Paul Gogarty says he is being "patriotic" by propping up the government.

Wolfe Tone · 02-10-2010 8:47pm

Jimbo wrote: »

This should be interesting...

He doesn't know what he is getting himself in for..... Big mistake!

I can't wait.

gandalf · 02-10-2010 8:49pm

TBH both he and Dan Boyle are up to the same trick. Towing the line and sniping from the side about how much they disagree with things. They are trying to appear like "rebels" in the Government with the mistaken idea that this may be something that helps them get elected when the next General election finally occurs.

As someone who gave them a high preference since I started voting many years ago they will never see any kind of vote from me again. How can someone spew out the word patriotism when they have been willing participants in the ruination of this country not only for this generation but for the next one in school at the moment with the idiotic bank guarantee scheme.

Does participation in this make Paul Gogarty and his Green colleagues proud?

I am sure he will duck this question like all politicians saying "hard decisions have to be made" or the old reliable "we live in exceptional times" but when it is quiet at night and they are trying to sleep I wonder what they really think?

round tower huntsman · 02-10-2010 8:56pm

patriotic...the ff/greens dont know the meaning of the word. unless of course they mean being patriotic to loony animal rights groups or to developers and bankers, then yes they are being patriotic.

DeVore · 02-10-2010 9:42pm

You know what.... if the guy is willing to come here and debate, thats a step in the right direction for me.

I am actually on the fence in a sense. I didnt come here with a set agenda or an opinion set in stone. I am really REALLY confused as to why we are doing this and why he is assisting in it. The obvious answer is that he's scared of a GE but that in itself is an easy answer. Lets hear his reasoning, we can tear holes in it or take it on board depending on its validity in your opinion. Thats debate, that becoming informed.

But you know what, fair f*cks to the guy for at least having the balls to stand up and say "I made this decision and I'm sticking with it". I cant say I agree with the decision but not one single other TD will even deign to explain themselves. Anywhere. So feck them.

This is completely out of the blue for me, I didnt think this would happen and I'll need to put my thinking cap on as to how we avoid us all just jumping on the bloke

but this is very welcome news. This is the start of something new, lets see where is goes.

I wont have people calling him names or just putting the boot in but on the flip side, no one gets an easy ride on Boards.

DeV.

Wibbs · 02-10-2010 10:06pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

He will come on here and get completely destroyed. I would argue that it is in his own interest to stay away from the internets and keep his head down.

In the former it likely means his position is untenable and the latter would suggest he knows it. The fact he seems willing to engage shows some balls and that I respect. Even if I don't agree with him or his party, among his peers he stands out, if he's willing to stand up.

Dirk Gently · 02-10-2010 10:19pm

DeVore wrote: »

This is completely out of the blue for me, I didnt think this would happen and I'll need to put my thinking cap on as to how we avoid us all just jumping on the bloke

DeV.

Don't worry Dev, he'll have plenty of people in the room advising him how to answer each question

Not sure what kind of format will work tbh. Paul wants it done over a 24hr period? Could turn into a 30 page **** fest, giving Paul no chance of replying at all against an unstructured free for all with people posting at will.

There will need to be some kind of structure to give the guy a chance. I'm not a fan of pre-submitting questions though. How will you moderate a live discussion board in such a way as to let the guy answer each question without having 20 more questions posted by the time he answered the first?

Put you're thinking cap on is right Dev. I'll be impressed if you come up with something other than pre-submitting a set number of questions and simply posting his replies a few days later. A live debate will be very difficult to moderate and in fairness will be a nightmare for anyone trying to answer a huge number of people at the same time.

Perhaps you can structure it by topic? (purely example titles below)

Green policies and the potential of alternative energy in Ireland (particularly tidal off the west coast (is it feasible) and his views on giving away our oil and gas).

His experience of government, the mistakes that were made and his case for the greens being a positive influence.

His take on what happened and what the solution is to the economy. Does he see a cut off point between higher taxes and less services v's stimulation. At what point will it kill the very economy they're trying to save.

What safeguards will be in place to prevent a collapse from happening in future and does he think the financial system needs reform or is he happy to pay the debts and carry on working under the market as it currently stands?

What does he really think of fianna fail.

The above are just example topics but if you come up with say 5 broad topics. Then you can open the thread to boardsies for say 3 hours and let them post questions on each topic. Then close the thread and let PG reply for an hour or so to the questions (after a mod clean up to delete duplicate questions).

Repeat the process for each topic, allowing boardsies to post questions on the current topic for a few hours before letting PG reply in peace for an hour or so.

It would be less stressful for PG and allow him to structure his time better if he knew he had an hour at say midday / 3pm / 6pm etc.

Just writing all this on the fly and thinking out loud. Best of luck coming up with a structure, hopefully we can make it a regular feature if all goes well.

In any case, I look forward to hearing what he (and no doubt his advisor's) have to say.

Overheal · 02-10-2010 10:21pm

Your other option is a One-Post-per-person thread using a similar list of trustees as like that of Feedforward: made up of users who have the interest and display the civility. Not that there shouldnt also be an open thread, but in the interest of signal-to-noise and giving the man a chance to speak.

Wolfe Tone · 02-10-2010 10:21pm

DeVore wrote: »

You know what.... if the guy is willing to come here and debate, thats a step in the right direction for me.

I am actually on the fence in a sense.I didnt come here with a set agenda or an opinion set in stone I am really REALLY confused as to why we are doing this and why he is assisting in it. The obvious answer is that he's scared I didnt come here with a set agenda or an opinion set in stone. of a GE but that in itself is an easy answer. Lets hear his reasoning, we can tear holes in it or take it on board depending on its validity in your opinion. Thats debate, that becoming informed.

But you know what, fair f*cks to the guy for at least having the balls to stand up and say "I made this decision and I'm sticking with it". I cant say I agree with the decision but not one single other TD will even deign to explain themselves. Anywhere. So feck them.

This is completely out of the blue for me, I didnt think this would happen and I'll need to put my thinking cap on as to how we avoid us all just jumping on the bloke but this is very welcome news. This is the start of something new, lets see where is goes.

I wont have people calling him names or just putting the boot in but on the flip side, no one gets an easy ride on Boards.

DeV.

I would seriously question that.
However I will wait and see how it plays out.

Wibbs · 02-10-2010 11:48pm

Everyone has an agenda to some degree or other. Only the fool or the charlatan claim otherwise. Like you say let it pan out and see where it goes. Hopefully some mid ground will be found.

Poor Uncle Tom · 03-10-2010 12:20am

Wibbs wrote: »

Everyone has an agenda to some degree or other. Only the fool or the charlatan claim otherwise. Like you say let it pan out and see where it goes. Hopefully some mid ground will be found.

There's a hell of a lot more as well in between, who have genuinely just given up hope in our government ever coming through for them. Mind boggeling figures being thrown back and forth as if they mean anything to the average person on the street. Who can visualise what 1 billion euro would look like in all 50 euro notes in a room in front of them? and who truely cares? when you don't know if you will have a turkey at Christmas, or even a house over your head to cook the *****n thing in?

It's very easy to pay lip service when your family is safe and sound because you have an income. Who is actually standing up for the families who have nothing? looking forward to being financially raped in another budget, and the same all over again until 2014 at the very least, because some misguided politicians refuse to stand back and let the house of cards come crumbling down, under some deluded notion of patriotism.

I ask you who is the patriot, the politician who is happy with the status quo as long as the pay cheque comes in, or the mother who gets her kids up and fed and out to school knowing what their future holds because of what out politicians have signed us up to?

I don't think there's enough whiskey in all the bars in Ireland to swallow that pill with.

DeVore · 03-10-2010 1:03am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would seriously question that.
However I will wait and see how it plays out.

Genuinely Mussolini last night I as a bit tipsy (hey if its cool for our glorious leader... right?).

Anyway I am a patriot or at least I consider myself one. I graduated in 1991 into the teeth of a recession from the late 80s and just about every one of my class emigrated. A few stayed and we all wanted to get stuck in and make things better. Justin Mason went off to work for a tiny start up called Iona, Antoin O'Lachtaigh formed Nua, Caelen King joined a 12 person encryption company called Baltimore, Internet Eireann was allowing people something called "dialup" (ok that timeframe covers a few years).

The point is, I stayed and I worked hard and I built several companies and I employed over a dozen people. I didnt go mental and I didnt borrow borrow borrow. I lost 40K in one company and I took my beating, paid my debt and threw myself into a passion of mine, Boards.ie

Happy days, now things are going ok (ish). Last night I was got angry because the country i have all of that based in (including my job and my family) is being put through the ringer and I wanted an answer.

Today in the cold hard light of day, you know what, I can see an argument for saying "wtf would we do with a GE anyway". Who are we going to put in? FF again???? Feck that. But FG Lab?? euw.... public sector spending goes through the roof. Who else? Its a huge mess.

I want to know a few things from the horses mouth.

1. Why do we have to do this.

2. Why cant we have a GE in Mr Gogartys opinion.

3. What the hell were the Greens thinking.

4. What happens from here and how bad can it get.

I dont have an agenda beyond that and obviously I want Boards to be at the centre of this, I've never made a secret of that intention in fact I've made it public as often as possible. I want them here, answering our questions, forced to face the public more then once every 5 years.

Thats my agenda.

But my opinion is not fixed. I am a rational man and I believe that if your opinion is set in stone, you have the intellect of a rock.

DeV.

Focalbhach · 03-10-2010 1:31am

DeVore wrote: »

But you know what, fair f*cks to the guy for at least having the balls to stand up and say "I made this decision and I'm sticking with it". I cant say I agree with the decision but not one single other TD will even deign to explain themselves. Anywhere. So feck them.

I have to say I'm impressed that Mr Gogarty has agreed to face the boards.ie masses. Also slightly surprised, though he was fairly well backed into a corner.

DeVore: congratulations on taking the initiative like this. I'll be very interested to see how this plays out... both in content and logistics!

Poly · 03-10-2010 1:57am

Not a current green fan, but I am interested in what he has to say.
Just remind him we have a no swearing policy here.

Amhran Nua · 03-10-2010 8:48am

DeVore wrote: »

I didnt think this would happen and I'll need to put my thinking cap on as to how we avoid us all just jumping on the bloke

Over in AN we set up a new forum for each such debate and only authorise certain users to post. If you wanted to run a parallel thread and Paul could answer those questions he judges himself able to answer, that could help as well.

Wibbs · 03-10-2010 9:48am

I too remember the 80's and watching people I grew up with leave. Not just for jobs, but also to get educations. Some came back, most did not and of mates who didn't? I was only chatting to one yesterday and we recalled when the "boom" was happening, he was so tempted to come home, but he was worried it wasn't sustainable. And like he'll admit he's no economist. How did so many tasked with looking after the country miss this? To even suggest it wasn't sustainable marked one out as a killjoy. I remember a thread on AH on this site from a few years back and anyone who suggested the emperor was clothing optional was hopped on by the "we've never had it so good/I'm alright Jack stop moaning" brigade.

DeVore wrote: »

Today in the cold hard light of day, you know what, I can see an argument for saying "wtf would we do with a GE anyway". Who are we going to put in? FF again???? Feck that. But FG Lab?? euw.... public sector spending goes through the roof. Who else? Its a huge mess.

That pretty much echoes my sentiments at the moment. I remember very clearly the first time I got my voting card. I was so proud to have it(to an unfashionable degree for a teenager

) and I got as much info as I could to try to make the right choice. Have done for every election or referendum since. Now? I honestly have no clue where to turn to tick the box. If I had to vote tomorrow morning, I would be mumbling "Eeny, meeny, miny, mo" under my breath to be perfectly honest. That saddens me. I doubt I'd be alone in that.

-Chris- · 03-10-2010 10:05am

I don't have a clue who I'd vote for in a GE tomorrow, I don't think there's anyone I'd trust to run this country or who I wouldn't consider to be purely motivated by self interest and self preservation.

As such I'd really look forward to seeing Paul Gogarty come on here and engage with the public. I don't consider what he did on Twitter to be even a shadow of a poor imitation of decent communications.

thebman · 03-10-2010 12:28pm

You can set a time between posts on VBulletin, can you do it for a specific forum/thread level for this?

I'd also say you are better asking the people of the politics forum would they like to go up for it and ask the rest to vote for the top 5 (if there are 5 :P) and those people can represent the different parts of boards politics forum make up if its one vote per person.

Obviously then anyone misbehaving during posting, will have to be kicked out if they aren't being reasonable and giving him time to reply or repeatedly asking silly questions.

Once the 5 people are voted for, if they are up for it, you could allow the rest of the people that voted for them to submit questions they would like asked to those people who can then refuse to pose them if they feel they are silly but it might help them decide what they would like to ask beforehand. It will be up to the 5 people to decide follow up questions on the day and behave though boards moderators should be present to ensure it doesn't get out of hand.

Just a thought on how it might work.

IrishTonyO · 03-10-2010 12:33pm

M three wrote: »

good god. how convenient to blame a green party member for propping up the government. just like blaming the pd's all those years ago.
well guess what, the pd's are long gone and fianna fail are still fcukking us over.

what you mean convenient, they are to blame, they are propping up the government that is a fact

DeVore · 03-10-2010 12:45pm

TheBMan, that might be what we have to do. I'll put my thinking hat on and most definitely will be back to garner the input of people here.

I have never felt its beneficial to protect one person from the anger their actions have engendered, but on the flipside we cant complain that politicians dont engage if, when they do, we savage them enmasse.

This has to be a "grown ups" discussion, not a poo-flinging exercise and that will unfortunately require some sort of restrictions. But genuinely hard questions need to be put and need to be answered or its just a PR exercise and thats no good either.

Its a fine line to walk and we need to give it some thought.

DeV.

IrishTonyO · 03-10-2010 1:08pm

DeVore wrote: »

TheBMan, that might be what we have to do. I'll put my thinking hat on and most definitely will be back to garner the input of people here.

I have never felt its beneficial to protect one person from the anger their actions have engendered, but on the flipside we cant complain that politicians dont engage if, when they do, we savage them enmasse.

This has to be a "grown ups" discussion, not a poo-flinging exercise and that will unfortunately require some sort of restrictions. But genuinely hard questions need to be put and need to be answered or its just a PR exercise and thats no good either.

Its a fine line to walk and we need to give it some thought.

DeV.

restrictions defeat the whole purpose of a site like boards, if only a select few can ask questions etc.

Sir Oxman · 03-10-2010 1:17pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

restrictions defeat the whole purpose of a site like boards, if only a select few can ask questions etc.

Clownbag's suggestion sounds good, if it can be implemented:

"The above are just example topics but if you come up with say 5 broad topics. Then you can open the thread to boardsies for say 3 hours and let them post questions on each topic. Then close the thread and let PG reply for an hour or so to the questions (after a mod clean up to delete duplicate questions).

Repeat the process for each topic, allowing boardsies to post questions on the current topic for a few hours before letting PG reply in peace for an hour or so.

It would be less stressful for PG and allow him to structure his time better if he knew he had an hour at say midday / 3pm / 6pm etc.

Just writing all this on the fly and thinking out loud. Best of luck coming up with a structure, hopefully we can make it a regular feature if all goes well."

I agree there would have to be some kind of restriction unfortunately, but I don't think allowing say 5 posters to do all the yakking will cut it.
The capable mods on politics would do a good job in weeding out the fluff - it'll be a tough and long job but it would be great if a suitable format was found that would encourage more legislators to come to boards.

gandalf · 03-10-2010 1:36pm

The best workable way forward would be to set up a sub forum where all posts are pre-moderated. It will be a slower engagement and will create more work for the mods but it will mean the tripe would be stopped at source and not make it to the public domain.

I would be against limiting the proceedings to 5 posters as it does defeat the whole purpose of this site.

Micky Dolenz · 03-10-2010 1:38pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

restrictions defeat the whole purpose of a site like boards, if only a select few can ask questions etc.

I disagree, it will need structure for it to work. If everyone is allowed the questions will fly in thick and fast, along with plenty of abuse no doubt.

If this works out, who knows, others in power may want to talk to us.

Dirk Gently · 03-10-2010 1:48pm

The reason I suggested the format I did was to avoid an x factor like contest of boardsies deemed acceptable to ask questions. It's harder to manage than say hand picking a few "reasonable" posters and excluding everyone else but it's more democratic. I know boards isn't a democracy but hell, no reason why we can't make it as democratic as we can within the realms of possibility.

Thats why I think a controlled free for all (time limited) and then a mod clean up (cleaning up any abuse and duplicate questions, not choosing the actual questions) before handing over the thread to PG to answer questions is probably the most democratic but ultimately controlled format to facilitate PG to have a reasonable chance of answering.

My biggest fear is how do we manage it without it becoming one big Brian Dobson moment. Interviewers the world over have to battle with the urge to ask hard questions and the fear of frightening off future interviewees if they lay in too hard. General the hard hitters dont get the guests and the weak fluffy soft interviewers get all the action.

I think all we can do is put the questions out there and see which ones he chooses to answer. If this is going to be a regular thing we could start a league table showing the percentage of questions each politician actually answered. Give them score cards (based on number of questions answered / unanswered) and people can decide for themselves who engage and who bluff.

Nehaxak · 03-10-2010 2:01pm

Kindly requesting you all stop shortening General Election as GE, as I can't help but read it in my mind pronounced as gee, as in a woman's fanny. Small request please, I'm trying, I really am but I can't do it (yes there probably is something wrong with me!).

It would be hard I feel for any politician to put themselves forward to Boards to debate any subject. They're so used to pre-recorded or pre-scripted TV and Radio shows, or anything in the normal media that allows them and their advisers to cast a watchful eye/ear over. Whatever format you might come up with, I'd feel you'd have to afford them some protection and alleviate their worries.
Would be very refreshing to see a politician come forward and put themselves out there publicly to field questions on a forum like this and to take the flack I'm sure they'd get along with it - I honestly couldn't think of many of them willing to do such a thing though.

thebman · 03-10-2010 2:27pm

clown bag wrote: »

The reason I suggested the format I did was to avoid an x factor like contest of boardsies deemed acceptable to ask questions. It's harder to manage than say hand picking a few "reasonable" posters and excluding everyone else but it's more democratic. I know boards isn't a democracy but hell, no reason why we can't make it as democratic as we can within the realms of possibility.

My biggest fear is how do we manage it without it becoming one big Brian Dobson moment. Interviewers the world over have to battle with the urge to ask hard questions and the fear of frightening off future interviewees if they lay in too hard. General the hard hitters dont get the guests and the weak fluffy soft interviewers get all the action.

I think all we can do is put the questions out there and see which ones he chooses to answer. If this is going to be a regular thing we could start a league table showing the percentage of questions each politician actually answered. Give them score cards (based on number of questions answered / unanswered) and people can decide for themselves who engage and who bluff.

My problem with putting all the questions we all want with him and then letting him choose which ones he answers is he can just choose the ones with easy answers.

Afterwards, we will accuse him of doing this for sure and then no other politician is going to put themselves into a no-win situation and Paul will regret coming here in the first place.

If you restrict to 5 or so posters to decide the questions they are unlikely to leave out hard questions as they don't represent boards.ie or have interviewing careers they are trying to protect/start so they have no reason to hold back the hard questions.

Dirk Gently · 03-10-2010 3:37pm

It's not so much individuals interview careers I'm worried about, more the potential and longevity of making this a regular feature on boards politics. It's a thin line to dance between getting stuck in / limiting boardsie participation / and making the format workable for the person answering questions. The last thing I want to see is a pigeon holed format where politicians who come here know what to expect from reading the type of questions that pass the vetting system. It needs to be as open as possible so as not to fall into an RTE type situation where you know certain questions wont be asked.

Maybe putting the questions out there and giving the interviewee enough rope to hang themselves by letting them answer all or cherry pick the easy ones. The wheat will be sorted from the shaf as we will be able to see which interviewees genuinely engage as much as possible and the ones who skirt around issues will also stick out like a sore thumb.

At the end of the day it will be clear to those of us reading the finished thread whether or not the interviewee dodged or engaged, answered genuinely or simply issued a fluffy PR statement.

I would urge whoever finally decides on the format to include as much boardsie participation as is possible and try limit the amount of editing to just removing abuse and re-structuring the condensing the volume of questions to eliminating duplication and joining up similar type questions into one.

DeVore · 03-10-2010 4:19pm

There may not be any "one size fits all" approach and we might have to do something a bit more creative like a mix of premoderated free for all and a structured debate as well. It really depends on the time contraints of Mr Gogarty.
We should be prepared in advance.

One thing I *can* answer is this: There wont be a case of only asking soft questions. Its a terrible terrible blight on our journalistic landscape.

I understand that that means some not-so-keen-to-be-questioned-hard politicians wont come here but thats ok. The benefits of exposure on Boards will be reaped by those honest enough to have nothing to fear from us. Eventually, slowly, inexorably, they simply wont be able to NOT engage. If we achieve that, I will retire from Boards as I will feel I have achieved one of my life's works and I will deserve my retirement.

DeV.

ArmaniJeanss · 03-10-2010 8:36pm

DeVore wrote: »

One thing I *can* answer is this: There wont be a case of only asking soft questions. Its a terrible terrible blight on our journalistic landscape.

I understand that that means some not-so-keen-to-be-questioned-hard politicians wont come here but thats ok.

thebman wrote: »

My problem with putting all the questions we all want with him and then letting him choose which ones he answers is he can just choose the ones with easy answers.

Afterwards, we will accuse him of doing this for sure and then no other politician is going to put themselves into a no-win situation and Paul will regret coming here in the first place.

If you restrict to 5 or so posters to decide the questions they are unlikely to leave out hard questions as they don't represent boards.ie or have interviewing careers they are trying to protect/start so they have no reason to hold back the hard questions.

clown bag wrote: »

I think all we can do is put the questions out there and see which ones he chooses to answer. If this is going to be a regular thing we could start a league table showing the percentage of questions each politician actually answered. Give them score cards (based on number of questions answered / unanswered) and people can decide for themselves who engage and who bluff.

It should be pointed out that failure to answer a question isn't necessarily a negative (so there should definitely be no score keeping).

There are plenty of good reasons why a question may not be answered.

He may not know the correct answer ; he may not want to prejudice a garda investigation ; he may be sure of an answer but by not having hard facts he'd leave himself&Dev open to libel as this won't be under Dail privilege ; he may know an answer but only via a source that would become obvious if he gave an answer etc etc.

Well done on getting him to agree to this Dev.

Darsad · 03-10-2010 10:46pm

Cant help but think that it will be all for nothing as Gogarty will probably have his wings clipped by the snots HQ in the morning when they get wind of what he offered . As much as I hate the greens I couldnt blame them for gagging Tutti Fruity Gogarty you never know what turd he would drop on them if allowed to debate online .

Paul Gogarty says he is being "patriotic" by propping up the government.

Comments