So Michael D IS running again!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You still haven't explained what is so bad or embarrassing about members of a political party retaining their critical thinking faculties once they join a party.

Why would a party leadership issue instructions then, or have a whip, if it is ok for it's members to 'defy' them?

To me it suggests either a conjob on the electorate or a leadership that is out of touch with it's membership.

I'm also wondering why you are so defensive about it. These people joined a 'party' after all.

yrreg0850

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would a party leadership issue instructions then, or have a whip, if it is ok for it's members to 'defy' them?

To me it suggests either a conjob on the electorate or a leadership that is out of touch with it's membership.

I'm also wondering why you are so defensive about it. These people joined a 'party' after all.

The poeple joined a party but, elected members of a party are supposed to reflect the views of those who elected them not faceless party handlers.

Water John

Elected members are not supposed to reflect to views of those who elected them. They are charged with governing and holding office in the best interests of the citizens.
So that is, all the citizens and its not the views but the best interests of the citizens.

A poll might find a majority in favour of public flogging for certain crimes, but those elected should not bring it about.

FrancieBrady

yrreg0850 wrote: »

The poeple joined a party but, elected members of a party are supposed to reflect the views of those who elected them not faceless party handlers.

Do you remember what FG did to the last people who didn't do what the leadership wanted?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/expulsion-of-fine-gael-tds-like-a-death-in-the-family-235889.html


Don't let those trying to deflect from this fool you. If you are a member of a political party you can be made toe the line and frequently are.


Never mind FF(I think most people know Gallagher is FF to his core) I think FG are trying to play fast and loose with the electorates gullibility here.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think FG are trying to play fast and loose with the electorates gullibility here.

You might explain this in simple language for me.

I am struggling to understand your complex theory and what dastardly plot FG are engaged in now.

To the rest of us, this is a non-story.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You might explain this in simple language for me.

I am struggling to understand your complex theory and what dastardly plot FG are engaged in now.

To the rest of us, this is a non-story.

Seriously, if it doesn't concern you, or is a 'non story' can you not just move on?

I think it is interesting in relation to the presidential race and I think FF are running their favourite candidate in secret and at best FG are deeply divided on the issue or they are trying to ride two horses.

If you don't think it is the case, fine.

feargale

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So in answer to a point on FF and FG, it's the stock, look over there at SF?

Brilliant work there lads.

Sounds like a cap fitting. Incidentally aren't SF in this race? Are we not allowed to say anything about them?

OK, you've made a point about FF and FG. Very good. A number of their councillors are doing their own thing. More power to them. I'm all in favour of candidates being allowed to put themselves before the electorate. In fact I believe that the nomination process is far too restrictive and an aspirant should not have to rely on the grace and favour of four county councils. Four county councillors would be more appropriate and more democratic, or one member of the Oireachtas.
That said I cannot foresee any candidate being on the ballot paper who will get my vote in preference to Michael D. Higgins.
How about you? Who do you intend voting for?

FrancieBrady

feargale wrote: »

Sounds like a cap fitting. Incidentally aren't SF in this race? Are we not allowed to say anything about them?

OK, you've made a point about FF and FG. Very good. A number of their councillors are doing their own thing. More power to them. I'm all in favour of candidates being allowed to put themselves before the electorate. In fact I believe that the nomination process is far too restrictive and an aspirant should not have to rely on the grace and favour of four county councils. Four county councillors would be more appropriate and more democratic, or one member of the Oireachtas.
That said I cannot foresee any candidate being on the ballot paper who will get my vote in preference to Michael D. Higgins.

Good for you, but it wasn't really what I was talking about.

How about you? Who do you intend voting for?

I won't decide until all the candidates are in front of me and have made their pitch.
I have already said that I was more than happy with Michael D Higgin's stint and that it will take a very good candidate to beat him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Good for you, but it wasn't really what I was talking about.

Yes, you were making the point that somehow it is an embarrassment for a political party to have councillors who can think for themselves.

You were also making some other point about a convoluted plot by FG to fool the electorate about the Presidential election. Why and for what purpose would they do it? In your opinion, are they secretly trying to set up Denis O'Brien as a future candidate?

I still don't get either point.

Hotblack Desiato

feargale wrote: »

In fact I believe that the nomination process is far too restrictive and an aspirant should not have to rely on the grace and favour of four county councils. Four county councillors would be more appropriate and more democratic, or one member of the Oireachtas.

Given the extremely low standard of candidate we are seeing put themselves forward to the councils, making it easier to get nominated is absolutely the last thing we should be doing.

seamus

Yeah, I'm not buying Senator Freeman's shpiel.

"My niece was heavily active in the No campaign, but my daughter was heavily active in the Yes campaign".

Either she is incredibly naive and thinks that this kind of basic "offsetting" is enough to placate people, or she's playing dumb. Both scenarios are concerning.

VinLieger

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, I'm not buying Senator Freeman's shpiel.

"My niece was heavily active in the No campaign, but my daughter was heavily active in the Yes campaign".

Either she is incredibly naive and thinks that this kind of basic "offsetting" is enough to placate people, or she's playing dumb. Both scenarios are concerning.

This is just another example of how this whole election really is just amateur hour stuff, you have duffy getting caught out lying about logo approval, gemma and her conspiracy theories deciding what is or isnt relevant for voters to know and now freeman with her obvious lying hoping nobody would notice the blatant inconsistencies.



Its pathetic to watch.

eastwest

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Given the extremely low standard of candidate we are seeing put themselves forward to the councils, making it easier to get nominated is absolutely the last thing we should be doing.

Everybody should run!
Imagine the size of the ballot paper!

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, you were making the point that somehow it is an embarrassment for a political party to have councillors who can think for themselves.

You were also making some other point about a convoluted plot by FG to fool the electorate about the Presidential election. Why and for what purpose would they do it? In your opinion, are they secretly trying to set up Denis O'Brien as a future candidate?

I still don't get either point.

Given what we have seen of this leadership so far, an overarching desire to be down with popular opinion seems to be motive enough.

That is why I have called it no real biggie. It is sort of ahead of the 'socks' thing and behind 'what is the right jacket for this photo opportunity' in terms of importance and embarrassing to watch.
I know and I know, you know, that this is not how political parties work when a position is taken. That is why it is called 'defiance' when reported on.

Keep deflecting away from it all you like.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I won't decide until all the candidates are in front of me and have made their pitch.
I have already said that I was more than happy with Michael D Higgin's stint and that it will take a very good candidate to beat him.

So he can rely on your Number 2 after the SF candidate, then?

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

So he can rely on your Number 2 after the SF candidate, then?

I gave Martin my No. 1 last time, knowing full well that if Michael D got in he would do just as good a job. It was the first time I voted SF in a national election.

I was very happy with MD, it will take a good SF candidate and a good campaign to get my vote. I have said this from the start.

alaimacerc

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty was interviewed by Pascal Sheehy (who carries all the threat of a small puppy) and made an absolute show of herself:

More like some of the threat.

Extraordinary stuff. Maybe she's part of this insidious campaign to "smear" her we keep hearing her, herself?

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was very happy with MD, it will take a good SF candidate and a good campaign to get my vote. I have said this from the start.

We'll have to wait another 10 days or so for you to start singing Liadh Ní Riada's praises, then. OK so. I'll try to contain my shock.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is why I have called it no real biggie.

Keep deflecting away from it all you like.

No real biggie? But people are deflecting from it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG in open revolt against HQ instructions.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FG's 'control' of the party didn't last long.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Now they have to watch their councilors revolt all around the country.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yep, that is how it is being reported...'defied' the leadership. Another PR mess for Leo. Would there not have been a party hack who could have foresaw this happening?

Here are extracts from 4 out of maybe 15 or more posts you have made on an issue that is no real biggie.

Any more dead horses out there for flogging?

feargale

eastwest wrote: »

Everybody should run!
Imagine the size of the ballot paper!

There were 31 candidates in the 2016 US presidential election, 11 in the 2017 French presidential election. Some people underestimate the capacity of Irish printers to produce a ballot paper, others underestimate the ability of Irish voters to read a ballot paper, and the extent of their intelligence when it comes to assessing the candidates.

Between 1938 and 1989 the Irish people were asked to choose just four times, and given a total of nine choices involving six people. We're supposed to be living in a democratic republic!

ancapailldorcha

Blanch152 & FrancieBrady, enough of the bickering or you're both getting threadbanned.

feargale

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Given the extremely low standard of candidate we are seeing put themselves forward to the councils, making it easier to get nominated is absolutely the last thing we should be doing.

It should be up to the electorate as a whole to decide the standard of candidates and who they should reject.

Between 1938 and 1990 just one candidate was on the ballot paper who was not a member of FF or FG, i.e. Dr. Patrick McCartan in 1945. Despite getting about 20% of the first preference vote in 1945 he failed to get nominated in 1959, getting just two county council nominations. Agree or disagree with his politics, how could anybody say he wasn't a serious candidate?

Before 1990 there were parties that would have liked to throw their hat in the ring but didn't have the numbers to nominate a candidate. If Mary Robinson had sought the presidency anytime before 1990 she would in all probability not have got a nomination.

VinLieger

feargale wrote: »

It should be up to the electorate as a whole to decide the standard of candidates and who they should reject.

Thats called an election

Hotblack Desiato

feargale wrote: »

It should be up to the electorate as a whole to decide the standard of candidates and who they should reject.

Between 1938 and 1990 just one candidate was on the ballot paper who was not a member of FF or FG, i.e. Dr. Patrick McCartan in 1945. Despite getting about 20% of the first preference vote in 1945 he failed to get nominated in 1959, getting just two county council nominations. Agree or disagree with his politics, how could anybody say he wasn't a serious candidate?

Before 1990 there were parties that would have liked to throw their hat in the ring but didn't have the numbers to nominate a candidate. If Mary Robinson had sought the presidency anytime before 1990 she would in all probability not have got a nomination.

None of the above is an argument for making it easier than it is now to get nominated.

seamus

feargale wrote: »

It should be up to the electorate as a whole to decide the standard of candidates and who they should reject.

I understand this notion. And even support to some extent. In a pure democracy, there should be no barriers to someone getting their name on a ballot.

Just how realistic is that though?

The example you give of 31 candidates in the US in 2016, is a massive list of candidates, even with considerable filters in place to whittle it down; either directly or effectively.

If it was an open-access, "Everyone who wants to be on it, can be on it", do you think we wouldn't have 50 or 60 candidates on the ballot?

France has filters in place too.

There needs to be a filter of sorts in place to discourage joke candidates.

Maybe if someone can secure 10,000 genuine signatures? At the very least that doesn't require that a candidate is wealthy, or connected. It simply requires that they're willing to put in a lot of legwork?

Water John

Seamus, people would have real fun with that, looking for 10,000 signatures. It would be like the recent actions to get a song to No1 in the UK at Christmas time.

For Forks Sake

My sincerest sympathies go out to the regional journalists who get dispatched to cover this garbage: https://twitter.com/patmcgrath/status/1037698170044784640

jm08

feargale wrote: »

It should be up to the electorate as a whole to decide the standard of candidates and who they should reject.

Between 1938 and 1990 just one candidate was on the ballot paper who was not a member of FF or FG, i.e. Dr. Patrick McCartan in 1945. Despite getting about 20% of the first preference vote in 1945 he failed to get nominated in 1959, getting just two county council nominations. Agree or disagree with his politics, how could anybody say he wasn't a serious candidate?

Before 1990 there were parties that would have liked to throw their hat in the ring but didn't have the numbers to nominate a candidate. If Mary Robinson had sought the presidency anytime before 1990 she would in all probability not have got a nomination.

Probably more to do with the cost of a campaign than anything else. If a candidate can't persuade 4 out of about 30 councils nominate them, they really are not going to have any luck with the general public.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

We'll have to wait another 10 days or so for you to start singing Liadh Ní Riada's praises, then. OK so. I'll try to contain my shock.

Nope, Michael D gets my vote above Liadh if she runs. She is a good politician in my opinion but I don't think the Park would suit one so young and with things to do and contribute.

yrreg0850

seamus wrote: »

I understand this notion. And even support to some extent. In a pure democracy, there should be no barriers to someone getting their name on a ballot.

Just how realistic is that though?

The example you give of 31 candidates in the US in 2016, is a massive list of candidates, even with considerable filters in place to whittle it down; either directly or effectively.

If it was an open-access, "Everyone who wants to be on it, can be on it", do you think we wouldn't have 50 or 60 candidates on the ballot?

France has filters in place too.

There needs to be a filter of sorts in place to discourage joke candidates.

Maybe if someone can secure 10,000 genuine signatures? At the very least that doesn't require that a candidate is wealthy, or connected. It simply requires that they're willing to put in a lot of legwork?

The 10,000 signatures is a good idea.

As things stand now the leaders of the political parties or their handlers can decide who runs by either blocking their TDs from nominating or, trying to muzzle their local council members .
At least a few local council party members have shown a bit of back bone.