Why do people hate/dislike Enda Kenny/Eamon Gilmore so much?

Flamed Diving

Hello, as you may or may not have noticed, my interest in Politics is largely reliant on some attachment it has to Economics. So, while I know who the main faces of each party are, I really know very little about them personally. People seem to be making many broad comments about Enda Kenny (and Gilmore), saying that he is unfit as a leader, without ever dealing in specifics. Perhaps the reasons why are common knowledge, in which case I much plead ignorance. So, could people tell me why it is the leader of both FG and Labour are so very unfit to lead?

This is a genuine question, so I guess on behalf of the mods may I say I'm not looking for an exercise such as "XXX is a XXX and a XXing XX". I'm looking for constructive criticism that relates to their ability to lead.

Rossibaby

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello, as you may or may not have noticed, my interest in Politics is largely reliant on some attachment it has to Economics. So, while I know who the main faces of each party are, I really know very little about them personally. People seem to be making many broad comments about Enda Kenny (and Gilmore), saying that he is unfit as a leader, without ever dealing in specifics. Perhaps the reasons why are common knowledge, in which case I much plead ignorance. So, could people tell me why it is the leader of both FG and Labour are so very unfit to lead?

This is a genuine question, so I guess on behalf of the mods may I say I'm not looking for an exercise such as "XXX is a XXX and a XXing XX". I'm looking for constructive criticism that relates to their ability to lead.

Well I don't think any leaders of the main parties are capable of leading adequately. Enda Kenny is extremely unlikable, he has absolutely no charisma[which would be seen as a leadership characteristics to me] and his policies are rubbish. FG and FF are just too cheeks of the same arse, not much between them though FG may be a little worse with right wing hacks like leo varadkar.

Gilmore to me, as a lefist, is a turncoat scumbag who abandoned every sort of principal in the quest for power. That is all these polticians want, a bit of influence and status and they will compromise any principal to get that, look at the Greens for example. Sinn Fein are the same, they tried to whore themselves out to FF in 2007 for instance. They all just want power,status and cash, none are fit to lead and none are genuine.

Biggins

"Hate" I feel is the wrong word to use in the title of the thread.
It superposes from the outset that anyone replying to your idea, might indeed "hate" either or both from the beginning.

I don't. I don't "hate" them. I dislike the positions at which they are at and because of that, if they were to assume leadership in running this country, I fear we will be left without a leader with strong vision, strong character and strong ability to carry out what needs to be done.
I can't see that presently in the pair of them - but I don't "hate" them.

gerry28

Do they really hate them or are they just afraid of change.

aurelius79

Biggins wrote: »

I don't. I don't "hate" them. I dislike the positions at which they are at and because of that, if they were to assume leadership in running this country, I fear we will be left without a leader with strong vision, strong character and strong ability to carry out what needs to be done.
I can't see that presently in the pair of them - but I don't "hate" them.

Why is there one set of standards that applies to opposition leaders and a completely different set for government leaders? Strong vision, strong character, strong ability to carry out what needs to be done. I can't think of a single person in FF that these characteristics could be attributed to, especially Ahern and Cowen.

So why not elect FG or Labor? They can't possibly do any worse than what FF have done (or haven't done) in the past ten years. I guess Irish politics really is just a popularity contest. The guy with that twinkle in his eye will always win, regardless of his ability to lead the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Flamed Diving

I changed the title sometime ago.

Colm R

There are two types of people who dont like Kenny.
The first group does not agree or like his (and his party) policies, principals and fear his impact as leader of the country.
The second group dislike him because disliking the leader of Fine Gael is the "done" thing.

The first group has good reason to (although I disagree with them) dislike him. But the real irony is that the second group probably has a lot more in common with Kenny than they would think.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

could i be so bold as to request a personality profile of our current taoiseach ,

rugbyman

Rossibaby wrote: »

Well I don't think any leaders of the main parties are capable of leading adequately. Enda Kenny is extremely unlikable, he has absolutely no charisma[which would be seen as a leadership characteristics to me] and his policies are rubbish. FG and FF are just too cheeks of the same arse, not much between them though FG may be a little worse with right wing hacks like leo varadkar.

Gilmore to me, as a lefist, is a turncoat scumbag who abandoned every sort of principal in the quest for power. That is all these polticians want, a bit of influence and status and they will compromise any principal to get that, look at the Greens for example. Sinn Fein are the same, they tried to whore themselves out to FF in 2007 for instance. They all just want power,status and cash, none are fit to lead and none are genuine.

Rossi baby, i disagree with what you say but i chuckle at your choice of words. No half measures with you!
Rugbyman

thebigcheese22

Rossibaby wrote: »

Well I don't think any leaders of the main parties are capable of leading adequately. Enda Kenny is extremely unlikable, he has absolutely no charisma[which would be seen as a leadership characteristics to me] and his policies are rubbish. FG and FF are just too cheeks of the same arse, not much between them though FG may be a little worse with right wing hacks like leo varadkar.

Gilmore to me, as a lefist, is a turncoat scumbag who abandoned every sort of principal in the quest for power. That is all these polticians want, a bit of influence and status and they will compromise any principal to get that, look at the Greens for example. Sinn Fein are the same, they tried to whore themselves out to FF in 2007 for instance. They all just want power,status and cash, none are fit to lead and none are genuine.

So Varadkar is too right wing but Gilmore is too left wing? I don't get it...

Anyway, Gilmore has not 'abandoned his principles'. I think you'll find that he was the only party leader to have the balls to put a stop to O Donoghue's gravy train. The people agree as well, he's the highest opinion rating of all the party leaders (not saying a lot looking at the rest, but its a start!)

Kenny changed his position immediately after Gilmore had demanded JOD's resignation and it made him look like a fool. (Another reason he's not a good leader - too indecisive) Kenny's a good organiser, not a good leader.

Edit: Just got what you're saying about Gilmore from a leftist point of view, rather than him being leftist *facepalm*

View

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello, as you may or may not have noticed, my interest in Politics is largely reliant on some attachment it has to Economics. So, while I know who the main faces of each party are, I really know very little about them personally. People seem to be making many broad comments about Enda Kenny (and Gilmore), saying that he is unfit as a leader, without ever dealing in specifics. Perhaps the reasons why are common knowledge, in which case I much plead ignorance. So, could people tell me why it is the leader of both FG and Labour are so very unfit to lead?

Maybe, because they are not FF? Or Greens/SF/Socialist Worker or whatever the poster's political "TRUE religion" is?

At least, that is what I hope it is - those are at least semi-sane. The real crazies are the ones who are essentially nihilists - hating all and sundry without having anything to offer in alternative.

Eliot Rosewater

People don't like Kenny because he doesnt have the will or ambition to do his job as opposition leader right. Fine Gael had their moment to make history and become the majority leaders of the House by taking the bull by the horns but they choose not to. They abandoned the risky option - a public campaign - and opted for smug complacency. They will now crawl into government with Labour. And they've no one to blame but themselves.

The proof of the pudding is this: how many times have you heard people (like thebigcheese22 here) pointing out Gilmores relative decisiveness over the JOD issue? (Hint: a lot). Gilmores actions over the JOD arent really a benchmark of how he would perform in Government. Yet its what people wanted. Policies are well and good for those few people making a rational choice, but most just want the reassurance that should they put you in the hot seat you will sort it out. And Kenny has refused to give this reassurance.

donegalfella wrote: »

A dapper, mild-mannered bureaucrat, Kenny lacks the charisma and personality people look for in times of crisis. Imagine it is May 1940, and Britain has a new prime minister, none other than ... Enda Kenny. Hitler giggles.

Thats the first time Ive ever read a "Godwinian" Hitler analogy thats actually accurate!

profitius

The celebrity mad culture wants a celeb to lead the country. Bertie Ahern could do what he wanted and still be loved.

nesf

Kenny I don't mind, I don't particularly like the man as a politician but his party is one I can find common ground with. The opposite is the case with Gilmore who I think is a very good politician but whose party I disagree with more than agree with.

Now if only Gilmore was leading FG...

aurelius79

nesf wrote: »

Kenny I don't mind, I don't particularly like the man as a politician but his party is one I can find common ground with. The opposite is the case with Gilmore who I think is a very good politician but whose party I disagree with more than agree with.

Now if only Gilmore was leading FG...

There are a lot of great leaders in this country, politics just gets in the way. I'd love to see Joe Higgins out of the Socialist party (I like the Socialists, they just have no hope in this country) and joining a coalition government.

Rossibaby

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

So Varadkar is too right wing but Gilmore is too left wing? I don't get it...

Anyway, Gilmore has not 'abandoned his principles'. I think you'll find that he was the only party leader to have the balls to put a stop to O Donoghue's gravy train. The people agree as well, he's the highest opinion rating of all the party leaders (not saying a lot looking at the rest, but its a start!)

Kenny changed his position immediately after Gilmore had demanded JOD's resignation and it made him look like a fool. (Another reason he's not a good leader - too indecisive) Kenny's a good organiser, not a good leader.

Edit: Just got what you're saying about Gilmore from a leftist point of view, rather than him being leftist *facepalm*

Yeah you got it, was speaking as a leftist.

Joey the lips

Having read the thread i think i can make it simple.

Eamonn Gilmore is incapable of making policy. He follows every other part. For example we still dont know fully his own party stance on nama or his solution. Why? Because labour never commit to anything. Labour in Dublin agreed with Sinn Fein various partys that bin charges were unfair as there was no incentive to produce less. They promissed if in power they would abolish. What did dermot lacy(Lab) do when he became lord mayor....? Nothing!

Mary had a little lamb who's fleece was white as snow and every where that mary went the lambs were sure to go. Mary is fine gael labour is the lambs....

As for fine gael. I actually think enda kenny is a nice man its just every time i see him I think of dougal out of father ted. Not his looks but enda's behaviour. Richard Bruton is not much better either. Although I am shuddering to say it. They need someone like leo vadakker to lead them. Someone that says i can run a country. Not I I I I I .

pjmn

Don't hate either of them.

But I'm far from convinced that either of them have the ability to take hard decisions and lead this country out of the mess that it's in. I'm not a FF'er and would agree that BC isn't displaying these characteristics either. As far as I can see B Lenihan is currently leading this country and is taking hard and unpopular decisions. {I wish him well btw in terms of his illness}.

LordSutch

I don't dislike Enda Kenny, I just get the impression that he has the charisma of an old bit of grey cardboard!

Nice man I'm sure, so is Gordon Brown ...............

Cork Boy

Charisma? Seriously? :eek:

If charisma is what ye want from a leader why not just get Bertie back in the hot seat - sure he had it in buckets?

While i agree charisma is a leadership quality, there are also other forms of leadership - autocratic (Haughy), democratic (gormley), you know the list from Leaving Cert business

Look, remember that while the taoiseach is is the CEO of Ireland Inc, there still is a board of directors he has to work with and an AGM every 5 years where the shareholders get a say. (please don't be so sad as to have to point out its not an AGM if its every five years, i know that, you know that, just trying to give an analogy here).

Anyways, as my title suggests, if we as a people are going to elect our leaders based on some flawed idea that they have to be 'likeable' then its time i booked a one way ticket to destination elsewhere.

Final Note: The above is not meant in defence of any particular leader, it just really annoys me to see such idiocy being spouted by supposedly intelligent human beings.

LordSutch

Cork Boy wrote: »

Charisma? Seriously? :eek:

If charisma is what ye want from a leader why not just get Bertie back in the hot seat - sure he had it in buckets?.

Indeed, but people being people 'Charisma' is what helps to attract the masses ........

thebigcheese22

Joey the lips wrote: »

Eamonn Gilmore is incapable of making policy. He follows every other part. For example we still dont know fully his own party stance on nama or his solution. Why? Because labour never commit to anything.

Eh thats wrong. Labour's stance on the banking crisis is for temporary nationalisation of the banks, and are against NAMA. Please inform yourself before spouting off.

Joey the lips wrote: »

As for fine gael. I actually think enda kenny is a nice man its just every time i see him I think of dougal out of father ted. Not his looks but enda's behaviour. Richard Bruton is not much better either. Although I am shuddering to say it. They need someone like leo vadakker to lead them. Someone that says i can run a country. Not I I I I I .

Leo Varadkar would be the ruin of our country IMO *shudder*

zootroid

Cork Boy wrote: »

Charisma? Seriously? :eek:

If charisma is what ye want from a leader why not just get Bertie back in the hot seat - sure he had it in buckets?

While i agree charisma is a leadership quality, there are also other forms of leadership - autocratic (Haughy), democratic (gormley), you know the list from Leaving Cert business

Look, remember that while the taoiseach is is the CEO of Ireland Inc, there still is a board of directors he has to work with and an AGM every 5 years where the shareholders get a say. (please don't be so sad as to have to point out its not an AGM if its every five years, i know that, you know that, just trying to give an analogy here).

Anyways, as my title suggests, if we as a people are going to elect our leaders based on some flawed idea that they have to be 'likeable' then its time i booked a one way ticket to destination elsewhere.

Final Note: The above is not meant in defence of any particular leader, it just really annoys me to see such idiocy being spouted by supposedly intelligent human beings.

Exactly. I want the Taoiseach to be honest and competent. I don't really care if he's got charisma or not.

I don't really have a problem with Enda Kenny. Given how Cowen has turned out after everybody raving about him, I think he deserves a chance. I don't like Gilmore, much preferred Pat Rabbitte. Think Gilmore would just pander to the unions.

rugbyman

from reading scores of posts i come to the conlusion that those who "hate" Enda Kenny or regards him as weak etc, are barely disguised FF or SF types.
I think it is reasonable of me to have this belief from reading their various posts.( I the same way that one ,on reading mine would come to conclusions)

In each case I would imagine them to be still civil war types.


In the case of those who "hate" Eamonn Gilmore, it is a different kettle of fish, they would be right wingers who would not like to see any lefties in a future Coalition.

eamonn Gilmore has to make certain types of noises to attract or keep his people. All of this will go when the time comes to enter a coalition.

Regards Rugbyman

Shea O'Meara

It's a funny thing. As mentioned on others threads, why keep sticking with what doesn't work because we believe the untried option MAY be as bad?
In a broad sense, would we be any worse off with Kenny or Gilmore? I for one would be willing to give either party a shot at this point, purely based on Fianna Fails track record.

jackcee

rugbyman wrote: »

eamonn Gilmore has to make certain types of noises to attract or keep his people. All of this will go when the time comes to enter a coalition.

Regards Rugbyman

Good God, Man. Do you not read back over what you post?????
"Eamonn has to make certain types of noises to attract or keep his people".!!!!!!!!!!.

What kind of people are these?????
What kind of noises does he have to make??????
What kind of man is he????????

So, let me get right. Eamonn has to make "noises" - but "when the time comes to enter a Coalition", "all this will go".

So at the moment, we cannot believe anything that Eamonn says - it is only "certain types of noises".

So by definition, this means that the other crowd are right!!!!
Of course, we dont know who the other crowd are - since you specified "a" Coalition.

Of course this does explain the abject floustering of himself and Joan Burton over the past year - a year which should have been a wet dream for an Oppostion Party.

I take it you are not entering Eamonn for the Integrity Award this year!!!!.

rugbyman

hello Jackcee.

i would say Eamonn is as good as you get. there are some politicians who say exactly what they mean, but few.

politicians try to ride a few horses at once and very few will openly offend those who just might vote for them.

Eamonn Gilmore, accepting that the Govt needed to cut 4 bn, then sought a line to take that tried to indicate to trade union members that he was supporting them.

i referred to "a " coalition, as there could be the numbers to make a FF/Lab coalition, but chances of the labour party opting for that are slim.


you stated
"So by definition, this means that the other crowd are right!!!!"

one cannot assume this , both may be wrong, on any topic.

regards, rugbyman

Joey the lips

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

Eh thats wrong. Labour's stance on the banking crisis is for temporary nationalisation of the banks, and are against NAMA. Please inform yourself before spouting off.



Leo Varadkar would be the ruin of our country IMO *shudder*

How ya eamonn. Its not incorrect. Do you know how long it took you to come up with that policy. It was old news before you though of it.

As for the temp nationalisation of the banks. WILL NEVER HAPPEN. its a pipe dream. I am well informed. sorry to say. I love how labour is against the formation of a toxic bank but has no other althernative than the temp nationalisation of banks. That does not deal with the toxic assets. It just puts them all in the tax payers hands by temp nationalisation. Nama is not good but its working towards a profit. Nationalisation is socialism without the socialist ownership principles. As said its a utopia.

Its white smoke and labour know it.

As for leo. thats fair enough but no one else in fine gael is capable.

Its all just opinion

brianthebard

Joey the lips wrote: »

Having read the thread i think i can make it simple.

Eamonn Gilmore is incapable of making policy. He follows every other part. For example we still dont know fully his own party stance on nama or his solution.

This comes up again and again, and I've no idea why. Do people think that the opposition are supposed to tell the government what to do so that they can take the opposition policies? The one benefit of being in opposition is that you are not required to put forward your position until after the government has done so, allowing for critique and improvement of your own parties policies.

As for NAMA, I thought it was quite clear that Labour rejected it. Afaik both FG and Labour put forward their own alternatives-FG the Good bank idea, Labour nationalisation. I don't know what's complicated about this. I honestly believe that a lot of people don't recognise parties policies unless they're being discussed in a boards thread.

Joey the lips

brianthebard wrote: »

This comes up again and again, and I've no idea why. Do people think that the opposition are supposed to tell the government what to do so that they can take the opposition policies? The one benefit of being in opposition is that you are not required to put forward your position until after the government has done so, allowing for critique and improvement of your own parties policies.

As for NAMA, I thought it was quite clear that Labour rejected it. Afaik both FG and Labour put forward their own alternatives-FG the Good bank idea, Labour nationalisation. I don't know what's complicated about this. I honestly believe that a lot of people don't recognise parties policies unless they're being discussed in a boards thread.

Fair point. But martain mcguinness is not in govt down here and i tend to listen to what he says because he is blunt.

I liked Rauari Quinn as a leader and I liked the old fine gael justice minister(Cant think of his name now)

I just cannot stand the way Eamonn Gilmore seems never to give a straight answer. On anything.

btw. I read all there policies on there websites. I know I need to get out more.

brianthebard

Joey the lips wrote: »

Fair point. But martain mcguinness is not in govt down here and i tend to listen to what he says because he is blunt.

btw. I read all there policies on there websites. I know I need to get out more.

Fair enough that was a general statement and not directed at you personally. However your comparison of nationalisation to NAMA is incorrect, nationalisation would still be for the purpose of making a profit, but would cost considerably less than NAMA and would involve the Irish taxpayer actually having assets to use for itself, unlike NAMA which appears to be designed for the sole purpose of keeping bankers in overpaid jobs.

WoollyRedHat

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except we're not in 1940 and in need of a Winston Churchill type person. Enda Kenny is a good manager, I don't care if he isn't Obama, I'd prefer substance to style any day. Do we really want another Bertie. I want someone who has a vision for Ireland. Like people have said, the opposition deserve a chance, Fianna Fail need to go.

I think bottom line is some people will always be against Enda Kenny. If he were to become taoiseach tomorrow and get the country back on track, despite he not being obama-esque, would people still find him unfavourable. I think Bruton would be best as finance, not Taoiseach. That's my opinion anyway.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebigcheese22

brianthebard wrote: »

Fair enough that was a general statement and not directed at you personally. However your comparison of nationalisation to NAMA is incorrect, nationalisation would still be for the purpose of making a profit, but would cost considerably less than NAMA and would involve the Irish taxpayer actually having assets to use for itself, unlike NAMA which appears to be designed for the sole purpose of keeping bankers in overpaid jobs.

Too true. Plus temp nationalisation has the added benefit of clearly determining the value of all the toxic loans, something which NAMA will not do. I've said it before and I'll say it again, NAMA is a bastardised version of socialism - the tax-payer takes all the risk, and none of the benefit.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I do know where you're coming from, but surely the only litmus test for the Opposition is to be put into Government? Our parliment is so weak, and the executive so strong in this country, that the Opposition are powerless.

johnnyskeleton

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hello, as you may or may not have noticed, my interest in Politics is largely reliant on some attachment it has to Economics. So, while I know who the main faces of each party are, I really know very little about them personally. People seem to be making many broad comments about Enda Kenny (and Gilmore), saying that he is unfit as a leader, without ever dealing in specifics. Perhaps the reasons why are common knowledge, in which case I much plead ignorance. So, could people tell me why it is the leader of both FG and Labour are so very unfit to lead?

This is a genuine question, so I guess on behalf of the mods may I say I'm not looking for an exercise such as "XXX is a XXX and a XXing XX". I'm looking for constructive criticism that relates to their ability to lead.

Good leadership of a political party and good leadership of the country are two very different things. Enda is a great leader of FG according to those in FG, because he unites all the diverse strands within the party and makes it a coherent party going to the electorate. However, good leadership often means making decisions which are policially damaging but good for the country.

During the debate over the bank guarantee, which has now proved to be the single biggest mistake of the FF government, FG spent hours blaming FF for the mess that was made before voting for the bank guarantee without significant amendment as regards bondholders or even past debts. If they had done their job properly i.e. Enda Kenny calling the party to vote against the bank guarantee, they might have saved the country millions. However, at that time he judged it better to simply make scathing attacks on the government and vote for the provision because this was the politically astute thing to do. However, it was very bad governance.

During the Lisbon campaign, no real leadership was shown by either of them as to the specifics of why we should vote yes other than the "yes for jobs" slogans etc. This shows that they treat the people like children, not like citizens.

During the NAMA vote Enda didn't show up because he was doing "constituency work" i.e .trying to get re-elected.

Both Kenny and Gilmore have not provided any coherent policy or stragey as regards how they would run the country, in particular as to how they would address the ballooning deficit without cutting jobs or social welfare. Again, no leadership because they simply avoid the issues.

Finally, I suspect that FG/Labour have decided not to try to have an election in the short term so that FF can be given enough rope to hang themselves. Their parties have too often had to pick up the pieces after FF only to lose popularity for doing so. This is pure policial self-preservation and reflects badly on them as leaders.

That said, they are better than Cowen who has shown, in addition to all the above characteristics, that he does not understand what is going on nor did he understand it while he was minister for finance.

In short, the country is devoid of any real leadership, but that is probably because people don't vote for leaders, they vote for whichever politician will promise them the most local favours. If we want leadership we have to vote for it, and that means filling FG with more Brutons & Lees, FF with more BLs and Labour with, well hopefully they'll find someone.

Taxipete29

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Good leadership of a political party and good leadership of the country are two very different things. Enda is a great leader of FG according to those in FG, because he unites all the diverse strands within the party and makes it a coherent party going to the electorate. However, good leadership often means making decisions which are policially damaging but good for the country.

During the debate over the bank guarantee, which has now proved to be the single biggest mistake of the FF government, FG spent hours blaming FF for the mess that was made before voting for the bank guarantee without significant amendment as regards bondholders or even past debts. If they had done their job properly i.e. Enda Kenny calling the party to vote against the bank guarantee, they might have saved the country millions. However, at that time he judged it better to simply make scathing attacks on the government and vote for the provision because this was the politically astute thing to do. However, it was very bad governance.

During the Lisbon campaign, no real leadership was shown by either of them as to the specifics of why we should vote yes other than the "yes for jobs" slogans etc. This shows that they treat the people like children, not like citizens.

During the NAMA vote Enda didn't show up because he was doing "constituency work" i.e .trying to get re-elected.

Both Kenny and Gilmore have not provided any coherent policy or stragey as regards how they would run the country, in particular as to how they would address the ballooning deficit without cutting jobs or social welfare. Again, no leadership because they simply avoid the issues.

Finally, I suspect that FG/Labour have decided not to try to have an election in the short term so that FF can be given enough rope to hang themselves. Their parties have too often had to pick up the pieces after FF only to lose popularity for doing so. This is pure policial self-preservation and reflects badly on them as leaders.

That said, they are better than Cowen who has shown, in addition to all the above characteristics, that he does not understand what is going on nor did he understand it while he was minister for finance.

In short, the country is devoid of any real leadership, but that is probably because people don't vote for leaders, they vote for whichever politician will promise them the most local favours. If we want leadership we have to vote for it, and that means filling FG with more Brutons & Lees, FF with more BLs and Labour with, well hopefully they'll find someone.

Can you please explain to me how the opposition are supposed to force an election when the Govt are unwilling to step down??

FF are going nowhere, the Greens have no desire to face the electorate any time soon. What can FG and Labour do???

What do people on this forum think that an opposition party should be doing??

johnnyskeleton

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Can you please explain to me how the opposition are supposed to force an election when the Govt are unwilling to step down??

By advocacy; creating enough dissent in the FF backbench so that they lose a vote and a subsequent vote of no confidence. That is the traditional way in which a parliamentary government is brought down.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

FF are going nowhere, the Greens have no desire to face the electorate any time soon. What can FG and Labour do???

Be leaders. Have a manifesto. Provide an alternative form of government to FF. Encourage independents, FF backbenchers and the Greens to vote against the government. Pretty much anything other than sit there and claim their large paycheques.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

What do people on this forum think that an opposition party should be doing??

I can't speak for everyone else, but surely they should be opposing the government whenever the government does wrong, insead of just trying to get re-elected?

walrusgumble

Joey the lips wrote: »

Having read the thread i think i can make it simple.

.Although I am shuddering to say it. They need someone like leo vadakker to lead them. Someone that says i can run a country. Not I I I I I .

its a government (constitution provides that government is based on collective responsibiliy) we want not a dictator. we had haughey. we need more than just a leader. i normally despise fine gael (and fianna fail) and not fond of kenny no matter how nice or trust worthy he may be but if kenny can run, as wel as he does his party, an efficent, cohesive, united and progressive government, he will do well and and may do a job, in spite of himeself

Taxipete29

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

By advocacy; creating enough dissent in the FF backbench so that they lose a vote and a subsequent vote of no confidence. That is the traditional way in which a parliamentary government is brought down.



Be leaders. Have a manifesto. Provide an alternative form of government to FF. Encourage independents, FF backbenchers and the Greens to vote against the government. Pretty much anything other than sit there and claim their large paycheques.



I can't speak for everyone else, but surely they should be opposing the government whenever the government does wrong, insead of just trying to get re-elected?

The oppostion have made many calls for both the Greens and FF backbenchers to vote against the Govt. It hasnt worked. There is too much fear in the Govt ranks they will not be re-elected.

The opposition have opposed almost every Govt intiative with the exception of FG and the bank guarantee. I really dont understand what people expect the opposition to do. The whip system insures the Govt always have a majority and even with some descenters in the ranks they are still holding firm.

Both Labour and FG have policies which are freely available on their websites. Bills are regularly introduced by both and are defeated just as quick because they dont have the numbers. Research your topic before you make sweeping statements about them not doing anything.

johnnyskeleton

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The oppostion have made many calls for both the Greens and FF backbenchers to vote against the Govt. It hasnt worked. There is too much fear in the Govt ranks they will not be re-elected.

Exactly - all they do is call for the Greens and FF backbenchers to vote against the government, usually with a solid dose of partisan rhetoric thrown in. There is little in the way of presenting a viable alternative to the government.

For example, RB's speech on the budget was an attack on the small cuts taken by government ministers and talk about FF squandering the boom with the main emphasis being on the lack of a job creation strategy. No talk of axeing the quangoes, reducing the massive public sector, cutting MW and SW to regain competitiveness and allowing the banks to fail. If you want to create jobs, you have to make this kind of tough decision. But there is no such "vision of how Ireland could be different" under FG.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The opposition have opposed almost every Govt intiative with the exception of FG and the bank guarantee. I really dont understand what people expect the opposition to do. The whip system insures the Govt always have a majority and even with some descenters in the ranks they are still holding firm.

Notionally they opposed them. FG's opposition of NAMA was incredibly weak and EK didn't even show up for the vote. The government parties have been whittled down to the narrowest of majorities, so if they got the greens, a few rebel backbenchers or independents to break away from the government they could collapse the government. However, none of the above are going to ditch FF without a good reason to do so. FG aren't giving them such reasons. Why aren't they trying to poach the more right of centre backbenchers over to FG? Why instead of alienating the Green Party can they not try to encourage the Greens to join them in a three party coalition?

If they really, really wanted to collapse the government they could obtain a petition from several hundred thousand voters and petition the president to dissolve the dail. Even if she said no, it would put massive pressure on FF.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Both Labour and FG have policies which are freely available on their websites. Bills are regularly introduced by both and are defeated just as quick because they dont have the numbers. Research your topic before you make sweeping statements about them not doing anything.

You've said nothing that I don't already know; the difference between us is that you seem happy to accept that FG/Labour are doing everything possible to try to lead the country away from FF, whereas I see them as taking the back seat, notionally opposing the government but not really trying to bring down the government. The reason why they do this is that they want FF to hang themselves so that come 2012 FF will be hugely unpopular but the economy will be in a position for FG to take advantage of the upswing they think will happen around then. The alternative is that they have an election now, spend the next 5 years fixing the economy (becoming hugely unpopular in the process) and lose the following election to FF who will claim that the good times are back again.

The topic of this thread is why people dislike EK & EG (and to a lesser extent the rest of FG/Lab), not the specific policies of either party. I think your comment about doing research is a poor attempt to undermine my argument without actually saying anything specific. However, if you want to discuss the specifics of either party's policies or private members bills you're welcome to start a new thread on same.

Mario007

From reading this thread so far i can deduce that people usually dislike Kenny because of his lack of charisma. I don't necessary buy that to be honest. When listening to Kenny speak you might think his monotone voice is not a great sign of leadership but once you listen to the man you must notice that he is very bright and intelligent. In fact with FG under Kenny it is more about the team that he put together than about Kenny himself. Further his leadership qualities cannot be questioned as he has never had a bad election after being elected to lead FG and achieves every target that he sets out before the elections.

Taxipete29

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Exactly - all they do is call for the Greens and FF backbenchers to vote against the government, usually with a solid dose of partisan rhetoric thrown in. There is little in the way of presenting a viable alternative to the government.

For example, RB's speech on the budget was an attack on the small cuts taken by government ministers and talk about FF squandering the boom with the main emphasis being on the lack of a job creation strategy. No talk of axeing the quangoes, reducing the massive public sector, cutting MW and SW to regain competitiveness and allowing the banks to fail. If you want to create jobs, you have to make this kind of tough decision. But there is no such "vision of how Ireland could be different" under FG.



Notionally they opposed them. FG's opposition of NAMA was incredibly weak and EK didn't even show up for the vote. The government parties have been whittled down to the narrowest of majorities, so if they got the greens, a few rebel backbenchers or independents to break away from the government they could collapse the government. However, none of the above are going to ditch FF without a good reason to do so. FG aren't giving them such reasons. Why aren't they trying to poach the more right of centre backbenchers over to FG? Why instead of alienating the Green Party can they not try to encourage the Greens to join them in a three party coalition?

If they really, really wanted to collapse the government they could obtain a petition from several hundred thousand voters and petition the president to dissolve the dail. Even if she said no, it would put massive pressure on FF.



You've said nothing that I don't already know; the difference between us is that you seem happy to accept that FG/Labour are doing everything possible to try to lead the country away from FF, whereas I see them as taking the back seat, notionally opposing the government but not really trying to bring down the government. The reason why they do this is that they want FF to hang themselves so that come 2012 FF will be hugely unpopular but the economy will be in a position for FG to take advantage of the upswing they think will happen around then. The alternative is that they have an election now, spend the next 5 years fixing the economy (becoming hugely unpopular in the process) and lose the following election to FF who will claim that the good times are back again.

The topic of this thread is why people dislike EK & EG (and to a lesser extent the rest of FG/Lab), not the specific policies of either party. I think your comment about doing research is a poor attempt to undermine my argument without actually saying anything specific. However, if you want to discuss the specifics of either party's policies or private members bills you're welcome to start a new thread on same.

I think you are failing to grasp the realities of being in opposition. FG and Labour would be elected into Govt if the election were held tomorrow. The Green party members decide if they pull out of Govt, not the TDs. They have spoken already.

Well to get it back on topic then, people actually do like Eamonn Gilmore. He is the most popular party leader in the country.

With Enda Kenny, it does come down to the fact that he is not charismatic enough. Brian Cowen wasnt elected Taoiseach by the people and I wonder if FF would of done so well had he been at the helm last time around as opposed to Bertie.

Mario007

Taxipete29 wrote: »

With Enda Kenny, it does come down to the fact that he is not charismatic enough.Brian Cowen wasnt elected Taoiseach by the people and I wonder if FF would of done so well had he been at the helm last time around as opposed to Bertie.

oh come enough of that populist talk...the people dont elect the taoiseach...the people elect their deputies who elect the taoiseach...so lets not go down that road

Taxipete29

Mario007 wrote: »

oh come enough of that populist talk...the people dont elect the taoiseach...the people elect their deputies who elect the taoiseach...so lets not go down that road

How the hell is that populist talk?? Its true. When people voted in FF 3 times in 12 years, it was with Bertie at the helm. The electorate know what their expected outcome is when they cast their vote.

If I vote Labour its in the hope they will be in Govt with Eamonn Gilmore as Taoiseach( we can all dream) or in Govt with FG. Why do you think the Greens were decimated at the locals?? People didnt vote for them to go into Govt with FF.

The fact that TDs have the power to vote for whoever they want for Taoiseach means nothing. Has anyone ever broken party ranks during a vote for Taoiseach????

johnnyskeleton

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I think you are failing to grasp the realities of being in opposition.

I think the same of you; you seem to accept what FG/Labour do without question. But let's not trade insults eh?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

FG and Labour would be elected into Govt if the election were held tomorrow.

Probably, but that is not their plan.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The Green party members decide if they pull out of Govt, not the TDs. They have spoken already.

Did I say otherwise?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

With Enda Kenny, it does come down to the fact that he is not charismatic enough.

I don't think that's the case. I think he has failed on a number of occasions to stand up to the government. I think he also fails to present a vision of a viable alternative to FF. I don't think that these failings can be put down to something as intangible as him simply lacking charisma. Put another way, the difference between Kenny and Bruton is not due to charisma (if anything, Kenny is probably more charismatic) but is due to the substance of what they say. That's why I think Bruton would be a better leader for FG.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Brian Cowen wasnt elected Taoiseach by the people

No, but as previously said he was voted in as TD and became Taoiseach as leader of FF. I disagree with your views on the electorate voting for the leader instead of the party, as it is my view that most Irish voters will decide who to vote for on local rather than national politics when it comes to general elections. For example, Jacky Healy-Rae TD voters are probably not overly concerned about what national policies he advocates and are more concerned about what he will do for their constituence.

The fact that you vote for your local Labour candidate because you want Eamon Gilmore to be Taoiseach (I assume EG is not your local candidate) does not mean that everyone else votes for the same reason.

LookBehindYou

I will not vote for any personality, or bull****ters.

I will vote for someone who will take unpopular decisions to get the country back on track again.

If they are serious, they will start with cutting their own pay and lavish expences, getting rid of any of the (jobs for the boys types)

Mario007

Taxipete29 wrote: »

How the hell is that populist talk?? Its true. When people voted in FF 3 times in 12 years, it was with Bertie at the helm. The electorate know what their expected outcome is when they cast their vote.

If I vote Labour its in the hope they will be in Govt with Eamonn Gilmore as Taoiseach( we can all dream) or in Govt with FG. Why do you think the Greens were decimated at the locals?? People didnt vote for them to go into Govt with FF.

The fact that TDs have the power to vote for whoever they want for Taoiseach means nothing. Has anyone ever broken party ranks during a vote for Taoiseach????

no the TDs didnt break their ranks but in Ireland we have a PR system, ie you vote for the person to represent you. you don't directly vote for that and that person to be the Taoiseach.
the classical example is bruton back in the 90s when FF lost the majority support and suddenly you cannot argue that people voted Reynolds in as the Taoiseach since it was the Dail that did so and he lost the Dail's support thus he was replaced by bruton

Taxipete29

Mario007 wrote: »

no the TDs didnt break their ranks but in Ireland we have a PR system, ie you vote for the person to represent you. you don't directly vote for that and that person to be the Taoiseach.
the classical example is bruton back in the 90s when FF lost the majority support and suddenly you cannot argue that people voted Reynolds in as the Taoiseach since it was the Dail that did so and he lost the Dail's support thus he was replaced by bruton

Look if you dont see that when people vote they have a very good expectation of who will be Taoiseach there really is no point in continuing this discussion.

If people arent voting with a Taoiseach in mind why would it matter what people think of party leaders??

Spiritoftheseventies

Is this another attempt to rehabilate the ffers suggesting they are more likeable than Kenny and Gilmore. Forget it!

mickoneill30

Personally I don't hate any person in Irish politics. I do dislike Kenny & Gilmore though. There are plenty of opportunities to show leadership but these two just seem to be attempting to point score a lot of the time. It's like a knee jerk reaction to the government. The government says / does one thing and the opposition opposes even if the government is doing something good.
This country is in a lot of ****e (a lot of it because of Fianna Fail) and we need some hard work and major changes. When the opposition trot out "it attacks the vulnerable" nearly as a party line it just doesn't inspire me to vote for them.

If we had a political party that was capable of making hard unpopular decisions for the good of the country rather than the good of the party I think a lot of people would vote for them. If we had a party like that over the last few years we wouldn't be in the crap right now, although unfortunatly a lot of the electorate seem to be dazzled by the political promises and point scoring on both sides.