So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, it just closes off the Presidency to anyone with a good job.

Because it's the Iron Law of human nature that no-one ever willingly took a pay cut, even if they're well able to afford to, given their accumulated means?

FreudianSlippers

alaimacerc wrote: »

Because it's the Iron Law of human nature that no-one ever willingly took a pay cut, even if they're well able to afford to, given their accumulated means?

It's fairly unrealistic, yeah. Now, the exception to that is a bunch of people that are ready to retire and will take the 7 years living large before retirement.

Creol1

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

Yes, I do, and I'm not even sure we should use the word salary; after all it is not a normal job, because all of his travel and living expenses are paid for (did you know the office of the President is exempt from Freedom of Information?) and he obviously lives in the Áras.

As such, "allowance" would be a more appropriate word I think.

According to this link, President Higgins seems to be one of the highest-paid world leaders, and that's after he took significant paycut: http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/17/world-leaders-what-are-their-wage-packets

The President of India, the world's largest democracy, also holds a largely ceremonial role and lives palatially but his actual salary is very low, $28,800, which I'm guessing is around €18,000 to €20,000. https://richestlifestyle.com/the-least-paid-presidents-in-the-world/

GarIT

Creol1 wrote: »

The President of India, the world's largest democracy, also holds a largely ceremonial role and lives palatially but his actual salary is very low, $28,800, which I'm guessing is around €18,000 to €20,000. https://richestlifestyle.com/the-least-paid-presidents-in-the-world/

It's a bit much comparing us to a country where our national income per person is 36 times higher than theirs, based on that payment our president should be on €887,781 when adjusted for gdp or cost of living.

Sam Russell

Talking about salary is just begrudgery.

1. Someone will get the job and the salary.

2. If Michael D does not get it, he will get a pension of about 50% of the salary.

3. I understand he currently forgoes his state pensions, which I assume he will begin taking them again.

So from a cost point of view, it is better if he is returned unopposed.

[

Creol1

Praetorian wrote: »

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him.

I have to say I found Mrs MacAleese's presidency decidedly bland, so much so that I have been amazed at the forcefulness of her commentary on the RCC in the past year or so.

In my view, the way in which Mary Robinson left office showed great disrespect for the office of President. I can take someone resigning out of principle as Ó Dálaigh did, but Mary Robinson left the presidency so she should take up another job. Being Head of State of a country isn't just a checkbox on a CV, or shouldn't be, and you don't simply hand in your notice whenever you please the way you might do with another job.

Creol1

GarIT wrote: »

It's a bit much comparing us to a country where our national income per person is 36 times higher than theirs, based on that payment our president should be on €887,781 when adjusted for gdp or cost of living.

Low national income hasn't traditionally stopped leaders of third world countries being some of the richest leaders in the world. I don't really understand the relevance of GDP level, because affordability is not the issue.

bobbyss

In a campaign where would Higgins and indeed Craughwell get their finances from?

alaimacerc

Creol1 wrote: »

I don't really understand the relevance of GDP level [...]

Have a think, it'll come to you.

Creol1

alaimacerc wrote: »

Have a think, it'll come to you.

You've overestimated my intelligence, because I have thought and nothing has come to me.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me (in clear, simple terms, of course), in recognition of my intellectual limitations?

alaimacerc

Creol1 wrote: »

You've overestimated my intelligence, because I have thought and nothing has come to me.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me (in clear, simple terms, of course), in recognition of my intellectual limitations?

What's your theory as to what should determine the salary (with all due apologies for using normal language here) level?

Creol1

bobbyss wrote: »

In a campaign where would Higgins and indeed Craughwell get their finances from?

I understand that (somewhat to my surprise) FG have committed not just to passive support for President Higgins, but will also be supporting the campaign financially. Given that Higgins' politics couldn't be further from FG's, I can only assume this is in the hope that some of his popularity will rub off on them; seeing as FG have lost every presidential election they ever contested, I'm sure they would also like to be able to be seen to be on the winning side for once.

FG's support will pressure FF to offer support as well and Labour, despite being much depleted since the last presidential election, will for obvious reasons not want to be seen to be coming up short in backing him.

Regarding Craughwell, financing won't be an issue. His charisma, vision and eloquence will see donations pour in from the people as they yearn for our country to chart a new course in history under President Craughwell.

alaimacerc

Creol1 wrote: »

Given that Higgins' politics couldn't be further from FG's, [...]

Clearly they could. FG have rarely been in government without Labour -- including during MDH's own ministerial career, notably. They may straddle either side of the lumpy middle on fiscal matters, but they generally find something to agree on, especially on "social" matters.

Regarding Craughwell, financing won't be an issue. His charisma, vision eloquence will see donations pour in from the people as they yearn for our country to chart a new course in history under President Craughwell.

And they said satire was dead.

alaimacerc

Creol1 wrote: »

FG's support will pressure FF to offer support as well and Labour, despite being much depleted since the last presidential election, will for obvious reasons not want to be seen to be coming up short in backing him.

I forgot to mention the cap. And it's per candidate, not per group. The parties can't just keep piling in indefinitely.

Nitrogan

I was disgusted at how SF interfered in the last Presidential election, looking back you'd wonder if they had outside help.

Micheal D Higgins has been a decent if unimpressive representative of Ireland since but a poor shadow of what Mary Robinson and McAleese were for us.

It's worrying that we don't have an obviously better candidate.

Pugzilla

Presidency should be scrapped entirely, it has no meaningful role.

alaimacerc

Pugzilla wrote: »

Presidency should be scrapped entirely, it has no meaningful role.

It has the role it (or a constitutional monarch) has in practically every similar parliamentary system. It plainly can't be "abolished entirely", its functions would have to be transferred to someone, or something, else.

For example, you could combine the roles of head of state, and head of government, as in the US. Which is working out unreservedly marvellously, I'm sure we can all agree.

smurgen

Have to say i heard an interview of michael d on rte and he came off terrible.moaning and very defensing with the voice sounding extra shrill.I'm kinda starting to see him in a different light.

Praetorian

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it's your considered opinion that, at the time he said he only intended to seek a single term, he knew that to be untrue?

Because that would be a lie. If he believed it to be true at the time, it wasn't a lie.

This bizarre idea that changing one's mind is the One True Unforgivable Sin needs to die in a fire.

Of course if he knew it, he was deliberately lying. If he was unsure he shouldn't have said it. Saying it did win him votes, including mine. Unfortunately for me it puts him into the bracket of "typical politician", say what ever you have to get in, make campaign promises you may not intend to keep.

I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He was an okay president. You can see he absolutely loves the position. I think he has been caught out on a lie and I think it was deliberate. Only he or possibly those close to him would know for sure. You or I cannot be absolutely sure, but I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I hope the country can come up with a couple of good candidates to give him a proper race. I expect many people thought he was going to win by default. Now at least, he may have to answer some questions and his answers will be quite telling.

CrabRevolution

Praetorian wrote: »

Of course if he knew it, he was deliberately lying. If he was unsure he shouldn't have said it. Saying it did win him votes, including mine. Unfortunately for me it puts him into the bracket of "typical politician", say what ever you have to get in, make campaign promises you may not intend to keep.

I don't think he's a bad guy at all. He was an okay president. You can see he absolutely loves the position. I think he has been caught out on a lie and I think it was deliberate. Only he or possibly those close to him would know for sure. You or I cannot be absolutely sure, but I have my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I hope the country can come up with a couple of good candidates to give him a proper race. I expect many people thought he was going to win by default. Now at least, he may have to answer some questions and his answers will be quite telling.

The first question he'll be asked on the first debate/interview will be "You said you'd only serve one term, what changed?".

Michael D will say "I changed my mind. I feel honoured and energised and more capable for the role after 7 years on the job, and I feel I've a lot to contribute if the Irish people let me".

That's really all he has to say and it will put it to bed. How many times can he be asked the same question and give the same answer about his comments about serving 1 term?

People are really overestimating the mileage that will come of this.

GarIT

I'm of two minds about it. I can see how the presidency can seem a daunting responsibility and you couldn't imagine going for a second term but then when you're used to it and not in ill health a second term might seem more realistic when it comes to it. On the other hand he said what he said and maybe he should stick to his word and shouldn't go for a second term even if he changed his mind and wants to.

oscarBravo

GarIT wrote: »

On the other hand he said what he said and maybe he should stick to his word and shouldn't go for a second term even if he changed his mind and wants to.

I get that there are people who admire a dogged refusal to ever, ever change your mind about anything under any circumstances.

But I'll never understand it.

GarIT

Nitrogan wrote: »

I was disgusted at how SF interfered in the last Presidential election, looking back you'd wonder if they had outside help.

What leads you to believe it was them? I'm not saying it was or it wasn't, but RTE have apologised for saying the tweet came from McGuinness' team and that it came from a copycat account, it could be anyone or was there something to suggest it was SF?

eagle eye

I hope he runs again.
I view him as a great man, he did a lot of great things in the Human rights area over the years. I'd imagine that just the fact that he is President has been of benefit to this country globally because of how respected he is.
I say all of this despite my disdain for the Labour party of which he was a part for many years.

jmcc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Odds are not probabilities.

Actually they are.

It will be very interesting to see how the odds on Higgins being releected shift now that FF/FG's "My Little Crony" strategy has been banjaxed by SF deciding to run a candidate and thus force an election. FF/FG seemed to have been hoping for a coronation so that they could save their money for a General Election.

FF is the real loser with this because SF can present itself as standing up for democracy and the younger voter demographics and it has done so based on Mary Lou McDonald's comments. FF has nowhere to run because it supported FG. FG can decide to run its own candidate as there's a meeting next week, I think. To date, it is only the FG parliamentary party that has decided to back Higgins. Gavin Duffy of the Dragons Den is also supposed to be interested in running according to this morning's Sunday Times.

If SF chooses a young(ish) candidate, then Higgins' age is going to become an issue. Don't be too surprised to see health issues appearing in this campaign.

Regards...jmcc

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

Many comments in here in and around mould of 'lot of people...' or 'many folks voted...', etc etc - without backing up with any hard evidence beyond the contributors' own obvious bias: has there actually been any polls or stats compiled about this election - or indeed were there any about how the public voted in 2011?

There's always Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Opinion_polls

It is possible to see where Gallagher was leading in the opinion polls until he was nobbled on the Frontline show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011#Results

Regards...jmcc

judeboy101

SF need a young, female, "clean candidate"(not from SF DNA). I can't for the life of me think who they can get.

flatty

TomOnBoard wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

Denied office??

Do you mean

1. the electorate should consider that he had said ( if your statement is true) that " he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term" during the process of making up their minds as to whether they would vote for him in a fair and free election, OR

2. he should be prevented from being allowed to run as a candidate?

My statement is true. Why would you suggest it isn't?

flatty

flatty wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

Denied office??

Do you mean

1. the electorate should consider that he had said ( if your statement is true) that " he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term" during the process of making up their minds as to whether they would vote for him in a fair and free election, OR

2. he should be prevented from being allowed to run as a candidate?

My statement is true. Why would you suggest it isn't?

And option 3, just to spell it out to you, is that he stands by his word, and doesn't seek a second term.

GarIT

jmcc wrote: »

Actually they are.

No they aren't. Probabilities must always equal to 1 when all mutually exclusive outcomes are added together. Odds are an analysis of a situation by the bookies to decide what rate would be favourable enough to make people play but unfavourable enough to make the bookies money + a loading factor to hedge against a bets winning or losing so the bookie isn't taking a large risk. If odds were probabilities every bookies would have the same odds.