So Michael D IS running again!

Creol1

yrreg0850 wrote: »

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.


What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

In general, this is correct, but it is for precisely this reason that councils take their role in nominating presidential candidates very seriously. It is one of the few significant powers councils still have.

Party headquarters can impose a whip on their members if they wish, but given the number of councillors and the fact that a lot of them will resist interference on this issue, the two main parties will be reluctant to do so when neither of them is contesting the presidential election and the evidence so far is that the HQs of FF and FG will be taking a more hands-off approach.

eastwest

Creol1 wrote: »

In general, this is correct, but it is for precisely this reason that councils take their role in nominating presidential candidates very seriously. It is one of the few significant powers councils still have.

Party headquarters can impose a whip on their members if they wish, but given the number of councillors and the fact that a lot of them will resist interference on this issue, the two main parties will be reluctant to do so when neither of them is contesting the presidential election and the evidence so far is that the HQs of FF and FG will be taking a more hands-off approach.

It suits FF to allow councillors to unofficially back Gallagher, who can be claimed as their man if he wins. In the meantime they can be seen to back Michael D in the event that he retains the job.

James Brown

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

VinLieger

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

Youve just described every other candidate that has declared so far

nuac

[QUOTE=yrreg0850;107859370]Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.


What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.[/QUOTE]

Many councillors are not controlled by their own party HQs - nor should they be.

James Brown

VinLieger wrote: »

Youve just described every other candidate that has declared so far

Except Michael D.

Drifter50

VinLieger wrote: »

So gemma has admitted her goal is to initiate a constitutional crisis


https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

eastwest

Drifter50 wrote: »

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

Our system doesn't really encourage people like that to come through.

Water John

Well, the 2 previous incumbents largely fitted that profile when elected.

Annasopra

Drifter50 wrote: »

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

The countey decided no on that. Under our current rules she would have to wait 8 years

Jim2007

makeorbrake wrote: »

Furthermore, who has said that they won't sign bills into law?

End of storey and now best ignored.

CrabRevolution

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The countey decided no on that. Under our current rules she would have to wait 8 years

I take it you're referring to the age limits? The only way she'd have to wait 8 years is if she's 27. According to wikipedia she's 50, and was elected at the age of 46.

I could easily be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but how would she be prevented from being elected President here?

Creol1

Jim2007 wrote: »

End of storey and now best ignored.

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

batgoat

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

She's also threatened half of twitter with defamation for discussing her views....

VinLieger

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

optogirl

VinLieger wrote: »

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

The stuff of nightmares

Water John

Where's Mattie McGrath's name?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

I agree, the only difference between him and Michael D. would be their height.

Itssoeasy

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

She doesn't need to be one in order to read what the constitution says. I'd never heard of her until she said she was looking for a nomination to run for president. But surely knowing the powers of the office you are looking to hold should be a fairly important.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree, the only difference between him and Michael D. would be their height.

You seriously think Gallagher and Michael D. are the same? Bizarre. How so?

Itssoeasy

VinLieger wrote: »

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

Good god if you get them in a lucky bag, you'd ask for another one.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You seriously think Gallagher and Michael D. are the same? Bizarre. How so?

Well, I took my cue from your post, and was only agreeing with you:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

I think Michael D. with his nonsensical poetic ramblings and paeans to Fidel Castro fits the picture you were creating.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, I took my cue from your post, and was only agreeing with you:



I think Michael D. with his nonsensical poetic ramblings and paeans to Fidel Castro fits the picture you were creating.

A cheesy reality TV show, denying affiliation with FF chancer who wanted to turn the Aras into a tourist trap compared to a dignified, well spoken, proven ambassador? I don't think so.

jmcc

Seems that RTE are reporting that Gallagher will attend Meath county council with other candidates on Monday. No official announcement. It will be very entertaining if there's a rematch.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0823/987108-sean-gallagher-presidential-election/

Regards...jmcc

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A cheesy reality TV show, denying affiliation with FF chancer who wanted to turn the Aras into a tourist trap compared to a dignified, well spoken, proven ambassador? I don't think so.

Hold on, you are moving the goalposts. You never said anything about reality TV shows or affiliation with FF.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

You said "another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage". I gave the example of Higgins on Fidel Castro and his poetic ramblings.

I could have added the scandals of his expensive hotel stays while President or his association with the near-defunct Labour Party. I could have given another example of him trash-talking on some chat radio show, but I didn't, because you only said what you said. I could have referenced his pathetic performance as Minister.

Gallagher has his faults, but Higgins is not that different.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Hold on, you are moving the goalposts. You never said anything about reality TV shows or affiliation with FF.

You said "another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage". I gave the example of Higgins on Fidel Castro and his poetic ramblings.

I could have added the scandals of his expensive hotel stays while President or his association with the near-defunct Labour Party. I could have given another example of him trash-talking on some chat radio show, but I didn't, because you only said what you said. I could have referenced his pathetic performance as Minister.

Gallagher has his faults, but Higgins is not that different.

Blanch, you're a Green are you not? Stones and glasshouses come to mind here! Is Eamon Ryan going to throw his hat in the ring again, or can't the Greens afford to run a candidate?

Beechwoodspark

Don’t like Sean g or his background but just on age grounds alone I can see him being more popular than the incumbent.

Hurrache

People don't vote based on age.

jmcc

Hurrache wrote: »

People don't vote based on age.

Higgins' age combined with his pledge to do only one term will both be factors in how people vote. A younger candidate may gain more votes. In the 2011 coverage, one of Higgins' hands had a very serious tremor and the camera coverage tried to keep away from showing direct shots. Higgins now keeps his hands folded on-camera. That kind of thing will be picked up, consciously or unconsciously by voters.

Regards...jmcc

Hurrache

He was as many years younger than Huggins last time around as he is now and it was of no advantage.