Bertie won three elections

unit 1

Why do the media keep harping about Berties achievement of "winning three elections"
Surely the truth is different. Yes he may have become taoiseach three times, but in the last round he only swapped horses , ie greens for pds.
If he had won three outright majorities then yes you could say this, but in the context of what actually happened any assertions of winning three elections should be exposed for what they are FALSE.
Why do the media feel they have to perpetuate this myth?

smcgiff

Because his party won the most seats and was able to form the government?!?

bcirl03

unit 1 wrote: »

Why do the media keep harping about Berties achievement of "winning three elections"

Why do the media feel they have to perpetuate this myth?

Because the media ie Sindo is FF spin.....if they say something enough times they hope people will forget about what the real truth is.

the groutch

two of the three were bought with giveaway budgets that have crippled the country for decades to come

johngalway

Won/bought.... It's a fine line.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Klingon Hamlet

Because Bertie is lining up to become our next Pres, and the Indo wants to be on the winning side.

the groutch

if he becomes President, everyone will leave the country and there'll be nobody left to preside over

Einhard

bcirl03 wrote: »

Because the media ie Sindo is FF spin.....if they say something enough times they hope people will forget about what the real truth is.

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. Really, if you're going to be all hip and cynical, try and be a little clever while you're at it. The reason Ahern is reported as having won 3 elections, is because he won three elections. Same as Bruton and Reynolds and Haughey and Fitzgerald won elections before him. It's nothing at all to do with media bias. And, you may not like Anthony O'Reilly's papers, but he doesn't control the whole bloody media market in Ireland!!

Sorry for the rant, but that kind of nonsensical, lazy comment gets my goat up...

unit 1

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. Really, if you're going to be all hip and cynical, try and be a little clever while you're at it. The reason Ahern is reported as having won 3 elections, is because he won three elections. Same as Bruton and Reynolds and Haughey and Fitzgerald won elections before him. It's nothing at all to do with media bias. And, you may not like Anthony O'Reilly's papers, but he doesn't control the whole bloody media market in Ireland!!

Sorry for the rant, but that kind of nonsensical, lazy comment gets my goat up...

But he did'nt "win the elections" untill other people, PDs and Greens agreed to vote for him as taoiseach, so in fact Mary Harney and John Gormley/Trevor Sargeant "won" the last two elections, because the governments only came into existence with their approval.

evercloserunion

unit 1 wrote: »

But he did'nt "win the elections" untill other people, PDs and Greens agreed to vote for him as taoiseach, so in fact Mary Harney and John Gormley/Trevor Sargeant "won" the last two elections, because the governments only came into existence with their approval.

So, what do you think it means to "win" an election?

unit 1

evercloserunion wrote: »

So, what do you think it means to "win" an election?

I think you have won an election when the party that you are the leader of has enough seats in the dail to make you taoiseach ie an overall majority, something bertie never had, although in reading some of the papers you would get the impression that he single handedly won the elections himself.

Wide Road

Einhard wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. Really, if you're going to be all hip and cynical, try and be a little clever while you're at it. The reason Ahern is reported as having won 3 elections, is because he won three elections. Same as Bruton and Reynolds and Haughey and Fitzgerald won elections before him. It's nothing at all to do with media bias. And, you may not like Anthony O'Reilly's papers, but he doesn't control the whole bloody media market in Ireland!!

Sorry for the rant, but that kind of nonsensical, lazy comment gets my goat up...

Bruton won no election, he Jumped into bed with Labour & DL remember. John wouldn't speak to DL before that 92 election.

Liam Byrne

Wide Road wrote: »

Bruton won no election, he Jumped into bed with Labour & DL remember. John wouldn't speak to DL before that 92 election.

If you read the post, you'll see that that's precisely what the poster was getting at. That's why they used the phrase "Same as...." at the start of the sentence :rolleyes:

If Ahern is viewed as "winning" them, then Bruton won them.
If Ahern isn't, then Bruton isn't.

It can't be both ways simultaneously (well, it can if you use the FF dictionary of double-speak, but not here in the real world).

Wide Road

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you read the post, you'll see that that's precisely what the poster was getting at. That's why they used the phrase "Same as...." at the start of the sentence :rolleyes:

If Ahern is viewed as "winning" them, then Bruton won them.
If Ahern isn't, then Bruton isn't.

It can't be both ways simultaneously (well, it can if you use the FF dictionary of double-speak, but not here in the real world).

Can you explain so, when FG won an election?
According to some posters, they never won one, yet others believe they won in 94 (I think) 2 years after FF & Labour fell out.

Liam Byrne

Wide Road wrote: »

Can you explain so, when FG won an election?
According to some posters, they never won one, yet others believe they won in 94 (I think) 2 years after FF & Labour fell out.

As I said, it depends on your viewpoint.

If the thread title is correct, then your statement that Bruton never won one is incorrect, meaning that Bruton did win one.

If the thread title is debunked because the "winning" is based on an overall majority, then we'd just have to check the history books to see when either FF or FG last "won" one.

It's simple, really, so I can't understand why you required an explanation.

But there it is.

And as I've said before, I don't mind if someone has a different interpretation to me as long as they are consistent.

Personally, since I don't believe in party politics (couldn't care less who's in power as long as they're fair, ethical, accountable, competent and work for the good of the country as a whole, instead of themselves or vested interests) I don't believe the word "won" is appropriate.