So Michael D IS running again!

Try_harder

Is this election just the biggest waste of taxpayers money to massage a few dragons egos?

Adamcp898

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Thought Casey was over the top with the remarks about MDH age earlier. He said something like “we will be lucky to get him to do a walk around the park in 7 years time”. That was just uncalled for.

MDH of course will get public sympathy for remarks like that. It’ll probably make him even more popular.

The only person Casey managed to give a run today was that cafe owning fellow from Joe Duffy this week in the prickishness stakes.

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ó hEadhra's go-to presenting moves are:

Talk over the panelist; and,
Have multiple panelists all talk over each other.

It tends to hover some place between "lively" and "head-wrecking", depending on how it pans out on the day.

He is the worst political presenter in the RTE stable by a country mile (quite the achievement). His programmes are actually unlistenable: between his own politicking and the constant talking over each other.

Dire. Another one that should have been put out to grass a long time ago.

sliabh 1956

Just watching MD on the news I just love his look of utter disdain as the others waffle on about the Aras costing so much money, no doubt if any of them get elected they will do the job for nothing and spend nothing on entertainment and refuse to travel abroad so as to make savings . What a bunch of complete twats no wonder they lag so far behind. Poor Gavin Duffy looks miserable he probably realises his deposit is gone.

feargale

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

You obviously weren't around in 1969 when a certain "republican" party branded another party as "communist", a party which was, in a very mild way, about what the "republican" party should have been about if they hadn't sold their souls to Mammon. Ireland is still paying for the climate of corruption that those guardians of "national mores" injected into society. No thanks to those great "patriots" that most of the mild reforms proposed then have been implemented, and more.
Despite the best efforts of the Trump lookalikes, Michael D's record of incorruptability remains unimpugned. He was deemed worthy to seek the office by other people of standing, not just by himself and his bank manager,

Adamcp898

Try_harder wrote: »

Is this election just the biggest waste of taxpayers money to massage a few dragons egos?

Indeed.

Although SF would've made sure there was an election anyway, people should remember that it was their local Councillors who judged that most of these candidates were good enough to be President and should take their portion of the blame accordingly.

Water John

Before this election I just thought Peter Casey was quiet. I now think he's quite a bollix.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

That is what I mean about the lack of a "McGuinness" character, everyone else has their career to think about it after the inevitable happens and there's no one self assured enough to sling it without the fear of it bouncing back at them.

Yeah, there's a certain logic in the "retired politician" gene pool. Sorry, I mean "distinguished states(wo)man". Savvy enough to handle the formal, legal, and political parts of the role; not in the trench warfare of parliamentary partisanship any more.

Ni Riada seems like she'd not make a holy show of herself in office. Her campaign, though, seems much like what she'd be doing if she were running for the Dáil or the EP. Which doubtless she'll indeed be doing again soon. Partly her party's style, partly her age.

I agree that there's little chance of us ever abolishing it entirely but perhaps there's a mechanism that could be found which simply vacates the position? I don't know.

All I know is that as it ambles on in existence without a more defined responsibility outside of deciding what they'd like their own legacy to be, it's only going to become increasingly purposeless. That in turn will attract a lower and lower standard of candidate until it does become a mockery.

I don't see how vacation-without-abolition could happen (though I'm no legal expert), except perhaps by a no-nominations stalemate. But if the Oireachtas, and even more especially the local authorities had one-fifth that much impulse control, we'd not be where we are right now.

Maybe we could try mandating massive doses of ritalin for each councillor in the country every seven years. Or giving them something better to do, like meaningful local government responsibilities.

Silly candidates are a much less serious problem than a silly winner. Maybe of that actually does happen, it'll motivate people to take the nomination process more seriously, or maybe even to change it.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Although SF would've made sure there was an election anyway, people should remember that it was their local Councillors who judged that most of these candidates were good enough to be President and should take their portion of the blame accordingly.

Not necessarily. SF almost seem to have been bluffed into it by Craughwell. Can we bring "breach of promise" suit against him for his self-serving antics, standing us up at the ballot box, and leaving everyone else to pick up the €20m tab for the reception? But presumably at least one other of our current slate would have done a solo run -- unless everyone is bluffing everyone else.

I'm sure the councillors will throw up their hands and claim they were simply "facilitating" candidates, and not endorsing them as such. Which would of course be a complete cop-out.

FrancieBrady

Ni Riada seems to be making one of the reasons for her run 'the need to stop a coronation' by the triumvirate of FF FG and Labour. I think that has the potential to garner a few votes if the electorate engages with this race.
Not really seeing that engagement yet though.

skooterblue2

Try_harder wrote: »

Is this election just the biggest waste of taxpayers money to massage a few dragons egos?

It distracts the minions momentarily why Denis O'Brien pulls another fast one on us again.

Adamcp898

alaimacerc wrote: »

Not necessarily. SF almost seem to have been bluffed into it by Craughwell. Can we bring "breach of promise" suit against him for his self-serving antics, standing us up at the ballot box, and leaving everyone else to pick up the €20m tab for the reception? But presumably at least one other of our current slate would have done a solo run -- unless everyone is bluffing everyone else.

I'm sure the councillors will throw up their hands and claim they were simply "facilitating" candidates, and not endorsing them as such. Which would of course be a complete cop-out.

Perhaps try to prove he was "engaged" to the nomination or some such and we might have a go, just not sure it'd have the mileage though............

I think SF would've eventually been forced into it anyway by the thoughts alone of a presidential term like this one ripe with opportunity after opportunity to talk about "Irish identity" at centenary after centenary.

Ah but aren't they doing their civic duty. Sure would the "common man" be able to access the presidency at all if it weren't for the fine gate keepers of the parishes, look at poor Seánín there with only the 27 companies to his name.

Alan_P

Try_harder wrote: »

Is this election just the biggest waste of taxpayers money to massage a few dragons egos?

My 18 year old daughter thinks so. Since she doesn't who any of the dragons dens guys are, she's coined an acronym : ddgs. Dragons Dens Gob****es.


She is very certain she's going to go and vote for Michael D, though. Important that gob****es be humiliated.

B0jangles

In our house the dragon's den gang are Sean Gallagher, Whatisname and Thingy.

(I think Thingy's the one who keeps making a fool of himself on the radio, but I could be wrong.)

FrancieBrady

Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I thought the debate did raise some relevant issues surrounding the presidency and how it has developed since independence and what it's future might be.
I think Michael D struggled a bit to defend the spending and was let away with not really explaining it.
Casey, as bad a candidate as he is, did ask questions that need to be answered re: overspend. His ageist stuff was just ignorant and clumsy and came across as very personal.

What Freeman and Gallagher and Duffy contributed was the kind of airy fairy guff I expected. Freeman sounded completely out of her depth on the constitutional question and MD scored well there. If she became president then the office would not change much in my opinion and I do think she would use it to promote the conservative RC agenda she seems to be hiding.
O'Riada had some interesting stuff to say about the role of the president in confronting the current government and being a much more contrarian (in a good way) president within the constitutional constraints. I never knew the president could chose to address the government for instance.

Alan_P

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think Michael D struggled a bit to defend the spending and was let away with not really explaining it.

Find the photograph where Micheal D had a tea party for Downs Syndrome kids and was delighted to be hugged by one of them. That's where it goes.

FrancieBrady

Alan_P wrote: »

Find the photograph where Micheal D had a tea party for Downs Syndrome kids and was delighted to be hugged by one of them. That's where it goes.

:D That's the kind of tugging on the heartstrings stuff I would expect from some of the candidates tbh.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

O'Riada had some interesting stuff to say about the role of the president in confronting the current government and being a much more contrarian (in a good way) president within the constitutional constraints. I never knew the president could chose to address the government for instance.

I didn't think she knows too much about it either, mind you. Or was trying to be just a small wee little bit misleading on this. The president has the power to address the Oireachtas... with a message subject to the approval of the government. (Art 13.7(3).) As was pointed out during the programme, I think by Da Incumbent. So the image she was conjuring up, of a heroic SF party-political scolding of the nasty Blueshirts doesn't really pan out.

alaimacerc

B0jangles wrote: »

(I think Thingy's the one who keeps making a fool of himself on the radio, but I could be wrong.)

Doesn't really cut it down very much!

There's the Blueshirty one that's trying to be as genial as possible, but isn't getting very far with it.

And there's the serial-ex-pat Nordie one that's trying to be as obnoxious as possible -- with some success on that! -- and mentioning the diaspora every sentence in three.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

I didn't think she knows too much about it either, mind you. Or was trying to be just a small wee little bit misleading on this. The president has the power to address the Oireachtas... with a message subject to the approval of the government. (Art 13.7(3).) As was pointed out during the programme, I think by Da Incumbent. So the image she was conjuring up, of a heroic SF party-political scolding of the nasty Blueshirts doesn't really pan out.

I think it would be a very interesting option in a coalition/confidence and supply set-up to be perfectly honest.
As a supporter of Higgins I am surprised he hasn't used it tbh.

Alan_P

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D That's the kind of tugging on the heartstrings stuff I would expect from some of the candidates tbh.

No that's what the man did in the office. That's the measure of the man, and that's why he's polling 70%.

FrancieBrady

Alan_P wrote: »

No that's what the man did in the office. That's the measure of the man, and that's why he's polling 70%.

He spent all that money to get a photograph of him being hugged by someone?

I understand he is polling 70% and I am delighted he is. It doesn't get away from the expenditure issue though imo.

Alan_P

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He spent all that money to get a photograph of him being hugged by someone?

I understand he is polling 70% and I am delighted he is. It doesn't get away from the expenditure issue though imo.

There is no expenditure issue. The President is entitled to a shall we say a social fund. He must be able to use it as he wishes.


Can we all remember he has the strongest democratic mandate in the state ?

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it would be a very interesting option in a coalition/confidence and supply set-up to be perfectly honest.
As a supporter of Higgins I am surprised he hasn't used it tbh.

Don't follow your line of thinking, there. "The government" means the cabinet, not the Dáil. What would ministers be approving the president to say that they're not able to just say themselves?

It's an understandable move for Riada to try. If you're running against a popular incumbent, you have to construe the points of difference as broadly as you can. LNR is the only party nominee, so it's logical she want to drag element of the SF policy platform in there, even if the constitutional basis for doing so is pretty thin. In the same sort of way that Casey's occasional non-abusive contributions are a noun, a verb, and the diaspora, and Freeman's are "charidee type stuff". (Gallagher's and Duffy's candidacies don't even seem to make that much sense, but that's not a particular impediment, evidently.)

FrancieBrady

Alan_P wrote: »

There is no expenditure issue. The President is entitled to a shall we say a social fund. He must be able to use it as he wishes.


Can we all remember he has the strongest democratic mandate in the state ?

That is not what I am talking about, although it would need some scrutiny too. The whole issue of what the presidency costs is what I am talking about. SOme of the figures are included in this article.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-how-much-the-office-of-the-president-costs-over-seven-years-36785078.html

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Don't follow your line of thinking, there. "The government" means the cabinet, not the Dáil. What would ministers be approving the president to say that they're not able to just say themselves?

It's an understandable move for Riada to try. If you're running against a popular incumbent, you have to construe the points of difference as broadly as you can. LNR is the only party nominee, so it's logical she want to drag element of the SF policy platform in there, even if the constitutional basis for doing so is pretty thin. In the same sort of way that Casey's occasional non-abusive contributions are a noun, a verb, and the diaspora, and Freeman's are "charidee type stuff". (Gallagher's and Duffy's candidacies don't even seem to make that much sense, but that's not a particular impediment, evidently.)

There are Independents in cabinet and other coalition parties at times.
What if it was a condition of participation in Government that the President be allowed to address the Oireachtas if he/she feels so compelled?

If you could leave the suspicion/fear that I am advocating this for SF motives aside and look at it as worthwhile addition to our democracy?

I personally feel MD would have had a lot to offer if he had been allowed.

Limestone1

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Hate to bring it up but isn't there a reasonable chance here, given his age, that Michael D will pass on to the great communist republic in the sky while in office?

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Reckon we need someone younger tbh.

National holiday for the funeral ? Surely a compelling reason to vote for him .

alaimacerc

Alan_P wrote: »

There is no expenditure issue. The President is entitled to a shall we say a social fund. He must be able to use it as he wishes.

I think there's some justice to the criticism of the salary -- it's like, yooooj. It's gone down, and it's not decided by himself, but there's of course the option to refuse it or donate it. It's a bit undignified to reduce matters to who can live on the least, or has the independent means to not need to, all the same. Irony that the SF candidate isn't the "average industrial wage" low-bidder here, due to their virtual pay rise, and Casey having done a Trump (not on that alone).

The criticism of the other costs is pretty overwrought. And if you're the PAC, over-dodgy, from a constitutional POV, I think. It must cost tens of millions to elect the li'l beggar in the first place, and you want them to do something with the position while it's there and someone's in it. Squabbling over the price of a cucumber sammich is idiotic.

It's especially illogical to "blame" the president for ancillary costs like security. If the government is spending too much on those areas, attack the government. Or else propose abolition, if you're determined not to spend those monies at all. It seems a lot like an attempt to sex up the headline number, all the better to pantomime outrage.

Sam Russell

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I thought the debate did raise some relevant issues surrounding the presidency and how it has developed since independence and what it's future might be.
I think Michael D struggled a bit to defend the spending and was let away with not really explaining it.
Casey, as bad a candidate as he is, did ask questions that need to be answered re: overspend. His ageist stuff was just ignorant and clumsy and came across as very personal.

What Freeman and Gallagher and Duffy contributed was the kind of airy fairy guff I expected. Freeman sounded completely out of her depth on the constitutional question and MD scored well there. If she became president then the office would not change much in my opinion and I do think she would use it to promote the conservative RC agenda she seems to be hiding.
O'Riada had some interesting stuff to say about the role of the president in confronting the current government and being a much more contrarian (in a good way) president within the constitutional constraints. I never knew the president could chose to address the government for instance.

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.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are Independents in cabinet and other coalition parties at times.
What if it was a condition of participation in Government that the President be allowed to address the Oireachtas if he/she feels so compelled?

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.

If you could leave the suspicion/fear that I am advocating this for SF motives aside and look at it as worthwhile addition to our democracy?

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.

I personally feel MD would have had a lot to offer if he had been allowed.

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.