The Gestapo is making a comeback!

Darragh29

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/mcdowell-in-talks-on-shock-return-with-fg-1734270.html

I think this MUST be a wind up!!!

slippy wicket

As a rabid blueshirt i would have to say he is coming back to his natural home.
'If its true , that is'

ninty9er

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfcwmhcwid

Lemming

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

Joey the lips

When michael mcDowell returns to fine gael it will confirm many things on irish politics to me.

1. The party does not matter
2. Most of the partys have the same idels
3. Its every corrupt politician for himself

Sure watch this space when brien cowen is kicked out of fianna fail he will be finance spokesman for fine gael,

You do have to ask yourself one of 2 questions

1. Are people not really interested in partys ie the local individual is more important

2. Does the other parties like The Greens/Sinn Fein/ Socialist partys operate in poor areas that the voter turn out does not levatate them to higher ranks.

ps: if pat rabbite and eamonn gilmore can do it why cant we ;-)

Pride Fighter

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

He is a right winger but he has balls. There is no one like him on the left though, we need people with balls on the left, willing to take on the Unions and other vested interests to make Ireland great again.

Good luck to him. He is intellegent, competent, not my cup of tea politically but a lot to admire about him even though he is a right wing neo con, neo liberal type of guy.

tommy249

I see on todays Irish Daily Mail that Michael McDowell is to run in the next general election for Fine Gael. Good idea or mistake?

suckslikeafox

tommy249 wrote: »

Good idea or mistake?

For who, him or FG?

li@mo

tommy249 wrote: »

I see on todays Irish Daily Mail that Michael McDowell is to run in the next general election for Fine Gael. Good idea or mistake?

I think its a good idea if true. I always liked him as a politician. He will lose his friendship with the fianna fáilers though

O'Coonassa

li@mo wrote: »

He will lose his friendship with the fianna fáilers though

He will in my ah, the whole lot of them feckers are jolly backslapping bosom buddies the second a camera's not on them. Don't believe their pantomime.

tommy249

suckslikeafox wrote: »

For who, him or FG?

Who ever you want to comment on. All opinions welcome

Mr.Micro

Nobody would vote for him as he is too egotistical for any party. So if FG are considering him then it will have to be a safe safe seat if any exist. He would want to be the leader after 5 minutes.

Joey the lips

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Nobody would vote for him as he is too egotistical for any party. So if FG are considering him then it will have to be a safe safe seat if any exist. He would want to be the leader after 5 minutes.

I disagree with you on the nobody would vote for him the constitutiants he represented for the PD's thought a lot of him so they might transfere however I agree on the leadership thing. He would def have enda kenny shaking.

It would be a good laugh though

Mr.Micro

Joey the lips wrote: »

I disagree with you on the nobody would vote for him the constitutiants he represented for the PD's thought a lot of him so they might transfere however I agree on the leadership thing. He would def have enda kenny shaking.

It would be a good laugh though

Yes it would liven things up, but it would be like inviting a wolf to join the flock.

wasper

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He is a right winger but he has balls. There is no one like him on the left though, we need people with balls on the left, willing to take on the Unions and other vested interests to make Ireland great again.

Good luck to him. He is intellegent, competent, not my cup of tea politically but a lot to admire about him even though he is a right wing neo con, neo liberal type of guy.

Balls! He didn't even have the decency to bow out in style the last time.
He made more hot air than other politicians.
I think the real reason for re-entering politics is that being a lawyer these days is surplus to requirements.

Joey the lips

wasper wrote: »

Balls! He didn't even have the decency to bow out in style the last time.
He made more hot air than other politicians.
I think the real reason for re-entering politics is that being a lawyer these days is surplus to requirements.

and another pension to go with his first one would be nice!

Breezer

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0509/finegael.html

A spokesperson for Fine Gael has said there are no plans to run former PD leader and government minister Michael McDowell as a Fine Gael candidate at the next general election.

He said a newspaper story in today's Irish Daily Mail was speculative and the party would not comment on speculation.

He confirmed however that the party has had recent dealings with Mr McDowell in his role as a senior counsel.

FG are denying it, although as some of the folks on Politics.ie pointed out that it's not the strongest rebuttal that could have been made. I sincerely hope this isn't true. I think it would undo all the good press gained from the George Lee announcement. I also really don't think I could stomach being in the same party as McDowell. I can handle a few PD councillors and Ciaran Canon, it's not like they'll have any influence over policy, but McDowell... I celebrated the demise of the PDs, and it had nothing to do with transfer of votes. I don't want FG resurrecting them.

deadhead13

Micheal McDowell lost his seat not once but three times - 1989, 1997 and 2007. He is not very good at, perhaps a politicals most important role, getting re-elected. His leadership of the PDs only hastened the partys inevitable demise.

Macdowells playing politics with stamp duty started the first wobble in the housing market. His handling of the revelations over Bertie's finances casted him and the PDS in a pathetic light. FG would be well advised to stay clear. He is a failed politician and far too much of divisive figure.

Nodin

Only Libertas would be so desperate as to be tempted to take El Duce in, however.....

wasper wrote: »

Balls! He didn't even have the decency to bow out in style the last time.
He made more hot air than other politicians.
.

He enacted national legislation to garner up his decreasing vote, which really is a bankrupt and sad thing to do.

wasper wrote: »

I think the real reason for re-entering politics is that being a lawyer these days is surplus to requirements.

emm....no, not likely. Senior Counsel, ex minister for Justice, attorney General.....thats always going to be in demand.

johnnyskeleton

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He is a right winger but he has balls. There is no one like him on the left though, we need people with balls on the left, willing to take on the Unions and other vested interests to make Ireland great again.

Joe Higgins perhaps?

Boston

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

Exactly.

Bottle_of_Smoke

If the government doesn't fall in the next 18 months or so reckon he'll be FG leader for the next GE?

mikemac

He has to join the party and serve his time.
There are many ahead of him in a leadership contest and members wouldn't like to see a new candidate go straight to party leader.

Maybe one day, not in the next few years anyway

deadhead13

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If the government doesn't fall in the next 18 months or so reckon he'll be FG leader for the next GE?

McDowell??? I don't think so.

Breezer

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If the government doesn't fall in the next 18 months or so reckon he'll be FG leader for the next GE?

No. I sincerely doubt there's any truth in this story at all.

teednab-el

it would be a mistake for FG. He is not needed in the party and he would only damage FG present poll ratings.

irish_bob

deadhead13 wrote: »

Micheal McDowell lost his seat not once but three times - 1989, 1997 and 2007. He is not very good at, perhaps a politicals most important role, getting re-elected. His leadership of the PDs only hastened the partys inevitable demise.

Macdowells playing politics with stamp duty started the first wobble in the housing market. His handling of the revelations over Bertie's finances casted him and the PDS in a pathetic light. FG would be well advised to stay clear. He is a failed politician and far too much of divisive figure.

being called a divisive figure to me is a compliment , back in 2007 , BERITIE,sm and consensus politics still ruled the roost , things are very different now and thier isnt any money left to buy peace or support be it with unions or anyone else

mcdowell while he wobbled over berites bribes was a victim of being too much of a straight talker and not enough of a populist , traits that effect you greatly in a populist loving country like this but that was then and this is now and i believe we may be mature enough as a people to finally realise that voting in people who smile a lot and tell us what we want to hear wont get us out of the ditch

regarding the suggestion about him becoming leader , while personally i would love to see it , he would be unelectable in this country , hes not cuddily , seen as a nice fella or baschically populist enough , hed be way better than that wally kenny but the man to lead fine gael is ivan yates if only hed make a comeback , with a personable but gutsy politician like yates , fine gael could realistically have a chance to form a goverment without labour

marcsignal

slippy wicket wrote: »

As a rabid blueshirt i would have to say he is coming back to his natural home.
'If its true , that is'

I'd never have taken you for a Rabid Blueshirt slippy wicket

orestes

Will they be wearing genuine Gestapo uniforms? Cos those things are sexy as hell

ninty9er

orestes wrote: »

Will they be wearing genuine Gestapo uniforms? Cos those things are sexy as hell

No they have the quartermaster brushing down the O'Duffy memorobelia as we speak.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thank you for the history lesson. I hope you realise that this is 2009, and McDowell has done quite a lot since then.

I hope this rumour is true, and if it is, good for McDowell. The Dáil has been a less interesting place since he lost his seat.

Do we really need an interesting Dáil? Would it not be far more beneficial to have a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland?

Sand

Do we really need an interesting Dáil?

Uh, yes? Certainly better than the alternative - talking shop, rubber stamp with some mealy mouthed consensus view.

McDowell is loathed by swathes of washed up communists/social partners/consensus politicians when most people cant probably name their local TDs because he is one of the few idealogical politicians Ireland has had in the past few decades. Hes had an impact on Irish politics, and Id rather he was in the Dail than some empty suit who cant think for themselves having been plucked from mediocrity to inherit their daddies seat.

Breezer

Sand wrote: »

Uh, yes? Certainly better than the alternative - talking shop, rubber stamp with some mealy mouthed consensus view.

Well my alternative was more along the lines of a parliament filled with people who get on with the job, instead of getting into shouting matches with Joe Higgins (entertaining as they were) and comparing members of other parties to leading Nazis. I don't believe in controversy for the sake of it.

he is one of the few idealogical politicians Ireland has had in the past few decades.

Aside from disagreeing with much of his ideology, I dislike strongly ideologically driven politics in general. The alternative doesn't have to be mindless people-pleasing, but rather evaluating each situation from an objective standpoint, determining what will be most beneficial in a particular situation, and making a decision based on that, without being blinded by a preconceived agenda.

But when it boiled down to it, McDowell's bark was far worse than his bite anyway. Despite all the ranting and raving, he backed Bertie to the last. In other words, he supported exactly the type of consensus politics you seem to despise so much.

ninty9er

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He was a senior policy advisor to Garrett IIRC, meaning that if they had listened to him rather than forcing him into the PDs, FG could have become an actual alternative, as much as I don't think it suits a small country like us to have radical alternatives, some people would like that, and the die-hard FG vote would have made it happen anyway.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

Do we really need an interesting Dáil? Would it not be far more beneficial to have a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland?

Eh, the problem being that the "good of the people of Ireland" is many different things to many different people and we don't have enough resources to do everything everyone wants so at some point the real politics begins and someone has to decide what gets fixed and what doesn't and that's where the messy part begins.

Politics from the Opposition benches is easy, you never have to implement anything and you can hold to such nice notions as the above, but as soon as you're in Government you have to start making tough decisions about what gets done and what doesn't.


We need an interesting Dáil because otherwise we risk the tyranny of the majority and politicians all playing to the centre.

Nodin

irish_bob wrote: »

mcdowell while he wobbled over berites bribes was a victim of being too much of a straight talker and not enough of a populist ,

Much furore over 'gun crime'. McDowell launches legislation that makes what was already illegal, illegal, and what were offences, offences, and declares he has done something. That isn't 'populism'?

In the face of a waning vote in his own constituency, he starts numerous seemingly scatty rants, the most memorable being his crackdown on 'fireworks'. Is it not populism when a Minister for Justice is using his dail tijme and departments resources to prop himself up in his own parish with trivia?

His remarks on immigrants. Were they not 'populist'? His claim - denied by the two men involved - that the heads of the countries two main maternity hospitals had expressed concerns concerning foriegn nationals giving birth etc? That wasn't 'populism'?

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

We need an interesting Dáil because otherwise we risk the tyranny of the majority and politicians all playing to the centre.

I doubt the presence of two or three mcdowells (*shudder) would prevent that. Theres insufficient checks on the Dail to prevent kneejerk reactions and the like.

SWL

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

Agree 100% - he was also the only politician who took on Sein Fein, the leaders debate on RTE where he took apart the economic policies of SF, was classic McDowell.

the_syco

Hmmmmm... if he replaces EK, I may vote FG.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Eh, the problem being that the "good of the people of Ireland" is many different things to many different people and we don't have enough resources to do everything everyone wants so at some point the real politics begins and someone has to decide what gets fixed and what doesn't and that's where the messy part begins.

Of course. My point was in relation to McDowell making the Dáil more "interesting:" it's not there for our entertainment, it's there to run the country. Obviously there'll be disagreements but McDowell simply liked causing a ruckus.

jmayo

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, as much as people slate McDowell, he was one of the few politicians that I can recall within the last 15 years who was willing to make hard decisions that were not considered popular but that he considered necessary.

Shame none of FF's senior cabinet over the last 15 years have had even a fraction of that willingness to put necessity before their own political careers otherwise we might have had a country that's not as royally f*cked as it is now.

This would be the same McDowell that couldn't figure out whether he would or wouldn't pull out of government regarding bertie's ever increasig weird denials.
Some FF watchdog he turned out to be.
He was more like the ff poodle who had been deballed.

It is noticable how some of our former PD supporting woudl be liberals are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of the great hero returning.
He is one of the major reasons together with Harney why the PDs are now defunct. It is the worse possible decision by FG.
Leave him in the political wilderness and defending sweater cases in the courts.

Lets see what other notable achievements the man has had.
Whilst Atoorney General he did his damnest to make sure the McBeraty allegations in Donegal were ignored.
Oh and if I remember rightly he used his parliamentary priviledge in a not too ethical fashion to out a certain public figure.

His one contribution at time of last election was he destroyed Adams and his lack of an economic policy for our country.

As once said about Conor Cruise O'Brien "he is like a lighthouse in the Bog of Allen, he is billiantly bright but yet useless".

Pride Fighter wrote: »

He is a right winger but he has balls. There is no one like him on the left though, we need people with balls on the left, willing to take on the Unions and other vested interests to make Ireland great again.

Good luck to him. He is intellegent, competent, not my cup of tea politically but a lot to admire about him even though he is a right wing neo con, neo liberal type of guy.

I would love to see where all these balls are.
Where are all the great policy decisions, where was he when bertie was spinning his yarns down in Dublin Castle.
Oh yeah he was still backing him and staying in government :rolleyes:
Would Dessie O'Malley have done the same ?
I don't think so.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know little or nothing about the US House of Representatives, so I can't comment. It would appear, however, that what you are looking for could be provided by a broad media.

As nesf points out above, "a Dáil that works for the good of the people of Ireland" is not so easily defined. You might believe that it is for "the good of the people of Ireland" that the government taxes the wealthy and the corporations to the hilt, and borrows billions from China, so as to provide "free" services, fund generous welfare subsidies, recapitalize banks, and buy up toxic assets. Someone else might believe that such policies mitigate against "the good of the people of Ireland," because they will likely leave our country mired in stagnation and debt for decades to come.

But this is precisely my point. Why do we have to subscribe to a "left" or "right" wing agenda? Can we not have a centrist party, comprising competent politicians, who will make decisions on a case by case basis? One that doesn't try, for example, to privatise absolutely everything, or to privatise absolutely nothing, but that privatises some things, based on research into international best practice?

I'm not suggesting that every decision made will please everyone, but I believe a party that takes this type of centrist approach would be more beneficial to Ireland as a whole than a party that consistently leaves one or another sector of society disenfranchised.

I believe FG is that party, which is why I support them. I don't believe McDowell fits that model, which is why I don't want to see him in FG. As evidenced by this thread, there are those that believe FG should be a right-wing party, and that McDowell is the man to create that. What they are actually looking for is a larger Progressive Democrats polling at 30%+. That's not what I want FG to become, and I would not support the party if that's what it became.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

I believe FG is that party, which is why I support them. I don't believe McDowell fits that model, which is why I don't want to see him in FG. As evidenced by this thread, there are those that believe FG should be a right-wing party, and that McDowell is the man to create that. What they are actually looking for is a larger Progressive Democrats polling at 30%+. That's not what I want FG to become, and I would not support the party if that's what it became.

Centrism is as much an ideological position as left or right mate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Breezer

nesf wrote: »

Centrism is as much an ideological position as left or right mate.

You got me - poor terminology, my bad. I stand by the substance of what I said though.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's precisely what I don't believe in, and why I don't support FF. You're equating centrism with people-pleasing, which is indeed what FF have done. To me, centrism is taking the best decision possible based on resources available, international best practice, future implications, etc. Not the same thing.

I think people would like to see a little bit of political variety when they go to the polling booth. Right now, we have the centre-left, the left, the environmental left, the nationalistic left, and the hard left. If you are politically on the left, you will be happy not to see a right-wing party represented at the polls. If you're a genuine democrat, you will see this paucity of choice for what it is.

I was delighted to see the collapse of a right-wing party that enjoyed little popular support but yet managed to run the country for a decade, yes. I have no problem with the existence of a right-wing party per se, and if people want to vote for it then well and good. But I don't think FG is that party or should be that party, and I don't want McDowell driving it in that direction.

nesf

Breezer wrote: »

You got me - poor terminology, my bad. I stand by the substance of what I said though.

What does centrist mean to you though? Politics is at its core a painful choice between multiple worthy alternatives. Ideology is what dictates the list we get around to things to. That and polls.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

To me, centrism is taking the best decision possible based on resources available, international best practice, future implications, etc. Not the same thing.

"Best" is subjective.

Nesf has already defined idealogy as dictating the priority we place on objectives in an enviroment of scarce resources.

Should the government have a minimum wage? Removing it increases competiveness of the economy, and can increase employment if there are people willing to work at a rate below the minimum wage - arguably if the wage was set too low versus the wider economy the would be employer will not find anyone willing to do the job, and certainly only those who were unable to find work elsewhere - i.e. the least productive. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so employers have an incentive to pay more than peanuts. Is that not the "best" decision?

Many would disagree - they would view a minimum wage as protecting workers from exploitation and argue that we cant rely on employers being rational enough to pay "premium" wages to encourage productivity. So now the "best" decision is to have a minimum wage?

What decides the "best" result to any particular individual is their idealogy, and what priority that they place on the results - in the case above economic competiveness & increased employment vs "protection" of workers. The use of " " betraying my own idealogy to some degree. :cool:

Everyone likes to claim to be a centrist, or a moderate and that its all you other people who are crazy. Its reassuring. But being an idealogical politician is not a bad thing. We elect politicians for a period of several years. We dont know exactly what theyre going to be dealing with over the next decade or so, but knowing their idealogy gives us an idea of how theyre going to handle things. Guys like Joe Higgins, you could understand his points of view and where he was going to come from. If you agreed, he would *generally* speaking be a good fit with your own views. The same with McDowell. I found his dithering over Bertie to be demeaning, but he deserves every credit for taking on the Provos and their ilk, making their lives miserable - they still loathe him, especially over his tipping off Chuck Feeney with regards to their plans for his money. Hence, idealogically I could know if I voted for him that he wasnt going to go easy on them. Id have a rough handle on how he was going to deal with things.

"Centrist" or "consensus" politicians, nobody has any idea how theyre going to handle things. They are empty suits, calling for a committee to be formed, to issue a report in 2 years time, with their only skills being stealing photo opportunities, claiming expenses, taking credit and denying responsibility. We elect politicians to lead - not to follow. If they dont have any idealogy other than "Do whatever the civil servant says" then why bother with elected representives in the first place? Might as well just have a benign civil service dictatorship.

Breezer

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Best decision for whom? A majority of people? Their constituents? Their supporters? Their cronies?

I think schadenfreude is the wrong response here.

I don't think it's schadenfreude. The PDs had very little popular support and yet were being allowed to drive Ireland in the direction they thought best. It was the demise of this that I celebrated. I also disagreed with a lot of their policies, so yes, I was glad they weren't going to be able to implement them anymore, just as I'm sure you're glad the Socialist party aren't dictating Government policy.

And yet I presume that you had no problem with Garret Fitzgerald driving Fine Gael in a social democratic direction in the 1980s?

I'm not sure what Garrett Fitzgerald has to do with any of this. The approach being taken by Fine Gael under Kenny suits my beliefs pretty well; the approach taken by the PDs under McDowell didn't, and that's why I wouldn't welcome him being in the party or support a party where he had a strong influence.

Sand wrote: »

Should the government have a minimum wage? Removing it increases competiveness of the economy, and can increase employment if there are people willing to work at a rate below the minimum wage - arguably if the wage was set too low versus the wider economy the would be employer will not find anyone willing to do the job, and certainly only those who were unable to find work elsewhere - i.e. the least productive. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so employers have an incentive to pay more than peanuts. Is that not the "best" decision?

Many would disagree - they would view a minimum wage as protecting workers from exploitation and argue that we cant rely on employers being rational enough to pay "premium" wages to encourage productivity. So now the "best" decision is to have a minimum wage?

So you find a balance between the two: set a minimum wage, but set it at a level that does not cause employers to up and leave. Which is pretty much what we did (and yes, I'm aware this was PD policy), until we started appeasing unions left, right and centre (pardon the pun).