Leo is the new king of Ireland.

FrancieBrady

Btw blanch, I don't for a second condone making fun of an impediment. But comedians use it for comedic effect and not to comment on the political ability of the speaker.
Comments on a woman's personal traits/appearance to demean her political ability are sexist imo.
This is a political forum and sexist remarks should not be allowed.

Mind you it is good to see one poster drop the 'shrill' comments about ML.
Try saying that at a gathering of confident competent female politicians and see how you get on.

Podge_irl

I understand where the criticism of the SCU is coming from (spending taxpayers money on propaganda etc). However, when you look at the general opinion people seem to have of basically all politicians and their efforts I can understand the idea of putting forth a team that explains what you are actually doing and tries to get your message across properly. Private companies have massive departments focused on this, it is part of the business.

Chips Lovell

That sounds fine in theory. In practice though, they've been doing some fairly dodgy stuff, such as paying for advertorials including quotes from people who thought they were being interviewed for genuine newspaper articles.

Zubeneschamali

Podge_irl wrote: »

I can understand the idea of putting forth a team that explains what you are actually doing and tries to get your message across properly.

People have aimed a ton of abuse at the EU and successive British Governments for not explaining to the British public what the EU does for them, resulting in Brexit.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Btw blanch, I don't for a second condone making fun of an impediment. But comedians use it for comedic effect and not to comment on the political ability of the speaker.
Comments on a woman's personal traits/appearance to demean her political ability are sexist imo.
This is a political forum and sexist remarks should not be allowed.

Mind you it is good to see one poster drop the 'shrill' comments about ML.
Try saying that at a gathering of confident competent female politicians and see how you get on.

Let us be clear here, Mary Lou's voice is grating, Joan Burton's voice is also grating.

I have very different views of their respective political abilities, but that doesn't change the fact that their voices are grating. Joan Burton's voice annoys me from time to time, so does Mary Lou's, that won't stop me from saying so, but it won't change my respective views of their abilities. It is not sexist to merely say that their voices are grating and annoying. Sometimes supporters of both attempt to deflect criticism by talking about something that isn't there.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Let us be clear here, Mary Lou's voice is grating, Joan Burton's voice is also grating.

I have very different views of their respective political abilities, but that doesn't change the fact that their voices are grating. Joan Burton's voice annoys me from time to time, so does Mary Lou's, that won't stop me from saying so, but it won't change my respective views of their abilities. It is not sexist to merely say that their voices are grating and annoying. Sometimes supporters of both attempt to deflect criticism by talking about something that isn't there.

You have your opinion and I have mine.
I find neither 'grating' particularly. Not to the extent that I would mention it as a primary reason of a negative ability on a politics forum.

Edward M

Simon Harris voice irritates me, Leo's is a bit nasal and condescending in tone at times.
But both are very articulate men, even if it is mostly windsucking at times from them.
Enda' s accent was often used as a source of ridicule of him, from memory Albert Reynolds too.
But none of these would dissuade me from voting for a person if I thought they were worth of a vote based on their ideals.

Podge_irl

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

That sounds fine in theory. In practice though, they've been doing some fairly dodgy stuff, such as paying for advertorials including quotes from people who thought they were being interviewed for genuine newspaper articles.

Yeah that's fair enough. I get the impression that most of the criticism is against the concept more so than the content which I think is misguided. They definitely have had some missteps but I think its actually a good idea in theory.

BonnieSituation

Idbatterim wrote: »

I won’t have a number 2. If my renua candidate doesn’t get in so be it. I can’t vote for the alternatives and I can’t bring myself to vote fg again. They are a disgrace ...

I find it hard to believe that someone would vote Renua over FG on the basis that FG are an apparent disgrace?

I mean, what have Renua actually done or stood for really outside of their bizarre anti-woman anti-repeal stance?

Their economic policies are bizarre and will only hobble a lot of PS workers in retirement. They're like a cranky version of the PDs without even their little substance.

charlie14

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yeah that's fair enough. I get the impression that most of the criticism is against the concept more so than the content which I think is misguided. They definitely have had some missteps but I think its actually a good idea in theory.

I have no problem with the theory of informing citizens of the workings of the state, using taxpayers money, by the civil service.
The problem I do have is that line has been crossed and that information paid for by taxpayers has being used for party political purposes.
Nothing wrong with the theory, just the practice.

Idbatterim

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that someone would vote Renua over FG on the basis that FG are an apparent disgrace?

I mean, what have Renua actually done or stood for really outside of their bizarre anti-woman anti-repeal stance?

Their economic policies are bizarre and will only hobble a lot of PS workers in retirement. They're like a cranky version of the PDs without even their little substance.

they have scrapped the flat rate policy, go onto their website. Their proposals are all of what people are screaming for! they can do all the good work that they like, they need to let people know that they are still around. Have good policies etc. They are going to have to go on the attack against FG primarily, they can highlight all their talk and years of inaction. Still a 51% marginal tax rate, outrageous child care costs, outrageous rental and purchasing costs (primarily in dublin), law and order a joke etc. All of that is true and not up for debate. They need to come up with a proper plan to market and attack the useless establishment...

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

Simon Harris voice irritates me, Leo's is a bit nasal and condescending in tone at times.
But both are very articulate men, even if it is mostly windsucking at times from them.
Enda' s accent was often used as a source of ridicule of him, from memory Albert Reynolds too.
But none of these would dissuade me from voting for a person if I thought they were worth of a vote based on their ideals.

People made fun of Enda's accent.

People made fun of Albert's accent.

People make fun of Joan's voice.

People make fun of Paschal's speech impediment.

All of that is fine, just comedy (see Mario Rosenstock or Oliver Callan), but if anyone says anything about Mary Lou's voice, that is sexist, pure and simple.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

People made fun of Enda's accent.

People made fun of Albert's accent.

People make fun of Joan's voice.

People make fun of Paschal's speech impediment.

All of that is fine, just comedy (see Mario Rosenstock or Oliver Callan),

On comedy programmes/platforms.

but if anyone says anything about Mary Lou's voice, that is sexist, pure and simple.

I have objected to Joan being politically criticised because of the tone of her voice and references to weight and appearance of female politicians on this forum.

Answer the question, how would you expect to be recieved if you went into a room of confident competent female politicians and criticised one of them for being 'shrill' 'grating'?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On comedy programmes/platforms.


I have objected to Joan being politically criticised because of the tone of her voice and references to weight and appearance of female politicians on this forum.

Answer the question, how would you expect to be recieved if you went into a room of confident competent female politicians and criticised one of them for being 'shrill' 'grating'?

MaryLou is a bit like the priests of my childhood. Clare Daly is something similar. They preach at us. They know best. They’re never wrong. There are others similar, both male and female. A good politician is one who listens. Not preaches.

blanch152

Deleted User wrote: »

MaryLou is a bit like the priests of my childhood. Clare Daly is something similar. They preach at us. They know best. They’re never wrong. There are others similar, both male and female. A good politician is one who listens. Not preaches.

That is a very good comparison.

She does preach, as does Clare Daly. Rightly or wrongly, they give off the vibe that they know best and everyone else is wrong. It gets under some people's skin.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

On comedy programmes/platforms.


I have objected to Joan being politically criticised because of the tone of her voice and references to weight and appearance of female politicians on this forum.

Answer the question, how would you expect to be recieved if you went into a room of confident competent female politicians and criticised one of them for being 'shrill' 'grating'?

The same way I would expect to be received if I went into a room of confident competent male politicians and slagged off Paschal's speech impediment or Enda's accent. I would get the usual sniggers from the Shinners down the back but the rest would be appalled.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The same way I would expect to be received if I went into a room of confident competent male politicians and slagged off Paschal's speech impediment or Enda's accent. I would get the usual sniggers from the Shinners down the back but the rest would be appalled.

Keep it up so. Point seems to have sailed right over your head.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keep it up so. Point seems to have sailed right over your head.

Banned for one day.

James Brown

Accents and varying speech impediments aside, nice to see Leo sit out protecting the public and housing market from practically tax free vulture funds.
FG making McGrath and FF look like champs. But back to Mary Lou''s voice and that....

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Accents and varying speech impediments aside, nice to see Leo sit out protecting the public and housing market from practically tax free vulture funds.
FG making McGrath and FF look like champs. But back to Mary Lou''s voice and that....

I asked you a question earlier, admittedly it was easy to miss because there were a lot of posts since. I said that I vote for Leo/FG as best of a bad lot. Which leader do you see as better and why?

FrancieBrady

More advice for media savvy Leo.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-dukes-says-taoiseach-should-close-his-twitter-account-1.3422583

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More advice for media savvy Leo.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/alan-dukes-says-taoiseach-should-close-his-twitter-account-1.3422583

From Alan Dukes.
I'd say he'll listen to him alright.

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

they have scrapped the flat rate policy, go onto their website. Their proposals are all of what people are screaming for! they can do all the good work that they like, they need to let people know that they are still around. Have good policies etc. They are going to have to go on the attack against FG primarily, they can highlight all their talk and years of inaction. Still a 51% marginal tax rate, outrageous child care costs, outrageous rental and purchasing costs (primarily in dublin), law and order a joke etc. All of that is true and not up for debate. They need to come up with a proper plan to market and attack the useless establishment...

The flat rate is the only thing that I found appealing about them tbh.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

I asked you a question earlier, admittedly it was easy to miss because there were a lot of posts since. I said that I vote for Leo/FG as best of a bad lot. Which leader do you see as better and why?

I did miss it apologies.
Firstly you might vote for Leo but if he's true to FG form you're wasting your vote. Their manifestos are just spin after all and Leo isn't up to much past bluster.
If I believed the Leo PR and bull I'd be inclined to vote for them too.
Secondly, I'm against voting for proven inept crony false advertising parties because 'best of a bad lot' has us with looking like an official FF /FG partnership next government. There's ideology, decency and doing what's best for the country, FG in bed with the biggest political scourge in the history of the state, (next to themselves) FF, just to stay in power and keep everyone else out.

Who would I vote for over Leo and why? Me. Maybe you. Why? Because Leo is a chancer and his party full of crap, IMO.
Look at the ongoing trolly wait saga and ever worsening housing market squeezing out those only in with a shot due to state aid.
It's like a policy from 'Yes Minister'. The government working hard for the housing industry and then needing to subsidise their customers. The economics of a ponzi scheme. But then it's mostly about balancing making out like bandits and doing just enough to bull**** your way in for another term.

I must applaud the Choctaw scholarship. A genuine idea with which we hopefully will see follow through. It is Leo after all.

Your point seems to be the jaded idea that if I can't pick anyone better than Leo it's okay to vote Leo. No its not. I'd go for a complete unknown. At least then there's a possibility of getting a genuine sort.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your point seems to be the jaded idea that if I can't pick anyone better than Leo it's okay to vote Leo. No its not. I'd go for a complete unknown. At least then there's a possibility of getting a genuine sort.

Firstly thanks for taking the time to reply.

While I disagree with some of what you said in other paragraphs (and also agree with some), this one makes least sense to me and certainly doesn't justify your criticism of others voting habits.

You are saying that if I or any voter sees Leo as best (of a bad lot), that it's not ok to vote for him? Meaning that we will be voting for someone we think is worse if we take your advice.

Anyway you didn't really answer my question of who you think is better and why. There are only a handful of party leaders on the ballot paper, and I'm certainly not one of them, and neither are you as far as I'm aware. And we need to vote for someone on the ballot paper, not some unknown. We need to make a choice, however crap that choice is.

So the only logical thing is to vote for who you see as best IMO. And IMO you haven't put forward a convincing argument to do otherwise, despite the numerous flaws with the current government

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I did miss it apologies.
Firstly you might vote for Leo but if he's true to FG form you're wasting your vote. Their manifestos are just spin after all and Leo isn't up to much past bluster.
If I believed the Leo PR and bull I'd be inclined to vote for them too.
Secondly, I'm against voting for proven inept crony false advertising parties because 'best of a bad lot' has us with looking like an official FF /FG partnership next government. There's ideology, decency and doing what's best for the country, FG in bed with the biggest political scourge in the history of the state, (next to themselves) FF, just to stay in power and keep everyone else out.

Who would I vote for over Leo and why? Me. Maybe you. Why? Because Leo is a chancer and his party full of crap, IMO.
Look at the ongoing trolly wait saga and ever worsening housing market squeezing out those only in with a shot due to state aid.
It's like a policy from 'Yes Minister'. The government working hard for the housing industry and then needing to subsidise their customers. The economics of a ponzi scheme. But then it's mostly about balancing making out like bandits and doing just enough to bull**** your way in for another term.

I must applaud the Choctaw scholarship. A genuine idea with which we hopefully will see follow through. It is Leo after all.

Your point seems to be the jaded idea that if I can't pick anyone better than Leo it's okay to vote Leo. No its not. I'd go for a complete unknown. At least then there's a possibility of getting a genuine sort.

You actually make a case to vote for Leo in that post. You cannot identify anyone better than him among the ranks of current parties. Therefore, one might as well vote for Leo.

You put forward the case for an unknown on the basis that they might be a genuine sort. However, that is a huge risk, with the chances also being high that they are completely incompetent, and would make things worse.

So all in all, your point seems to be that there is nobody better, and you could always vote for a complete unknown (say a Healy-Rae lookalike). That will encourage a lot of people to vote for the devil they know - Leo.

Edward M

Very few people get to vote for Leo, very very few get to vote for him as leader or taoiseach.
Politics is a local thing really when it comes to casting votes in an election.
There are all sorts elected if you look across the dail, the problem is that if there are good politicians in there and if they belong to a party system the good they do in their local area is diluted to suit party politics in the dail.
Its crazy though in general the amount of proven corrupt or suspiciously involved with vested interests keep getting elected.
I'm not suggesting any such with Leo BTW, but how does his level of current popularity come about, is it that he looks good, because I genuinely don't know what he or his govt have achieved to give him his current poll ranking?

recedite

Its all in his careful choice of socks.

charlie14

Edward M wrote: »

Very few people get to vote for Leo, very very few get to vote for him as leader or taoiseach.
Politics is a local thing really when it comes to casting votes in an election.
There are all sorts elected if you look across the dail, the problem is that if there are good politicians in there and if they belong to a party system the good they do in their local area is diluted to suit party politics in the dail.
Its crazy though in general the amount of proven corrupt or suspiciously involved with vested interests keep getting elected.
I'm not suggesting any such with Leo BTW, but how does his level of current popularity come about, is it that he looks good, because I genuinely don't know what he or his govt have achieved to give him his current poll ranking?

Polls I do not pay a lot of attention too. Their predictions when compared to election results have been widely inaccurate, even when close to an election, but there was something said in another thread that perhaps could explain Varadkar`s ratings.

A poster pointed out that Sinn Féin`s polls in the Republic rarely translate to actual votes because many young adults that will give them as their preference to pollsters do not actually vote.

Varadkar is a big fan of Twitter it seems where I imagine the majority of user`s would also be those younger adults.

joey1111

Leo is going to invite Trump to Ireland, do the people of Ireland get a say in this?