Michael D Higgins

The Volt

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne&tv3_preview=&video=31153

One to one interview with Vincent Browne well worth a watch. Will miss him in the Dail. One of the greatest, most articulate left-wing thinkers ever in our country. I sincerely hope he makes it to Phoenix Park.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

_Whimsical_

Voltwad wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne&tv3_preview=&video=31153

One to one interview with Vincent Browne well worth a watch. Will miss him in the Dail. One of the greatest, most articulate left-wing thinkers ever in our country. I sincerely hope he makes it to Phoenix Park.

I have to say I agree. Over the years he's been a great politician both locally and nationally and he has had the moral courage to always stand up for what he's believed. Over the years he's been a voice on lots of international human rights issues when no other politician would've cared. He's one of the few quirky characters we had in political life whose heart was in the right place. He will certainly be a loss to public life.

nesf

I've a good deal of respect for the man. Disagree with him on how to do/achieve many things but that's part of politics.

Lapin

Voltwad wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne&tv3_preview=&video=31153

One to one interview with Vincent Browne well worth a watch. Will miss him in the Dail. One of the greatest, most articulate left-wing thinkers ever in our country. I sincerely hope he makes it to Phoenix Park.

While I fully agree with the OP, I fear the voice and opinions for which Higgins is best known would be somewhat shackled by the constraints of the Presidency.

The Office of President can prove to be a frustrating one for someone as passionately vocal as Michael D Higgins. (Something Mary Robinson discovered on a few occasions).

And while I would love to see him reach that office, I believe his talents would be better served on the International stage where he is a highly respected figure.

However, should he make it to "The Park" he may well be able to carve out a unique role that reflects his abilities. Something he may have a little more wriggle room to achieve given the likelihood of Labour being in Government.

ISAW

Voltwad wrote: »

http://www.tv3.ie/shows.php?request=tonightwithvincentbrowne&tv3_preview=&video=31153

One to one interview with Vincent Browne well worth a watch. Will miss him in the Dail. One of the greatest, most articulate left-wing thinkers ever in our country. I sincerely hope he makes it to Phoenix Park.

If his namesake Joe doesn't get elected and with Bertie not running all three socialists will have left the Dáil!

ArtSmart

ISAW wrote: »

If his namesake Joe doesn't get elected and with Bertie not running all three socialists will have left the Dáil!

he he. that a dig at, er, someone?

InchicoreDude

His exploits have been recorded in song - will forever be remembered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmi9L1s6wwI

The Volt

His last speech in Daíl Eireann.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129603772827140855.html

That which has failed must not be repaired
Speaking on Second Stage of Finance Bill 2011

wish to thank those who have sat in the Chair at different stages, for their courtesy and kindness to me over a very long period. I have been here in this Chamber for 25 years, with nine years in the Seanad and since I first stood for election 42 years ago. I am indebted not just for the courtesy of Members of this House, the staff and the ushers and others, but also on occasion, for their kindness as well. Gabhaim buíochas ó chroí leo agus chomh maith le mo chomhghleacaithe thar na blianta.

This evening I want to take advantage of the wide range of speeches that have preceded me, including those on Dáil reform. Nevertheless, I wish to concentrate on what I believe makes up some of the contextual background to what we are discussing today. I wish the next Government well. It is a Government I hope to look at from a distance. I have already said I am very grateful for the kindness and courtesy of my colleagues in this House over the years and I hope not to be saying a good bye to them. If I succeed in getting the Labour Party nomination for the presidency, I look forward to meeting them all in their constituencies in a less formal setting.

When I first stood for election in 1969 I was very conscious of something that is important to me. I was leaving an academic world in which I had spent a great deal of time and on which I had expended a great deal of anxiety in order to secure entry. People from backgrounds such as mine did not go to university, did not qualify in other universities and certainly did not teach in universities. I left that world to participate in public life which was part of the tradition of my family. I wish people from all walks of life took part in politics and in public life. It is very important to act in the public space with whatever, as Connolly would put it, are the gifts of hand or brain one has, and to deliver it for one's fellow citizens. I was conscious in 1969, however, of the great failure of a country that then called itself a Republic. I believe no real republic has been created in Ireland. The failure has been of three kinds. There has been a failure in making political power republican; a failure in making republican, any kind of administrative power and a failure with regard to communicative power. Without being technical about each of these, I think that those who wanted Ireland to be independent would have envisaged a country in which there would be far greater distribution of power, that it would not be confined solely to the exercise of parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy is incredibly important. For many years, people in Ireland struggled to have their own parliament and struggled to participate in it. But there is more to political power than voting once every four or five years; there is the exercise of power in every dimension of life. If a real republic had been founded, we should have been spending decades extending and deepening political power. To the credit of the Labour Party, that has been its intention and aspiration, however achieved, since it was founded in 1912. With regard to administrative power, it is quite appalling there was no real change from the time the Treasury dominated in the olden days in the hand-over to the Department of Finance.

As a political scientist I find it quite extraordinary that so much attention has focused on changing the electoral system and so little on the structure of Cabinet power. There is no constitutional basis for the hegemony of the Department of Finance; it was a practice that flowed seamlessly from the British Treasury and adopted without question. If one wanted to effect radical change, one would break the connection between the monopoly enjoyed by the Government of the day and Parliament. One would allow, for example, the establishment of a committee system with the right to initiate and change legislation. If one wanted to go further as in the Scandinavian model, it would be to allow committees to have limited budgetary powers, thus ensuring people who came into politics would have a career in politics separate from being on the Front Bench if in Opposition or being in Cabinet if in Government. These are real reforms but they are empty and missing from the discourse. I have the impression that even though the Labour Party has produced 140 proposals which I strongly support, including in particular its proposals on citizenship, I find, generally, there is an element of fright in what those elected are suggesting as if they are offering themselves for reform, as if that was the major problem. That is not the problem.

I will give my opinion on where I think this is going, having spent my lifetime, not just in elected politics but also in academic politics and the social sciences, another area of great failure. I say this as a founding member of the Irish Sociological Association and the Irish Political Science Association. One need only watch television and listen to radio to know what is happening internationally. A significant price is already being paid for the broken connection between the aspirations of the people of this planet and those who take decisions on their behalf. The distinguished political scientist, Jürgen Habermas, has suggested that people can be invited to be bound by rules and by decisions in which they have had a chance to consciously participate. In one part of the world after another, we have the assumption that rational parliaments will be able to solve global problems such as the food crisis, the environmental crisis or the energy crisis or whatever.

At the same time, very serious people are suggesting that parliament is what is irrational and that markets are rational when in fact all of the evidence shows that it is the flow of international market capital which is completely unaccountable, and is irrational. There is no evidence since the crash in the 1920s in the United States, that can show one jot of evidence, as both Professor Samuels senior and junior, have stated, that the markets are rational. There is strong evidence for the speculative consequences of markets.
On the other hand, people have put all their trust in parliaments and all over the world, parliament is losing. In the European Union, for instance, we are in the gravest danger of sinking back to a common market rather than a Europe beyond wars which might have been a Europe of all of the citizens. The citizen deficit in Europe is its most serious failure. That is why those who want to defend their banks, be they French Presidents or German Chancellors, are defending their francs rather than the possibilities of Europe. they have put us in such danger as regards the European project.

There was a great opportunity missed to build a real inclusive republic in Ireland which would have reformed the relationship of Cabinet to the Dáil structures, that would have had a democratic, local government, that would have allowed opportunities for participation. There has been a political failure to establish a republic. There has been an administrative failure whereby administrative structures are hierarchical and patriarchal. I listen to those speaking about the clash between being a legislator and being a representative and the consequences of clientilism about which I wrote in the 1970s. This is because of an authoritarian administrative system that never saw the citizen in the French republican sense of being an equal. It was because the relationship of the citizen with the State system was devalued.

There is a communicative power where there is no connection between the vulnerability, the struggle and the agony of ordinary people at this time and the description of what is news, of what is happening in the world which they inhabit. They do not have equal access to the story, rather it is for those who work in the sector. I was Minister with responsibility for broadcast communications. This is not an Irish phenomenon. Across Europe and the western world, people will say that they must be cynical about presenting what the viewing or listening public will accept as the news of the day. This kind of artificial connection between what is moral and what is ethical is incredibly dangerous.

It is widening an excluded underclass in Ireland. It is creating people who will move quickly to conflict because there are no mediating institutions in Europe. In one country after another across Africa and Asia, as people overthrow dictatorships they place their trust first in representative institutions and then, if they are let down, they are into a straight conflict with what are regarded as the forces of law and order. The result is war and the waste of human and other resources in the terrible tasks of war.

I say this not to depress anybody but simply to state that since I was a child in County Clare I have had a belief in the power of education and in the power of ideas. However, I believe an enormously high price has been paid for a kind of anti-intellectualism and kind of authoritarianism in Irish culture. Therefore, I believe we need to draw one conclusion. We need not suggest that that which has failed us should or can be repaired. This is why the Labour Party is incredibly important in leading a government. We need to go back and recover the promise of a real republic that would be built on citizenship and that would reject as outrageous in a republic the kind of radical individualism epitomised in that ugly statement of Michael McDowell's that inequality is needed for the stability of society. It ranks with the mad Margaret Thatcher view that there is no such thing as society. It stands there as such a notion. People should have seen immediately how incongruous it was to speak like this with the language of radical individualism.

Instead of speaking about the republic that might be created people spoke about getting a bit of the action. Suddenly it was no longer important to have just one house for shelter or to have another for pension purposes, in case a family split up or somebody retired. One needed a string of houses and thus our property bubble was created within a bubble of speculative capitalism that had flowed from an attack on the Glass-Steagall Act in the United States which had introduced regulations following the great crash. President Clinton gave in after several years of lobbying by those who stated it was necessary to get rid of all of the regulations so that the instruments needed by the market could be pushed out to absorb what was regarded as an endless flow of credit. What was this? It was an irrational form of capitalism and thus one of the projects now is the idea of whether capitalism can save itself again.

I believe that as Ireland moves into a time when we can celebrate the founding of my party, the great lockout and 1916 we need to think about an entirely different kind of society. I am immensely practical about this. I can suggest, I have spoken and I have written elsewhere and will continue to do so that what one would do if one wanted to deliver what I am describing in terms of political participation, administrative fairness and the equality of the right to communicate would be to speak about a floor of citizenship below which people would not be allowed to fall. One would make secure children from the time of birth to very old people who wonder whether they will have to leave their homes to die, as they frequently do within 18 months of being sent to a nursing home. One would make it possible that children share the same class and for that period of their lives at least would be able to be equal with regard to education. In addition to this, people would have decent housing.

This was the agenda when Sean O'Casey wrote about disparity. James Connolly took the Irish Citizen Army with its egalitarian agenda and placed it side by side with nationalism. The lesson we learned from this was when the egalitarian socialist agenda was placed side by side with the nationalist agenda it would be the socialist agenda which would lose. This was in the dialogue immediately before the meeting of the first Dáil when Michael Collins told the IRB it need not bother with this because they were just going through with it.

Those of us in favour of a version of Ireland where no one will fall below the floor must say it not only to ourselves but also to Europe. In addition, a highly participative inclusive republic was the one in the vision of those who made the case for Irish independence at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. It was this which was stolen from the people after the foundation of the State when the conservatives marched into all the principal professorships including education and philosophy. UCD became a stable for conservatism and suddenly one had the continuation of an administrative nightmare and the robbing of the people of the delivery of the republic with regard to their ordinary lives.

Frequently, people such as Slavoj Žižek have said to me that if things are as I describe them then what is needed is a form of terror that would sweep everything away and to start all over again. A terrible price would be paid for this so therefore one must put one's faith in representative democracy and having done so one wants it to work. If one wants it to work one must be open to making the type of institutional changes that I mean. How could this be carried? There is need for a discourse in which we are able to speak about the vulnerabilities that matter and where there is not a huge gulf between what we say in here and what is happening on the street.

People wonder why poverty has to reproduce itself in the same family from one generation to another or from one area to another and wonder why there is a difference between the quality of schools in one place and the quality of those in another. God did not make it like that. Nature did not make it like that. The people in the so-called Irish republic made it like that and they maintained it like that. I remember in County Clare when one could point to the two or three people in the Labour Party because they lived in a galvanised house. People would explain that they were Labour in the same way as they would say they were on the margins of society, and they were. Therefore, with regard to thinking the Finance Bill is necessary for this that or the other, I hope the new Government realises that the model which is broken should not be repaired and that there is a discourse now which is wider and which is not only in Ireland but in Europe, where citizens are wondering what institutions might best express that which we wish to share with each other, where the concept of interdependency is accepted and where it would be regarded as obscene to state that radical individualism is what is important and what must drive us. All that radical individualism with its privileged view of professions and its side of the mouth politics with regard to benefit and privilege is what must be rejected.

This has a practical expression in Europe. If we create here a radical inclusive republic we will place it in a social Europe which accepts the interdependency of peoples rather than the aspirations of the elite property owning classes and individual countries. We would then be able to be a region in the global sense that offered guarantees about labour, security and peace. It would be a powerful moral voice in the world with regard to having alternatives to war and allowing people their own paths to development which would be very attractive.

With regard to the Bill the question the people ask, which the new government must address, is why. The new government must speak endlessly about jobs. This is the point for people who lose their jobs or are told they must be made unemployed. Everyone here is very reasonable and I ask people to be at least accurate about one thing I remember in this House, which is the night in September 2008 when Labour Party was left alone. The vote was 124 votes to 18 votes. We were the 18. We voted and sustained debate through two nights with regard to an unlimited guarantee that joined the debts of our speculative banks to the deficit issues of the economy. This is what we are facing tonight.

I am sorry that as young a Deputy as Deputy Doherty would take it upon himself to suggest that the Labour Party was participating in any cabal. After all it was he who said on 1 October 2008 in the Seanad:
This legislation is about more than the banks. It is about offering security to ordinary citizens and to investors in Irish businesses which in turn means jobs. As the media speculated, other states may well follow this move by our State... my party welcomes this decisive move... I support this Bill.

With respect, it was a disaster.

I also say this now looking forward: I hope the discourse we will have now will speak about inclusion. This Bill contains some good things, but there are ridiculous ones. I will give one example of what I meant by the phrases, political power, administrative power and whatever. In my long time in here people agitated, for example, for the equality legislation that was introduced by my colleague, Mervyn Taylor. People imagined that when we had got the equality legislation we had arrived at a particular point, but the political science would have indicated that that political power was useless without administrative power. It was only when the equality legislation was followed through with the Equality Authority and Combat Poverty Agency that it was possible to administer the benefit that had been won politically. That is the meaning of administrative power and is why we lost Combat Poverty Agency and the Equality Agency to the right and had all the cuts. That is what citizens in a republic want; they want more political power and want administrative power. They want to communicate their vulnerability and want to be able to respond to each other's independency. The very last thing they want is more of that terrible saying that has brought us to this point now. That is why I am proud to be president of the Labour Party. If we have failed from time to time, what was never in doubt is that we were speaking about a real republic that has yet to be built in this State.

ISAW

ArtSmart wrote: »

he he. that a dig at, er, someone?

Well many might think it a sloight at Bertie but it could just as easliy be one at Gilmore whose wife made over a half million on selling artifically inflated land while his party criticised the policy of inflating land prices. Gilmore was one of the old Marxists of Official Sinn Fein and many of the tamed old trots seemed to gravitate through Workers Party Democratic Left and New Agenda, to Labour.

or it could even be a go at Eoghan "communisty party /RTE stickie" Harris who seems to have been in every party but the Greens since the bolchies ran the NUJ and RTE.

InchicoreDude wrote: »

His exploits have been recorded in song - will forever be remembered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmi9L1s6wwI

Actually when first elected in Galway his supporters took him on his shoulders and sang "we'll keep the Red flag hanging high"

steelcityblues

I respect him for delivering a better prepared speech then what is usual in the Dail, but also lets not forget this:

If he was so passionate about this specialised left leaning vision for Ireland, why did the man stay idly by with the Labour Party for many decades - a party who have gone in time and time again with these reactionary conservative forces he mentioned and allowed themselves to be compromised far too often.

Also, I don't know why he found it fit to single out a relatively young and promising member of the Oireachtas in Doherty in the speech, when messrs Haughey, Bertie, Cowen, etc. have been amongst the biggest catalysts for the erosion of trust we have in elected representatives.

Michael D was not the worst of them, but his political legacy falls short of great IMO.

aidan24326

One of the very few good guys that we've had in Irish political life. Even if you didn't always agree with his policies and ideas, it would be hard not to respect his intelligence and passion, and his never being in any way associated with the Galway-tent style cronyist politics of so many other TDs that he shared the Dail chamber with.

Killer Pigeon

He's a dote :P

Lockstep

A true gentleman. I'll be sad to see him leave the Dáil.

invinciblePRSTV

Great speech by MDH. I can't imagine Norris, Kelly, Dana or Bertie ever being as eloquent. but i'll echo steelcityblues post, the lure of political office and the terrible compromises that have to be made with FG have fatally undermined the Labour Party election after election.

And it'll almost certainly be FG transfers that'll land MDH the Aras.

Zynks

I will miss him. He is a true gentleman and an admirable man.

No ifs and buts...

Judgement Day

Another time wasting poser who wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone who wasn't a constituent. Happiest knocking back wine and cheese with the cognoscenti at an opening of some modern artists latest daubs. Best moment for me was when that Iraqi guy (Late Late Show - I think) told him to write a poem about the invasion of Iraq and stop giving out about it. I wonder how many of you eulogising Michael D every had any dealings with him - and I don't mean quaffing champers with him at an art opening. :rolleyes:

invinciblePRSTV

Judgement Day wrote: »

Another time wasting poser who wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone who wasn't a constituent. Happiest knocking back wine and cheese with the cognoscenti at an opening of some modern artists latest daubs. Best moment for me was when that Iraqi guy (Late Late Show - I think) told him to write a poem about the invasion of Iraq and stop giving out about it. I wonder how many of you eulogising Michael D every had any dealings with him - and I don't mean quaffing champers with him at an art opening. :rolleyes:

Whats the matter JD, did MDH not give money to some obscure trainspotter/restoration groups request for financial assistance during his time as a Minister? Do tell.

Judgement Day

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Whats the matter JD, did MDH not give money to some obscure trainspotter/restoration groups request for financial assistance during his time as a Minister? Do tell.

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things. Perhaps if you had ever attempted to achieve anything in this god forsaken country you might have found this out for yourself. Still, little things amuse little minds so keep on sniping from the long grass.

The Volt

The Film Board and TG4 are vital and flourishing parts of the culture industry. What's your problem with them?

Judgement Day

Voltwad wrote: »

The Film Board and TG4 are vital and flourishing parts of the culture industry. What's your problem with them?

Did I say that I had a problem with them?

The Volt

Judgement Day wrote: »

Did I say that I had a problem with them?

You came across as bitter about the attention to detail he paid to the arts and culture industry.

sarkozy

Judgement Day wrote:

to the detriment of many other worthwhile things.

Precisely what other worthwhile things, in his Ministerial role, at the time he was Minister, did he ignore to the country's detriment?

In assessing the man's legacy, I guess it's fair to be specific.

invinciblePRSTV

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things. Perhaps if you had ever attempted to achieve anything in this god forsaken country you might have found this out for yourself. Still, little things amuse little minds so keep on sniping from the long grass.

It's a well established trend that the various Ministers in that brief tend to favour their own constituency, but do you have anything of any more substance to back up your original point? ie what did MDH do that merited such criticism from yourself?

And btw i've been part of a local project which has achieved considerable and ongoing success, we raised our own resources and didn't have to rely on state organs for funding and we got there eventually, gawd knows we'd still be in the planning stage if we were waiting on the nanny state to help us out.

Try our approach some time instead of moaning on the internet about the awful politicians who won't give you free money:).

Coillte_Bhoy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Another time wasting poser who wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone who wasn't a constituent. Happiest knocking back wine and cheese with the cognoscenti at an opening of some modern artists latest daubs. Best moment for me was when that Iraqi guy (Late Late Show - I think) told him to write a poem about the invasion of Iraq and stop giving out about it. I wonder how many of you eulogising Michael D every had any dealings with him - and I don't mean quaffing champers with him at an art opening. :rolleyes:

I had some dealings with him when i was a student of his in UCG and cannot speask highly enough of him. I also lived near him for a time during that period and am aware of a couple of very kind and generous acts of a personal nature that he performd for neighbours. He was not a TD at the time and these acts could in no way be construed as cute electionerring etc

Coillte_Bhoy

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things. Perhaps if you had ever attempted to achieve anything in this god forsaken country you might have found this out for yourself. Still, little things amuse little minds so keep on sniping from the long grass.

Well known eh?? Go on then, enlighten us. What worthwhile things were ignored?? Worthwhile in your opinion maybe.

Coillte_Bhoy

steelcityblues wrote: »

I respect him for delivering a better prepared speech then what is usual in the Dail, but also lets not forget this:

If he was so passionate about this specialised left leaning vision for Ireland, why did the man stay idly by with the Labour Party for many decades - a party who have gone in time and time again with these reactionary conservative forces he mentioned and allowed themselves to be compromised far too often.

Michael D was not the worst of them, but his political legacy falls short of great IMO.

For most of his career he was on the left of the party and was pasionately anti coallition throughout the 80's and early 90's.

Judgement Day

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

It's a well established trend that the various Ministers in that brief tend to favour their own constituency, but do you have anything of any more substance to back up your original point? ie what did MDH do that merited such criticism from yourself?

And btw i've been part of a local project which has achieved considerable and ongoing success, we raised our own resources and didn't have to rely on state organs for funding and we got there eventually, gawd knows we'd still be in the planning stage if we were waiting on the nanny state to help us out.

Try our approach some time instead of moaning on the internet about the awful politicians who won't give you free money:).

To quote you - 'Do tell' - I would love to know about your group - you must be one of the few in the country that hasn't tried to avail of any funding available. If I had waited as you say for the 'nanny state' to help, even less of our railway heritage would have survived than has so don't come out with that ****e please. If you knew anything about me which your initial snide comment implies you would know that this was the case. Probably got your information in the back of a taxi like another stalker here. :rolleyes: There no such thing as 'free money' - there are funds available from the National Lottery, EU, Ireland Fund etc. and an even playing field is all that is required. It should not left to individual ministers to dole these out to gain kudos with their electorate and those with whom they wish to ingratiate themselves.

steelcityblues

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

For most of his career he was on the left of the party and was pasionately anti coallition throughout the 80's and early 90's.

Anti coalition, yet he served as a Minister in those coalitions?

If he was on the left of the party, why didn't he do what Joe Higgins and some others did and went somewhere else. Maybe electoral preservation overrided those concerns.

Quoting Connolly and Larkin could be seen as stretching it, as those men would arguably be closer to today's Socialist Party model than Labour's.

If it comes down to Michael D vs Norris for the Park, I will go for Norris as he had enough sense to stay distant from party politics for several decades, and took a bigger risk alone in his political life by pursuing decriminalisation of homosexuality than Michael D did.

EJLL

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things.

Your perception of the Arts & Culture sounds like one of distain. I think Michael D was passionate about the subject and may have been a culprit of using his position to largely focus funds on the development of the Arts in the West of Ireland (I think there was some criticisim at the time for his leanings towards the West).

But each time I go home to Ireland I continued to see the rise of a corprate sterile environment and a distinct decrease in the culture that made the country so appealing before the boom (at a time when Michael D was minister).

Michael D always got my vote as I truly felt he was less inclined to be swayed by greed and influenced by gombeenism.

Coillte_Bhoy

steelcityblues wrote: »

Anti coalition, yet he served as a Minister in those coalitions?9

I said in thew 80's and early 90's.

steelcityblues wrote: »

If he was on the left of the party, why didn't he do what Joe Higgins and some others did and went somewhere else. Maybe electoral preservation overrided those concerns.

Quoting Connolly and Larkin could be seen as stretching it, as those men would arguably be closer to today's Socialist Party model than Labour's.

Are you denying he was on the left of the party? His viewpoint has always been in the minority in the Labour party but that hasnt stopped him passionately fighting his corner in that party. I dont know why he didnt leave, maybe he thought he could affect change from within and anyway i dont think he would be as hardline left as Joe.

steelcityblues wrote: »

If it comes down to Michael D vs Norris for the Park, I will go for Norris as he had enough sense to stay distant from party politics for several decades, and took a bigger risk alone in his political life by pursuing decriminalisation of homosexuality than Michael D did.

Took political risk?? Did he ever put thimself before the electorate?? Personally i hope Micahel D makes the park but if not i'd go for Norris too.

Lockstep

Judgement Day wrote: »

I wonder how many of you eulogising Michael D every had any dealings with him - and I don't mean quaffing champers with him at an art opening. :rolleyes:

He's my local TD and I've always found him to gentleman with time to help people out. Havn't a bad word to say about him (plus I live in an area where he doesn't get many votes so I respect his dealings with me even more)

However, I've zero interest in Art/Culture so can't say I've any experience with him in that capacity. Personally, I don't consider them very important so not that bothered really.

What are your dealings with him?

Lockstep

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things. Perhaps if you had ever attempted to achieve anything in this god forsaken country you might have found this out for yourself. Still, little things amuse little minds so keep on sniping from the long grass.

If you're going to make accusations about a politician, you'd need to provide the evidence, backing up your claims. Using weasel words isn't sufficient

Judgement Day

Lockstep wrote: »

He's my local TD and I've always found him to gentleman with time to help his constituents out. Havn't a bad word to say about him (plus I live in an area where he doesn't get many votes)
I've zero interest in Art/Culture so can't say I've any experience with him in that capacity.

What are your dealings with him?

I've no doubt that he is a 'gentleman' but I have found him wanting in my dealings with him. The reason I have not gone into specifics on this thread is that I like to quote accurate info - I have a file on Michael D but can I put my hand on it! My last personal, face to face dealings with him would have been 1996/97'ish - from memory. I spent two hours travelling to his clinic, and hour waiting and less than two minutes talking to him - once he heard where we had travelled from the shutters just came down! The only reason that I launched into this thread was that it's like a red rag to a bull seeing somebody like Michael D being canonized. I would prefer to see Bertie in the Park, and I hate him with a vengeance but have never had any personal dealings with him. I promise to post more MD info if/when I locate the file. I seem to remember that the Phoenix had an extensive piece on the hugely disproportionate number of Lottery grants awarded to projects in his constituency. More later I hope.

Lockstep

Judgement Day wrote: »

I've no doubt that he is a 'gentleman' but I have found him wanting in my dealings with him. The reason I have not gone into specifics on this thread is that I like to quote accurate info - I have a file on Michael D but can I put my hand on it! My last personal, face to face dealings with him would have been 1996/97'ish - from memory. I spent two hours travelling to his clinic, and hour waiting and less than two minutes talking to him - once he heard where we had travelled from the shutters just came down! The only reason that I launched into this thread was that it's like a red rag to a bull seeing somebody like Michael D being canonized. I would prefer to see Bertie in the Park, and I hate him with a vengeance but have never had any personal dealings with him. I promise to post more MD info if/when I locate the file. I seem to remember that the Phoenix had an extensive piece on the hugely disproportionate number of Lottery grants awarded to projects in his constituency. More later I hope.

Grand. If you have anecdotal evidence as your reasoning for disliking him, that's sound. Just keep in mind that your own evidence is unlikely to change others' opinions of him (any more than my own anecdotal evidence will)


However

The reason I have not gone into specifics on this thread is that I like to quote accurate info

I fully agree which is why I'm really dubious about posts like the following:

It's a well known fact that Michael D Higgins looked after his own pet projects while Minister for Arts & Culture - to the detriment of many other worthwhile things. Perhaps if you had ever attempted to achieve anything in this god forsaken country you might have found this out for yourself. Still, little things amuse little minds so keep on sniping from the long grass.

If you're going to damn politicians and portray it as a 'well known fact' you need to source your posts. Insinuations like the above isn't sufficient for the politics forum.

invinciblePRSTV

Judgement Day wrote: »

To quote you - 'Do tell' - I would love to know about your group - you must be one of the few in the country that hasn't tried to avail of any funding available. If I had waited as you say for the 'nanny state' to help, even less of our railway heritage would have survived than has so don't come out with that ****e please. If you knew anything about me which your initial snide comment implies you would know that this was the case. Probably got your information in the back of a taxi like another stalker here. :rolleyes: There no such thing as 'free money' - there are funds available from the National Lottery, EU, Ireland Fund etc. and an even playing field is all that is required. It should not left to individual ministers to dole these out to gain kudos with their electorate and those with whom they wish to ingratiate themselves.

You need to take a few swigs of the good stuff and relax your ass old timer. I asked with good and honest intentions as to what your experience was with MDH as i wanted to know what provoked such an emotional reaction from your original OP on this thread, there was nothing snide about it, indeed it was yourself who lowered the tone with accusations at myself that i've never done anything.

As for my experience, yes my group have applied for and eventually received funding from the organs of state in the shape of LEADER, the Co.Co & the Dep. of Env, but that was after we fundraised (for 5 years) and secured philanthrophic donations which allowed for us to break ground on phase 1. Waiting solely on state funding to develop an idea is a mugs game tbh.

Whilst i agree with the point you raised about a level playing field, i somehow can't help but sympathise with MDH and his reaction to you at your meeting if the kind of condescending attitude you've demonstrated on this thread is translated IRL.

Judgement Day

invinciblePRSTV - I'm quite relaxed as it happens because I have had the fight beaten out of me and now the only preservation that concerns me is self-preservation . My 'attitude' has developed by more than twenty years of dealing with the likes of Michael D, John Gormley, National Heritage Council, Tipperary Enterprise, Bord Failte, CIE etc.etc.......You may rest assured that I always bit my tongue - some times in instances of the most severe financial pressure and provocation - and was always diplomatic in my dealings with the said individuals. I might add that it was not done out any feelings of respect for them but in the hope that some crumbs might fall from their table. I have to say that Michael D got off lightly compared to John Gormley who has had an earful from me and there's more coming his way.