Eamon Gilmore on The Late Late Show tonight...

DrumSteve

How do you reckon he'll do?

I really hope he gives some concrete proposals on how he'll implenent what policies they have and also at the same time tell us what those policies are... at the moment I'm yet to be convinced of his credibility and see him as a bit of a Bertie clone.

Wonder will tubridy give him an easy roide like he did for Brian Cowen...

humanji

Eamon on Gilmore? :eek:

I kind of get the feeling that he won't be given a chance to speak, with Tubridy involved. It'll be interesting to see if he's given a chance, or just badgered.

changes

I hope he brings some figures with him. It will do him and labour no favours if he prevaricates for much longer on the main issues.

DrumSteve

damn typo...

can a mod fix the thread title for me...:p

imme

He'll talk alot around the issues I think, his mouth will go dry as it usually does.
He'll wear a suit, sit in the seat in a businesslike manner (even like a leader) unlike Enda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-iqGmIFdC0


He'll get a huge round of applause, won't say anything revolutionary or even too exciting. He'll have the same support as he had before.

dicknorris

Glad to hear he is on tonight was looking for an excuse to go out all day, he's top in the polls by tell the people nothing why should he start now

dlofnep

I'm interested to see if he can spell out his proposals. I think Gilmore is a likable character, but I am unimpressed by Labour's inability to produce a solid paper on their measures.

PeterIanStaker

It'll be interesting to see (not that I'll watch it) the response Tubridy will give him. He'll more than likely bring up Mrs Gilmores' money matters.

thebman

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm interested to see if he can spell out his proposals. I think Gilmore is a likable character, but I am unimpressed by Labour's inability to produce a solid paper on their measures.

I think that is the whole purpose of keeping himself in public eye. Don't reveal any info and when asked say there is loads of details on the website and give a fuzzy example.

So in the end he will appear to have said, we have all our policies and everything on our website and here is some right now but will have actually given us little or no new information.

He will then continue to have his high support in the polls while making the people that say give us more details seem like they are whining about nothing as he just told them his policies and they will just never be happy (He'll probably fall short of the Bertie line of wondering about whether they'll kill themselves).

But basically he is Bertie in a different party IMO.

Poly

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see (not that I'll watch it) the response Tubridy will give him. He'll more than likely bring up Mrs Gilmores' money matters.

If he does, I do hope Gilmore questions his FF pedigree. I expect Tubs will deny,deny,deny.
It's about time his blatant FF bias is open challanged.

hotmail.com

Why oh why is there political interviews on the Late Late in the first place...

Meeja Ireland

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see (not that I'll watch it) the response Tubridy will give him. He'll more than likely bring up Mrs Gilmores' money matters.

That non-story should be a matter of shame for the Independent, and for Kim Bielenberg, who wrote the dishonest (and incompetent) two-page smear about it. I think you're right that Tubridy will bring it up, and I hope Gilmore has a bit of fire in his balls when he deals with it.

Mind you, I fear that Tubridy will raise it in that wearying anodyne way he tackles everything. "Now I know there's nothing in this but [conspiratorial eye-roll] one or two of the more, eh, sensational papers would have us believe that your good lady wife was involved in some kind of, I suppose you'd call it a 'land deal', and I suppose we have to address that, even if only to put it in its place. What do you even say to that kind of attack?" [whacks desk, assembles expression of pained sympathy]

(Wow, I've just realised how much I've come to despise him.)

Superlativeman

Ryan: "So what are you going to change?"
Eamonn:"We're going to change FF's policies."
Ryan: "With what?"
Eamonn:"Tax the celtic tiger heads."
Ryan:"But you stated in the herald that you're for carbon taxes and the water meters, did you not?"
Eamonn: "Yes, but I'm a friend of the proletarians. (ASIDE) Jesus, do they not read the paper and see labor constituents all have above average salaries?

changes

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see (not that I'll watch it) the response Tubridy will give him. He'll more than likely bring up Mrs Gilmores' money matters.

I really hope he doesn't waste a second on this non story. Who cares if they made a few euros on a land or property deal. He certainly isn't the only one.

Shea O'Meara

Tubbs is, as we use to say an FFail 'crawley crawley bum lick'.
He certainly won't give Gilmore the 'Our Willie' or 'Mammy Mary' approach. He'll attempt to trip him up and take cheap shots, but thankfully he has little or no interview skills.

dsmythy

Probably make a load of promises he won't keep because he can't. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. I shall tune in.

ArtSmart

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why oh why is there political interviews on the Late Late in the first place...

cos it has the biggest audience.

it acts as a wide platform but also, in theory, informs the non-political (if such a creature exists any more) of the candidates.

as for policy, i wonder.
his 'say nuthin' approach is probably the most effective, if the most frustrating. .

CoalBucket

Is he on before or after twink

Spudmonkey

Has he said one thing that he would cut? Sounds like a lot of labour waffle to me.

Tora Bora

Watching Gilmore on Tubridy. We are going from the frying pan into the waffle pan.

changes

His idea for a single entity that deals with means testing and then provides this info to the various departments is a great idea.

I'm a former FF voter and my vote is now going to Labour.

Spudmonkey

changes wrote: »

His idea for a single entity that deals with means testing and then provides this info to the various departments is a great idea.

In much the same way as having the HSE as a single entity?

dvpower

hotmail.com wrote: »

Why oh why is there political interviews on the Late Late in the first place...

The reason the Late Late has lasted so long is that it has managed to be a mix of politics, social issues, celebrity, sport, music, chat ... all in one show.

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

He'll more than likely bring up Mrs Gilmores' money matters.

That was handled pretty well. It had to be brought up, and it was. Simple question. simple answer. Non issue. Next question.

Oliver1985

Hes not making any cuts

dvpower

changes wrote: »

His idea for a single entity that deals with means testing and then provides this info to the various departments is a great idea.

I missed that bit. It was, I think, originally a Conservative idea from across the water.
Its a good idea but not as simple as it appears. Even today, its difficult for the Revenue to get access to the Social Welfare files and vice versa.

changes

Spudmonkey that is a poor comparison. The Health Service deals with a massive and varied workload with staff ranging from nurses to physiotherapists to doctors etc.

The means testing could be done by CWO's alone for all other departments. They are moving to the department of social welfare soon according the irish times anyway.

It makes perfect sense.

ArtSmart

however, although Tubs did interrupt he was actually quite fair and measured in his questions

Gilmore was initially nervous (and through-out a little) but it worked out quite well for him

he (Gilmore) came across quite human - the kind of guy you could trust, maybe (maybe even go for a pint with.)

and that my dear friends, was the objective - (luckily it's also true.)

Gilmore also answered Tubs direct Q's directly - no, or yes, which is rare for a politician and goes down well

remember the target audience demographic for the LLS hovers around the 48-55 age mark.

what was interesting also, is that gilmore allowed tubs to become angry, then countered by becoming very relaxed.

all in all, a good performance

as for his vagueness - gilmore knows if he spells too much out, he'll be savaged by the Indo, so he's biding his time. (as it is, the Indo will pick up on the croke park thing.)

(posted in another thread, but relevant here also)

wylo

Not that it was necessary, but id like if Tubs "reminded" Gilmore that with all his moaning about land , property and people making big money from the boom its ironic his wife did too.

changes

ArtSmart wrote: »

as for his vagueness - gilmore knows if he spells too much out, he'll be savaged by the Indo, so he's biding his time. (as it is, the Indo will pick up on the croke park thing.)

This is true and the indo will chuck mud, smear, spin and even lie in the process of trying to bring him down. I think most people read the indo for a bit of eye rolling and sensationalism in an entertaining sort of way. Most will know spin and rubbish when they see it.

I think the man offers a bit of hope and i wish him well.

gleep

ArtSmart wrote: »

however, although Tubs did interrupt he was actually quite fair and measured in his questions

Gilmore was initially nervous (and through-out a little) but it worked out quite well for him

he (Gilmore) came across quite human - the kind of guy you could trust, maybe (maybe even go for a pint with.)

and that my dear friends, was the objective - (luckily it's also true.)

Gilmore also answered Tubs direct Q's directly - no, or yes, which is rear for a politician and goes down well

remember the target audience demographic for the LLS hovers around the 48-55 age mark.

what was interesting also, is that gilmore allowed tubs to become angry, then countered by becoming very relaxed.

all in all, a good performance

as for his vagueness - gilmore knows if he spells too much out, he'll be savaged by the Indo, so he's biding his time. (as it is, the Indo will pick up on the croke park thing.)

(posted in another thread, but relevant here also)

Giggidy:cool:

ArtSmart

wylo wrote: »

Not that it was necessary, but id like if Tubs "reminded" Gilmore that with all his moaning about land , property and people making big money from the boom its ironic his wife did too.

weren't you watching? Tubs did ask and the answer was clear and conclusive.

of course i'm sure the O'Reilly Rag will find another 'hot story'.

Cavehill Red

Spudmonkey wrote: »

In much the same way as having the HSE as a single entity?

The HSE is a great idea, better than having 8 health boards for a tiny country.

Not sacking 7 out of every 8 administrators was a very bad idea.

Allowing morons to spunk half a billion on a payroll system that doesn't work was a very, very bad idea.

Having a health minister hell-bent on privatising the entire health service was the worst idea of all.

changes

He wants to reduce the PS by 20,000.

wylo

ArtSmart wrote: »

weren't you watching? Tubs did ask and the answer was clear and conclusive.

of course i'm sure the O'Reilly Rag will find another 'hot story'.

dont get me wrong, he answered what actually happened very clearly, but no ones disputing that, going back to what I said, itd be nice if tubs had pointed out the irony of it. As i said though it wasnt necessary.
Either way I support Gilmore, and I agree with what you said earlier , he is one of the only politicians that actually answers questions with a yes and no.

Inquitus

changes wrote: »

He wants to reduce the PS by 20,000.

Aye by paying them billions in redundancy and early retirement.

wylo

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye by paying them billions in redundancy and early retirement.

still less than paying them a wage.

alang184

I'm wondering where that came from.

Why would they have asked him to appear on that show, Labour leader in particular, at this date in particular? What I mean is, it didn't just happen; I'm sure there was some thought put behind it.

Shame Tubbs didn't ask him about closing down the quangos. That would be too ironic.

Spudmonkey

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The HSE is a great idea, better than having 8 health boards for a tiny country.

Not sacking 7 out of every 8 administrators was a very bad idea.

Allowing morons to spunk half a billion on a payroll system that doesn't work was a very, very bad idea.

Having a health minister hell-bent on privatising the entire health service was the worst idea of all.

Ah so you mean the devil is in the detail?

@ changes. I fail to see why it's a bad example. As Cavehill Red said, the HSE was a great idea poorly implemented. As leader of a party with such close ties to PS unions, I would be extremely skeptical of his ability to implement an efficient scheme.

Much of his policies he outlined this evening were full of fuzzy and vague details like normal. Restructuring here, flexibility there, nothing concrete. I fail to see how you could make 6bn (he only wants to make 4.5bn) in cuts/savings with anything he suggested this evening. He merely continues to play the populist card and panders to the masses.

wylo

Very standard, all politicians go on to the late late. I guess your talking about the timing, thats why the late late is successful, they will generally get people of current interest at late notice on the show.

DWCommuter

Dear Christ, its really just about political power to these knobjockeys. None of them care about the country, just their own egos.

ArtSmart

wylo wrote: »

dont get me wrong, he answered what actually happened very clearly, but no ones disputing that, going back to what I said, itd be nice if tubs had pointed out the irony of it. As i said though it wasnt necessary.
Either way I support Gilmore, and I agree with what you said earlier , he is one of the only politicians that actually answers questions with a yes and no.

well it's only ironic if it was an act of speculation. which it weren't.

Cavehill Red

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Ah so you mean the devil is in the detail?

@ changes. I fail to see why it's a bad example. As Cavehill Red said, the HSE was a great idea poorly implemented. As leader of a party with such close ties to PS unions, I would be extremely skeptical of his ability to implement an efficient scheme.

Not so much in the detail but the implementation, agreed. I don't see any reason why Labour couldn't implement such a scheme. I recall FF seeking to merge the Revenue and Social Welfare databases to identify fraud. That was in 1993. They're still yet to do it.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Much of his policies he outlined this evening were full of fuzzy and vague details like normal. Restructuring here, flexibility there, nothing concrete. I fail to see how you could make 6bn (he only wants to make 4.5bn) in cuts/savings with anything he suggested this evening. He merely continues to play the populist card and panders to the masses.

The LLS is not the place for in-depth policy discussions. He's there to defend himself against the on-going O'Reilly smear campaign and address the Irish people directly.

He did a decent fist of that, I reckon.

ArtSmart

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Ah so you mean the devil is in the detail?

@ changes. I fail to see why it's a bad example. As Cavehill Red said, the HSE was a great idea poorly implemented. As leader of a party with such close ties to PS unions, I would be extremely skeptical of his ability to implement an efficient scheme.

Much of his policies he outlined this evening were full of fuzzy and vague details like normal. Restructuring here, flexibility there, nothing concrete. I fail to see how you could make 6bn (he only wants to make 4.5bn) in cuts/savings with anything he suggested this evening. He merely continues to play the populist card and panders to the masses.

Hey! I resent that. I'm one of them masses.

unless you mean the mindless masses?

you know, all the sheep like folk out there who cant think for themselves?

Spudmonkey

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The LLS is not the place for in-depth policy discussions. He's there to defend himself against the on-going O'Reilly smear campaign and address the Irish people directly.

He did a decent fist of that, I reckon.

Thats grand. But the point remains. You can't make 6bn in adjustments and have absolutely no cuts. He carefully avoided every question Ryan had regarding that. There is no need for in-depth policy discussions. Just a bit of honesty. You can't make adjustments of that scale without threading on a few peoples toes, but for some reason Eamon seems to think you can.

changes

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I fail to see how you could make 6bn (he only wants to make 4.5bn) in cuts/savings with anything he suggested this evening. He merely continues to play the populist card and panders to the masses.

He also said he wouldn't reverse the 6 billion budget cuts. And no harm really in letting FF clean up some of their mess before their turfed out.

alang184

For people who are being so sceptical about Gimmore & Labour, what's the alternative? FF deserve to dissolve over the coming years. Green's are too small, and sold us out with the bank guarantee. FG speak the good policies, but they are just as interested as FF are in the salaries and benefits of office.

The most bothering thing about FG is their reaction to the whole expenses issue a few months ago, when O'Donoghue was disposed of. I remember Varadkar tip-toe-ing around the issue, whereas if it were something that he and his party would not benefit from, they would use that opportunity to hit FF hard in the media. Disgusted me.

Labour may not be much better on that issue, but at least their core values would seem to increase the chance of addressing the exorbitant salaries and benefits of ministers and TDs.

NickDrake

FF lovers and Cowen lovers on here trying to say Gilmore was a disgrace.

Lads don't bother.

Your time is up!

People are not listening anymore.

Take your bank loving/builder loving/developer loving/bad economics/ and blatant igorance of export growth and lack of employment stimulas elsewhere.

People aren't listening anymore!!

Spudmonkey

ArtSmart wrote: »

Hey! I resent that. I'm one of them masses.

unless you mean the mindless masses?

you know, all the sheep like folk out there who cant think for themselves?

Sorry Art. It wasn't meant as an insult.

Eamon is simply partaking in the Bertie Politics of being everything to everyone. Who will cut me the least. I don't think this is possible.

alang184

Gilmore did mess up around the education cuts bit. He said there would be cuts, from what I remember, Trubridy pressed him, and he really didn't say what would be cut. Kind of blew that answer.

The thing about education cuts, it's either got to be less teachers, or bigger classrooms. I'm not sure what else can make a big difference.

Spudmonkey

changes wrote: »

He also said he wouldn't reverse the 6 billion budget cuts. And no harm really in letting FF clean up some of their mess before their turfed out.

Thats true. As they rightly should.

That shows the mentality of all politicians really. Were FF to make savage cuts to welfare and the OAPs which Labour are most definitely against, you would not see Labour roll back on them. It's not that Labour would not see it as unfair. They just don't want to be associated with it. But hey, whatever increases their chances of re-election.

Spudmonkey

NickDrake wrote: »

FF lovers and Cowen lovers on here trying to say Gilmore was a disgrace.

Lads don't bother.

Your time is up!

People are not listening anymore.

Take your bank loving/builder loving/developer loving/bad economics/ and blatant igorance of export growth and lack of employment stimulas elsewhere.

People aren't listening anymore!!

I presume this was aimed at me even though I haven't nailed any colours to the mast. :rolleyes: