guess it depends how much of his term of office he spends with an eye on the next election as opposed to doing what is best for the country.

There is no country to cater for, only a society, made up of reasonably free people.

Whose values decide what is good for them?

It's left over from a man someone else built.

I'm talking specifically about something being "automatically and incontrovertibly true" if enough people believe in it.

Did anyone say that?

Or is it a straw man?

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Whose values decide what is good for them?

Whose, indeed? I've only argued against the idea that what the majority of them wants is what's best for them.

I'm talking specifically about something being "automatically and incontrovertibly true" if enough people believe in it.

Did anyone say that?

Nobody said it, just like I didn't say that a benevolent dictator's policy objectives would have to correspond with mine.

Wall-to-wall straw men in here tonight.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whose, indeed?

Well that is sort of crucial to be fair like.

If you genuinely favour the idea of some sort of benevolent dictatorship, you have to come to some sort of arrangement about whose values are going to be imposed upon those individuals living in his society. That's going to be something of a deal breaker from the outset.

Nobody said it, just like I didn't say that a benevolent dictator's policy objectives would have to correspond with mine.

Well I asked you a question about the benevolent dictator's society's values. That isn't a straw man under any reasonable definition of the term.

Why did you say "Because if enough people believe something, it is automatically and incontrovertibly true."? Was that intended to summarise someone's views on this thread?

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well that is sort of crucial to be fair like.

If you genuinely favour the idea of some sort of benevolent dictatorship, you have to come to some sort of arrangement about whose values are going to be imposed upon those individuals living in his society. That's going to be something of a deal breaker from the outset.

I did say "ideally". I'm not advocating for the replacement of democracy by benevolent dictatorship; I'm making the point that in the unlikely event that a truly benevolent dictator could be found (and if the fecker could be persuaded to stay benevolent), there's a case to be made for it being a better state of affairs than our current political system.

I haven't expressed a belief that such a creature exists, and as such haven't advocated an end to democracy. That doesn't change the fact that I view democracy with suspicion, and believe that - like all powerful forces - it should be deployed only with caution and appropriate safeguards.

Well I asked you a question about the benevolent dictator's society's values. That isn't a straw man under any reasonable definition of the term.

Maybe not, but when you frame it as a presumption that I believe the dictator's values should mirror mine, it starts to look suspiciously like one.

Why did you say "Because if enough people believe something, it is automatically and incontrovertibly true."? Was that intended to summarise someone's views on this thread?

In a sense, it summarises my own, albeit through the device of deep irony.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

I did say "ideally". I'm not advocating for the replacement of democracy by benevolent dictatorship; I'm making the point that in the unlikely event that a truly benevolent dictator could be found (and if the fecker could be persuaded to stay benevolent), there's a case to be made for it being a better state of affairs than our current political system.

sure why stop there? If you're engaging in unlikely political fantasy there's a better case to be made for a better state of affairs under a perfectly responsible society, perfectly co-operating whilst respecting individual values, and doing all of this quite perfectly without the need for a benevolent dictatorship.

Meanwhile in the real world...

oscarBravo

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

sure why stop there? If you're engaging in unlikely political fantasy there's a better case to be made for a better state of affairs under a perfectly responsible society, perfectly co-operating whilst respecting individual values, and doing all of this quite perfectly without the need for a benevolent dictatorship.

Meanwhile in the real world...

...democracy is immune from criticism by anyone who can't propose a perfect drop-in replacement. Gotcha.

Cody Pomeray

oscarBravo wrote: »

...democracy is immune from criticism by anyone who can't propose a perfect drop-in replacement. Gotcha.

another straw man?

I'm saying that if you're going to engage in political fantasy, at least be ambitious.
Not sure there is one single version of "democracy", but there are lots of reasons to be critical of various democratic provisions. Nobody is denying that.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

...democracy is immune from criticism by anyone who can't propose a perfect drop-in replacement. Gotcha.

I hate to say it but that kinda works both ways. A lot of people on your side of the fence if you like have said about both party whips and about opposing the financial system (Occupy) that one shouldn't criticize any current system without having a fully worked out alternative

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I hate to say it but that kinda works both ways. A lot of people on your side of the fence if you like have said about both party whips and about opposing the financial system (Occupy) that one shouldn't criticize any current system without having a fully worked out alternative

I'm not sure if I've said that. I would certainly assert that you can't credibly demand the removal or dismantling of an existing system without proposing a fully operational replacement.

There's a rather gaping chasm between criticising something and demanding its abolition. I've never advocated for the abolition of democracy; I've pointed out on more than one occasion that I don't believe that democracy is always (or even nearly always) a good way to run things.