So Michael D IS running again!

Sycamore Tree

Michael D has this sown up justifiably.
Are the other messers just running now with an eye on 7 years time or in the event Michael D does not last the full term?
The SF lady sounds the least honest trying to throw a few Irish words around to show off. The others just sound like egos.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

He cannot. He can only read a script approved by the Government, as was explained by Michael D.

The question of salary is a nonsense. How much should the President be paid? Same as the Chief Justice, or perhaps the Taoseach, or perhaps as much as a Minister or TD? Who decides this? Michael D requested a reduction in his salary, and returned his state pensions while he is President.

They are reducing the Presidency to a level of fighting over shillings and pence, greasy coins at that. I expected that they would have a Dutch auction as to who would do it for the least, while trying to get their election expenses back.

All the wannabe candidates are a disgrace. There should be a social media campaign to get MDH up to 80% to deny them all any chance of getting enough to claim any refunds.

A bit bitter there imo.

The question of how much the presidency costs is a valid one. It doesn't mean it is MD's fault. That it is aired now is inevitable. And there isn't much point running from it.

On the addressing the Oireachtas issue: Should the President be constrained by the government of the day?
If somebody is good enough to be selected as President why would or should we be afraid of what they have to say?
Do we want the office to be more relevant or not ?

alaimacerc

Sam Russell wrote: »

All the wannabe candidates are a disgrace. There should be a social media campaign to get MDH up to 80% to deny them all any chance of getting enough to claim any refunds.

The only danger to that at the moment seems to be Gallagher. None of the others are even polling half of a quarter of half the electorate (if you'll pardon my Imperial Weights and Measures notation). Doesn't even need MDH to poll 80% -- in fact, elected on the first count with not enough surplus to distribute, and everyone else on 12% or less would do the job most efficiently.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

But the president is allowed to do that (per the constitution), but their text must be approved by the cabinet (... also per the constitution). C&S/coalition agreements can't override the constitution.

I understand that, please stop repeating it. I am asking should it be changed?

That "suspicion/fear" does tend to arise from your essentially repeating what the SF candidate just said, but I'm honestly not quite sure what the scenario you're getting at is.

Yeh, and I quoted Casey on expenditure. Can we ever mature on this hidden SF bot stuff? :rolleyes:

He's had some things to say on other occasions; the venue to me doesn't seem crucial. You could argue he's pushed the party-political envelope on occasion, and the LNR is basically seeking to signal she'd do more of the same, in more ways, and from a more economically left and constitutionally irredentist starting point.

He has and I have attended a number of them.
I do think a lot of what he had to say was missed by the general public though and that is regretable.
A formal address to the Oireachtas wouldn't be (as much) and I think could be a good addition to democracy especially as we are looking at C/S and Coalitions for some time to come.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I understand that, please stop repeating it. I am asking should it be changed?

Sounded as if you were trying to avoid that point as much as possible, TBH.

Then you're in the wrong thread, surely, as this one is on the present election! And things said by present candidates, to get presently elected, to the post as it exists... at present.

Maybe if we're going to have yet another constitutional referendum to increase the powers of the presidency -- all while cutting the salary and costs, of course -- we should go rather further? Perhaps add a reality show element. A monthly elimination challenge, where An Uachtarán gets texted by the public with suggestions on which cabinet minister gets sacked on each occasion.

Yeh, and I quoted Casey on expenditure.

I was trying to overlook that lapse in taste on your part...

Can we ever mature on this hidden SF bot stuff? :rolleyes:

Whachamean "hidden"?

humberklog

Only caught bits of the debate but did I hear Freeman say "I know what it's like to come from a marginalised community- I grew up on a Gaeltacht" ?

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Sounded as if you were trying to avoid that point as much as possible, TBH.

Then you're in the wrong thread, surely, as this one is on the present election! And things said by present candidates, to get presently elected, to the post as it exists... at present.

Maybe if we're going to have yet another constitutional referendum to increase the powers of the presidency -- all while cutting the salary and costs, of course -- we should go rather further? Perhaps add a reality show element. A monthly elimination challenge, where An Uachtarán gets texted by the public with suggestions on which cabinet minister gets sacked on each occasion.


I was trying to overlook that lapse in taste on your part...


Whachamean "hidden"?

Okay. I can see why you are here.
Seems you only want to discuss what you want to discuss.
Too bad as I think it would be an interesting power to give to someone who we deem fit to be a president in the first place. I don't see why a discussion on what the presidency could be is off limits when electing a new president or re-electing an incumbent.

FrancieBrady

humberklog wrote: »

Only caught bits of the debate but did I hear Freeman say "I know what it's like to come from a marginalised community- I grew up on a Gaeltacht" ?

I thought that was Ni Riada.

humberklog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought that was Ni Riada.

Could've been, I was driving a car load of kids about and was only getting bits of it.

Bizarre thing to say either way.

alaimacerc

humberklog wrote: »

Only caught bits of the debate but did I hear Freeman say "I know what it's like to come from a marginalised community- I grew up on a Gaeltacht" ?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought that was Ni Riada.

Definitely LNR, pretty sure Freeman said in another segment that she barely has cúpla focal to bang together, whereas Ni Riada is very proficient. The Múscraige one, specifically, I believe. (Have to plug that in for "nice local cycling routes" purposes, if nothing else.)

humberklog wrote: »

Bizarre thing to say either way.

Yes and no. There's a sensible point in there someplace, about the standing of the Irish language and the health of rural communities... It's a bit painful if she's seen to be equating herself with the acutely underprivileged in terms of economics, race, etc. (Gerry Adams' "Django Unchained" tweet being an excellent example of how not to go about such things.)

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Okay. I can see why you are here.

Oh yes?

Seems you only want to discuss what you want to discuss.

It's a Sky-Blue Sky, as Laurie Anderson famously once sang.

Too bad as I think it would be an interesting power to give to someone who we deem fit to be a president in the first place. I don't see why a discussion on what the presidency could be is off limits when electing a new president or re-electing an incumbent.

Well, I'm not playing mini-mod here, discuss what you wanna discuss by all means. But if the candidate says one thing, and you go off on a tangent from that to say another to "fix it up", it's not wildly unlikely that other people might point out we're off the topic of the actual debate that just happened, and indeed outside of the presidential election itself.

Be "interesting" if one of the candidates were to actually propose expanding (or liberalising) the powers of the office, I'll grant you...

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

She's the least impressive of their MEPs, and doesn't really have the credentials of most of their TDs, either. I suspect it might be a bit of a case of the office junior having to do the rubbish jobs: making the tea, fetching the post, running for president on a hiding to nothing.

From the party's POV, I think they were in part itching to use their ability to make a nomination with their increased strength in the Dáil, and in part they saw it as a vote-building and brand-laundering exercise.

If she ends up third or fourth on 6%, it's a bit of a setback, but nothing serious at the end of the day.

That doesn't really tally with their image as consumnate political strategists five moves ahead of everybody else though: "We'll definitely be in the race, and indeed make sure there is a race. Re our candidate, we'll come up with someone closer to the time."

Although that wouldn't reflect as badly on them as the notion that they searched high and low for a candidate and genuinely thought they had come up with a winner in LNR.

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

That doesn't really tally with their image as consumnate political strategists five moves ahead of everybody else though: "We'll definitely be in the race, and indeed make sure there is a race. Re our candidate, we'll come up with someone closer to the time."

Although that wouldn't reflect as badly on them as the notion that they searched high and low for a candidate and genuinely thought they had come up with a winner in LNR.

I was personally delighted that Craughwell opposed the idea of a coronation.
This FF FG (have we merged or have we not) governmental arrangement is becoming increasingly unhealthy for Irish politics.

They have been made to look like they are petrified of public opinion once again.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This FF FG (have we merged or have we not) governmental arrangement is becoming increasingly unhealthy for Irish politics.

There's something to that, but the people have spoken. The b'stards. And we might pause to note that The Incumbent isn't a member of either of those parties.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's something to that, but the people have spoken. The b'stards. And we might pause to note that The Incumbent isn't a member of either of those parties.

When they constrain the President to only say what they want her/him to say why would it matter what party he/she came from?

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

That doesn't really tally with their image as consumnate political strategists five moves ahead of everybody else though: "We'll definitely be in the race, and indeed make sure there is a race. Re our candidate, we'll come up with someone closer to the time."

It might, and maybe we just haven't seen the next three or four moves yet. If they make a decent showing with a "tea girl" candidate, or a "let's nominate someone in the same demographic as The Mary's were" strategy, then maybe it gives them a platform to build on, and further normalises the idea of voting SF in any given election.

Although that wouldn't reflect as badly on them as the notion that they searched high and low for a candidate and genuinely thought they had come up with a winner in LNR.

I think if party strategists ever thought that, few enough of the potential candidates thought the same. Not much sign of people elbowing each other out of the way for the task.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When they constrain the President to only say what they want her/him to say why would it matter what party he/she came from?

First, it's not "they" that provides the constraints, it's the constitution. And it doesn't say to only say what they want her/him to say in all circumstances, just in two contexts. (One of which LNR was saying she'd be using to excoriate said government.)

I think it's fairly clear that the Present President has gone slightly off-piste on occasion. Just not so far that the government has felt it worth picking a fight with him over it.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

First, it's not "they" that provides the constraints, it's the constitution. And it doesn't say to only say what they want her/him to say in all circumstances, just in two contexts. (One of which LNR was saying she'd be using to excoriate said government.)

I think it's fairly clear that the Present President has gone slightly off-piste on occasion. Just not so far that the government has felt it worth picking a fight with him over it.

They do the 'constraining' do they not using the constraints provided by the constitution.

And I don't think Ni Riada said she would use the ability to 'excoriate' the government, but to raise issues that they maybe be ignoring etc.
Maybe you have revealed what you fear there?
Personally I think if we the people elect a president we should not (by dint of our constitution) immediately restrain them upon taking office. Seems to me it is a provision from a more conservative time, like other constitutional provisions we have recently amended.

alaimacerc

Gerald Howlin just off The Radio making an interesting and generally sensible contribution on the presidential "race". Presumably "podcastable" and on the RTEplayer in due course.

Loafing Oaf

alaimacerc wrote: »

It might, and maybe we just haven't seen the next three or four moves yet. If they make a decent showing with a "tea girl" candidate, or a "let's nominate someone in the same demographic as The Mary's were" strategy, then maybe it gives them a platform to build on, and further normalises the idea of voting SF in any given election.

But if the candidate doesn't do at least as well as Martin McGuinness did last time, with all his 'baggage' and in a stronger field overall, then surely you risk giving the opposite impression, that the party is stagnating or going backwards. If they were thinking "doesn't matter who our candidate is, we'll surely get at least 15% in such a weak field," well that shows a complacency I wouldn't associate with them.

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But if the candidate doesn't do at least as well as Martin McGuinness did last time, with all his 'baggage' and in a stronger field overall, then surely you risk giving the opposite impression, that the party is stagnating or going backwards. If they were thinking "doesn't matter who our candidate is, we'll surely get at least 15% in such a weak field," well that shows a complacency I wouldn't associate with them.

If that was the task set for the candidate though, why would they pick somebody so unknown?
Doesn't make sense to make the claim if you think about it.

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that was the task set for the candidate though, why would they pick somebody so unknown?
Doesn't make sense to make the claim if you think about it.

Well alaimacerc was positing the thesis that by performing creditably with a low-profile candidate, SF will have demonstrated the broad appeal of their brand. Of course to pull off that trick, LNR will have to perform to a level that can reasonably be deemed creditable. And I don't think her current 6% in the opinion polls cuts it.

Water John

Well O'Riada is a very well known name and got her easily elected MEP in Munster even though she personally was an unknown. May have thought that the same would translate nationally.

Did not Mary Robinson address the Houses of the Oireachtais? In which case she would have written the speech and the Cabinet agreed to having her deliver it.

An Ciarraioch

Water John wrote: »

Well O'Riada is a very well known name and got her easily elected MEP in Munster even though she personally was an unknown. May have thought that the same would translate nationally.

Did not Mary Robinson address the Houses of the Oireachtais? In which case she would have written the speech and the Cabinet agreed to having her deliver it.

Indeed, it's even mentioned in the Constitution, but crucially states "Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government", so no airing of personal hobby horses allowed.

Rhineshark

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well alaimacerc was positing the thesis that by performing creditably with a low-profile candidate, SF will have demonstrated the broad appeal of their brand. Of course to pull off that trick, LNR will have to perform to a level that can reasonably be deemed creditable. And I don't think her current 6% in the opinion polls cuts it.

It still could have been the plan but O'Riada got a wide field and essentially silly candidate group with the exception of the incumbent. She's not managed to stand out. Even without her own anti-vaxxer issue and residual suspicion of SF to overcome, there are three Dragons and a woman who may or may not believe God cured her excema as well as the current president to contend with for airtime.

Going by the huge margin currently for Higgins, I think the candidates have been rather dismissed an masse, whether or not they got a fair shake. Then again, I'm dubious about Freeman for her at best continual naivety, Ni Riada regarding Adams, the Dragons in general. She'll come middle of the pack, vying with Freeman and it will be about as good as any SF newcomer would have done.

On the poll, it was a telephone poll, which indicates older voters still. But the younger demographics also seem to be broadly pro-Higgins as well.

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well alaimacerc was positing the thesis that by performing creditably with a low-profile candidate, SF will have demonstrated the broad appeal of their brand. Of course to pull off that trick, LNR will have to perform to a level that can reasonably be deemed creditable. And I don't think her current 6% in the opinion polls cuts it.

I wasn't responding to Alaimerc's point, it was to yours.

FrancieBrady

Water John wrote: »

Well O'Riada is a very well known name and got her easily elected MEP in Munster even though she personally was an unknown. May have thought that the same would translate nationally.

Did not Mary Robinson address the Houses of the Oireachtais? In which case she would have written the speech and the Cabinet agreed to having her deliver it.

Both Mary's did, Mary Robinson twice, on the Diaspora and the Irish Identity in Europe and McAleese to mark the Millennium. The only other president to do it was Dev, to mark the 50th Anniversary of the first Dáil meeting.

Pussyhands

Peter Casey showing himself to be a nasty man. Didn't think he was judging from his dragons days but he's got a nasty side to him alright. Worst candidate of the 6.

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't responding to Alaimerc's point, it was to yours.

Well I was teasing out his suggested rationale for Sinn Fein's choice of candidate LNR:

If they make a decent showing with a "tea girl" candidate, or a "let's nominate someone in the same demographic as The Mary's were" strategy, then maybe it gives them a platform to build on, and further normalises the idea of voting SF in any given election.

I was pointing out that this strategy only works if the candidate does indeed "make a decent showing" and asserting that replicating her current 6% opinion poll rating on election day does not constitute such a showing.

Eric Cartman

Pussyhands wrote: »

Peter Casey showing himself to be a nasty man. Didn't think he was judging from his dragons days but he's got a nasty side to him alright. Worst candidate of the 6.

I caught none of this, care to elaborate ?