Local elections

Stopitwillya

[quote=hardybuck;110068937

This 24/7 thing - I don't recall any compelling reasons for this to be available, or for it not to be available. There's loads of campaigning, but I'm not sure if its just a case if Waterford wants it because other regions have it - when it mightn't really need it. That death of that poor chap from Dungarvan was hijacked by the campaign until it was proven that no upgraded facilities would have had an impact on his case.

[/quote]

Spoken like a true dub.
What a load of ****e.
Of course you know better than the cardiologists.

hardybuck

azimuth17 wrote: »

With all that has been written about 24/7 including Prime Time programme, and evidence from Darren Skelton in news and Star laying out step by step how UHW (and us) was being lied to,including an unreleased report which clearly showed the volume of cardiology in UHW exceeded places like St Vincent's, Beaumont, Tallaght etc, all of which have been given second cath labs, I have to say that this post is the most ignorant, uninformed, spiteful and crass post it has been my misfortune to read on this thread. Go away and educate yourself about one of the most pressing issue facing this area.

Did you get annoyed by being reminded that a sad death was hijacked or because I admitted a lack of awareness of any strong evidence to either support the proposal or the decision not to grant it?

But you must be right, there must be some sort of grand conspiracy to keep the region down.

hardybuck

Stopitwillya wrote: »

Spoken like a true dub.
What a load of ****e.
Of course you know better than the cardiologists.

With respect, a cardiologist is a heart specialist. They're not qualified for anything else.

debok

hardybuck wrote: »

Did you get annoyed by being reminded that a sad death was hijacked or because I admitted a lack of awareness of any strong evidence to either support the proposal or the decision not to grant it?

But you must be right, there must be some sort of grand conspiracy to keep the region down.

But in fairness it was the man's family and friends that got it started before finding out he couldn't be saved no matter what.there was one rally which he was used as example.it was a mistake he was used because it gave people like you ammunition. If you attended other rallies there was countless examples of others effected. Your the only one mentioned conspiracy which seems to always be the answer when something wrong is pointed out. Area needs 24/7 care, ya have to have two cath labs for that therefore we need second lab.

hardybuck

debok wrote: »

But in fairness it was the man's family and friends that got it started before finding out he couldn't be saved no matter what.there was one rally which he was used as example.it was a mistake he was used because it gave people like you ammunition. If you attended other rallies there was countless examples of others effected. Your the only one mentioned conspiracy which seems to always be the answer when something wrong is pointed out. Area needs 24/7 care, ya have to have two cath labs for that therefore we need second lab.

First of all, trying to criticise me rather than my post - not cool.

Secondly, me raising conspiracy is obviously a joke, but quite a number of people here seem to believe that Waterford doesn't get a fair deal on a lot of things.

So to go back to my earlier post, given that there seems to be such a long list of injustices which Waterford has apparently suffered, we must seriously question why.

The easy thing to do is point the finger. The hardest thing to do is look inward and see how Waterford can more effectively influence, lobby and persuade.

It seems sometimes like Waterford is like the person who turns up to a meeting annoyed, shouts too much and ruins their argument.

debok

hardybuck wrote: »

First of all, trying to criticise me rather than my post - not cool.

Secondly, me raising conspiracy is obviously a joke, but quite a number of people here seem to believe that Waterford doesn't get a fair deal on a lot of things.

So to go back to my earlier post, given that there seems to be such a long list of injustices which Waterford has apparently suffered, we must seriously question why.

The easy thing to do is point the finger. The hardest thing to do is look inward and see how Waterford can more effectively influence, lobby and persuade.

It seems sometimes like Waterford is like the person who turns up to a meeting annoyed, shouts too much and ruins their argument.

Sorry if I criticised you but you did write the post
Your right something has to be done to get more influence . There is zero chance of any of our TDs getting a ministeral role for the considerable future. Halligan,butler deasy are waste of time cullinane tries but will never get any kinda power with sinn fein. I think why we feel the area is left down is because we get promised everything but when it comes to the final decisions it gets put on long finger because we have no influence to push things over the line.

azimuth17

hardybuck wrote: »

Did you get annoyed by being reminded that a sad death was hijacked or because I admitted a lack of awareness of any strong evidence to either support the proposal or the decision not to grant it?

But you must be right, there must be some sort of grand conspiracy to keep the region down.

If you had cared to inform yourself, as you should have done, you would have picked up the salient point from the RTE Prime Time programme which said that based on the previous three years of National Ambulance Service data, that only 1.5% , yes, one point five percent, of people they responded to for heart attack cases in south east had managed to get to Dublin or Cork from the south east within the required 90 minutes. Some took up to seven hours. I have watched your anti Waterford posts based on faux concern for national public expenditure extrapolated into "questioning" the rationale and/or opposition to almost anything that might develop here. If you wish to refer to relevant medical deaths I suggest you google the name Una McDermott instead of making disgusting side swipes about people hi jacking another unfortunate case.

Max Powers

invara wrote: »

I could not really believe what the Taoiseach said in Waterford yesterday about the Mortuary, and in particular about the four consultants (some of whom I know). On the same day that Cork Airport gets a €40m splurge from the EIB he came empty-handed to the city he promised would not be forgotten on his watch. The litany of broken promises (university, airport, 24/7 being the big three), and the hundreds of tiny decisions that go against this region are well documented.
There was plenty of uncomfortable local FG folk doughnuting the picture, Maurice Cummins resignation from FG Waterford chair this week.... one has to wonder on the how, why, what of FG's bizarre approach to Waterford. This constituency has always had a strong FG element, and now when FG are in power we mean nothing to them at all. Views, thoughts......

Leo casting doubts over the 4 doctors for me was the end of any vote I was gonna give FG in upcoming local, EU, election. Unless he somehow redeems himself by doing something decent for Waterford/SE in the mean time.Id say the local Fg people are pulling their hair out in frustration with it

kayaksurfbum

https://www.wlrfm.com/localelections/

Pretty full list of hopeful's here.

Max Powers

Re: the directly elected mayor vote, I'm leaning towards this being extra expense for council, we are not getting extra money to pay for increased pay of mayor and two advisers.I dont think it would improve much either if I'm honest. I'm not against the proposal in any big way but I think the likes of our existing council chief executive, Michael Walsh is doing and will do a better job than any person elected more than likely with a basket of promises that they cannot keep. I could probably do with researching it a bit more. On the other side, if councillors are coming out against it, it probably has some merit.

BBM77

Max Powers wrote: »

Re: the directly elected mayor vote, I'm leaning towards this being extra expense for council, we are not getting extra money to pay for increased pay of mayor and two advisers.I dont think it would improve much either if I'm honest. I'm not against the proposal in any big way but I think the likes of our existing council chief executive, Michael Walsh is doing and will do a better job than any person elected more than likely with a basket of promises that they cannot keep. I could probably do with researching it a bit more. On the other side, if councillors are coming out against it, it probably has some merit.

Agree with you. The election process produced the likes of John Deasy. The recruitment process produced Michael Walsh. If who is running the council was actually a problem the government would ignore it like they ignore all the actual problems Waterford has.

Gardner

Tramore Waterford City West (6 Seats)

Brendan Byrne IND
Marc Ó Cathasaigh Greens
Leslie Hughes SF
Councillor Eamon Quinlan FF
Councillor Jim Griffin SF
Councillor Joe Kelly IND
Councillor Joe Conway IND
Councillor Lola O’Sullivan FG
Maxine Keoghan FG
Rita Lacey FF
Una Dunphy PBP
Blaise Hannigan IND

I think the only people guaranteed a seat are Griffin SF, Joe Conway Ind, a FG candidate & a FF candidate. So that leaves 2 seats.

Hannigan should do enough also with the Tramore vote but Joe Kelly will be fighting for the last seat because of the backlash associated with the Repeal photo.

hardybuck

azimuth17 wrote: »

If you had cared to inform yourself, as you should have done, you would have picked up the salient point from the RTE Prime Time programme which said that based on the previous three years of National Ambulance Service data, that only 1.5% , yes, one point five percent, of people they responded to for heart attack cases in south east had managed to get to Dublin or Cork from the south east within the required 90 minutes. Some took up to seven hours. I have watched your anti Waterford posts based on faux concern for national public expenditure extrapolated into "questioning" the rationale and/or opposition to almost anything that might develop here. If you wish to refer to relevant medical deaths I suggest you google the name Una McDermott instead of making disgusting side swipes about people hi jacking another unfortunate case.

You've quickly slipped into the siege mentality there. Now I'm apparently anti-Waterford. It also appears anyone who doesn't 100% support everything Waterford wants, or if they ask a few questions about the rationale is against the place.

I don't think it's helpful to name people in this thread as anyone searching for her name in future will find it in Google, but I do note that her sister said it was impossible to predict what would have been the outcome should the facilities have been available, but it did indeed reduce their options.

I stopped watching Prime Time in about 2009 as I was sick of listening to disgruntled people moaning. However, as someone who is obviously really well informed, and if all the compelling evidence is there to support it, why hasn't it been sorted?

Again, I'm going to try and channel this back into what Waterford needs from it's candidates in the local elections.

Gardner

Waterford South (6 seats)

Councillor Jason Murphy FF
Councillor Breda Brennan SF
Donal Barry IND
Councillor John Cummins FG
Seamus Ryan LAB
Susan Gallagher Greens
Councillor John Hearne SF
Councillor Sean Reinhardt IND
Councillor Cha O’Neill IND
Warren Fitzgerald SF
Andrew Power IND
Claire Cullen Del Sol IND

John Hearne & Breda Brennan are guaranteed seats. Even though I hate saying it I think Cummins will get a seat also. I have a sneaky feeling that Seamus Ryan will retake his seat. Labour were toxic in the last LE but he still polled 578 votes. So that leaves 2 seats and this will be a minefield. I think Cha will be affected by the repeal vote and so will Jason Murphy & Sean Reinhardt. Think Del Sol will appeal to Independent and female vote and could go close.

hardybuck

Max Powers wrote: »

Re: the directly elected mayor vote, I'm leaning towards this being extra expense for council, we are not getting extra money to pay for increased pay of mayor and two advisers.I dont think it would improve much either if I'm honest. I'm not against the proposal in any big way but I think the likes of our existing council chief executive, Michael Walsh is doing and will do a better job than any person elected more than likely with a basket of promises that they cannot keep. I could probably do with researching it a bit more. On the other side, if councillors are coming out against it, it probably has some merit.

This is something which has really gone under the radar.

Who would you even have as your Mayor in this scenario, and might they do better than the likes of a Michael Walsh?

I'd be tempted to go with the Chief Executive option.

Gardner

Waterford City East (6 Seats)

Michael Doyle SF
Fiona Dowd FG
Councillor Eddie Mulligan FF
Councillor Matt Shanahan IND
Michael Garland IND
Councillor Adam Wyse FF
Lee Walsh IND
Councillor Pat Fitzgerald SF
Councillor Davy Daniels IND
Councillor Sharon Carey FG
Jody Power Greens

Davy Daniels is a safe seat. Likewise is one FF seat, I think Adam Wyse will take it. FG should do enough for 1 seat but it’s a complete unknown who will take it between the candidates. Even though Pat Fitzgerald polled well in the last LE but again the Repeal photo and a running mate could go against him. I think Michael Doyle could well take his seat. He was the only candidate in the field who campaigned for a yes vote in repealing the 8th and will appeal to the young vote.
I think Eddie Mulligan and Matt Shanahan are in big trouble. Eddie was elected as an independent but soon jumped ship to FF and from talking to people on the ground (I still keep my vote in this area) his name is toxic. Matt Shanahan voted No to Repeal the 8th but is yet a health equality campaigner and 24/7 is not a local election issue. I think Michael Garland, Pat Fitz, Eddie Mulligan and Matt Shanahan will battle it out for the last 2 seats

Christy Browne

hardybuck wrote: »

You've quickly slipped into the siege mentality there. Now I'm apparently anti-Waterford. It also appears anyone who doesn't 100% support everything Waterford wants, or if they ask a few questions about the rationale is against the place.

I don't think it's helpful to name people in this thread as anyone searching for her name in future will find it in Google, but I do note that her sister said it was impossible to predict what would have been the outcome should the facilities have been available, but it did indeed reduce their options.

I stopped watching Prime Time in about 2009 as I was sick of listening to disgruntled people moaning. However, as someone who is obviously really well informed, and if all the compelling evidence is there to support it, why hasn't it been sorted?

Again, I'm going to try and channel this back into what Waterford needs from it's candidates in the local elections.

You're so close to getting the point :rolleyes:

friendlyfun

The Renua and PBP candiates on the radio. My goodness. What poor quality candidates.

friendlyfun

Gardner wrote: »

Waterford City East (6 Seats)

Michael Doyle SF
Fiona Dowd FG
Councillor Eddie Mulligan FF
Councillor Matt Shanahan IND
Michael Garland IND
Councillor Adam Wyse FF
Lee Walsh IND
Councillor Pat Fitzgerald SF
Councillor Davy Daniels IND
Councillor Sharon Carey FG
Jody Power Greens

Davy Daniels is a safe seat. Likewise is one FF seat, I think Adam Wyse will take it. FG should do enough for 1 seat but it’s a complete unknown who will take it between the candidates. Even though Pat Fitzgerald polled well in the last LE but again the Repeal photo and a running mate could go against him. I think Michael Doyle could well take his seat. He was the only candidate in the field who campaigned for a yes vote in repealing the 8th and will appeal to the young vote.
I think Eddie Mulligan and Matt Shanahan are in big trouble. Eddie was elected as an independent but soon jumped ship to FF and from talking to people on the ground (I still keep my vote in this area) his name is toxic. Matt Shanahan voted No to Repeal the 8th but is yet a health equality campaigner and 24/7 is not a local election issue. I think Michael Garland, Pat Fitz, Eddie Mulligan and Matt Shanahan will battle it out for the last 2 seats

I think Mulligan has a very good chance at getting a seat. He is very adept at working for his constituency.

I also think Matt Shanahan has a good opportunity too considering he is a local campaigner with a high profile.

brickysession

Gardner wrote: »

Tramore Waterford City West (6 Seats)

Brendan Byrne IND
Marc Ó Cathasaigh Greens
Leslie Hughes SF
Councillor Eamon Quinlan FF
Councillor Jim Griffin SF
Councillor Joe Kelly IND
Councillor Joe Conway IND
Councillor Lola O’Sullivan FG
Maxine Keoghan FG
Rita Lacey FF
Una Dunphy PBP
Blaise Hannigan IND

I think the only people guaranteed a seat are Griffin SF, Joe Conway Ind, a FG candidate & a FF candidate. So that leaves 2 seats.

Hannigan should do enough also with the Tramore vote but Joe Kelly will be fighting for the last seat because of the backlash associated with the Repeal photo.

Not one among them deserved of a vote!!

tombliboo83

brickysession wrote: »

Not one among them deserved of a vote!!

Have to say I’ve found Marc very approachable as a candidate. His platform doesn’t involve any bluster about unrealistic goals, rather more so about what can be done to improve locals lives. He’ll have my number one.

hardybuck

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Have to say I’ve found Marc very approachable as a candidate. His platform doesn’t involve any bluster about unrealistic goals, rather more so about what can be done to improve locals lives. He’ll have my number one.

The Green candidates do tend to have a lot less bluster generally I notice.

Perhaps they've learned (the hard way) from their previous time in Government.

noby

In Dungarvan, I haven't seen the full list yet, but both SF and FG look to be pushing hard for an extra seat.

SeamusAFA

noby wrote: »

In Dungarvan, I haven't seen the full list yet, but both SF and FG look to be pushing hard for an extra seat.

Pushing but very unlikely to get.

brickysession

tombliboo83 wrote: »

Have to say I’ve found Marc very approachable as a candidate. His platform doesn’t involve any bluster about unrealistic goals, rather more so about what can be done to improve locals lives. He’ll have my number one.

Yes, I know Marc personally, as I do a lot of the other candidates, he is a very nice guy and has the locals at heart. Maybe I could be turned!!

noby

WD_Raceway wrote: »

Pushing but very unlikely to get.

Both?

Noctor is a curious choice. Parachuted in as a 'celebrity' candidate, with no political background.

SeamusAFA

noby wrote: »

Both?

Noctor is a curious choice. Parachuted in as a 'celebrity' candidate, with no political background.

FG is in turmoil in Waterford, I think he is in to try and take a sitting councilors seat not to try to get an extra one.

crazydude

friendlyfun wrote: »

I think Mulligan has a very good chance at getting a seat. He is very adept at working for his constituency.

I also think Matt Shanahan has a good opportunity too considering he is a local campaigner with a high profile.

I wonder about the Green's chance in this relativity affluent and progressive constituency. There was, until the last LE, a Labour seat here but with the death of their candidate RIP and now no Labour running those votes will need to go somewhere.

It will be interesting...
Daniels, Fitzgerald, 1 x FF & 1 x FG are safe. so a dogfight for last 2 between Green, FG & FF

Can't see other Inds or 2nd SF anywhere in running.

If I have to call it Daniels, Fitzgerald, Mulligan, Wyse, Carey and ... agggg.. Power but it will be close

hardybuck

crazydude wrote: »

I wonder about the Green's chance in this relativity affluent and progressive constituency. There was, until the last LE, a Labour seat here but with the death of their candidate RIP and now no Labour running those votes will need to go somewhere.

It will be interesting...
Daniels, Fitzgerald, 1 x FF & 1 x FG are safe. so a dogfight for last 2 between Green, FG & FF

Can't see other Inds or 2nd SF anywhere in running.

If I have to call it Daniels, Fitzgerald, Mulligan, Wyse, Carey and ... agggg.. Power but it will be close

Just watching some of the videos on WLR, it's on one hand frustration and on another hand worrying to see most of the candidates focusing on issues totally out of scope for the role.

If you were interviewing for a job you'd be expected to have conducted a little bit of research into the role.

Max Powers

crazydude wrote: »

I wonder about the Green's chance in this relativity affluent and progressive constituency. There was, until the last LE, a Labour seat here but with the death of their candidate RIP and now no Labour running those votes will need to go somewhere.

It will be interesting...
Daniels, Fitzgerald, 1 x FF & 1 x FG are safe. so a dogfight for last 2 between Green, FG & FF

Can't see other Inds or 2nd SF anywhere in running.

If I have to call it Daniels, Fitzgerald, Mulligan, Wyse, Carey and ... agggg.. Power but it will be close

Don't think any FG seat should be safe at this stage.